I feel sorry for Man City supporters that their club are seen as the vile standard bearers of nihilo-consumerism in football - and the growing disgust form it's opponents. Still there's an academy on the way, but will anybody be interested football by that point?
I don't see what the fuss is about. Man City need to buy their way into the elite and that is what we are doing. The UEFA fair play rules crack me up. Surely by denying growing clubs the ability to invest and spend, they are maintaining the status quo. protecting the existing elite and stifling competition which is exactly what these rules are supposed to stop. UEFA are idiots.
Spurs invested and bought well and improved dramatically, after getting into Europe they had a far better chance to compete. ...well they would have if a certain oil backed company hadn't bought their way into the CL ousting spurs in the process. Astounds me that you can have the bare faced cheek to claim the PL is stagnant and that city and chelsea add to the competition when theres nothing that kills off the "competition" more than you two.
Maybe UEFA dont want the likes of the "small clubs" like City to be in the competition, as they bring very little to the table (fan based wise), so invent FFA to stop small clubs from getting into the competition, via a sugar daddy, so therefor protect the big boys income stream, and stopping them from creating there own "Euro league" without the input of UEFA.
Would Man Utd be where they are now if the club had not be floated on the Stock Exchange all those yrs ago I very much doubt it. That's where Utd got there mony in the 1st place, & not from playing in Europe, or winning titles. Without that original floation Utd would have being going bankrupt due to wages and other expenses being bigger then what the club was bring in through the turnstiles, etc.
Bottom line is if there's anything dodgy he can bet UEFA and FIFA are at the bottom of it. I just really don't get these so-called fair play rules. Basically it means that the status quo is forever maintained which is effectively protectionism.
Yeah lots of other clubs tried it too ...didn't do them much good. It was the ability to invest in a winning team, which happened to popular and making money in various areas
UEFA want things to stay as they are, to keep the top clubs at the top, nothing to do about fairness it is to maintain the status quo and not have uncouth foreigners buying their way into the Euro elite, who basically are pretty much the people who decide the direction of european football, that would actually circumvent UEFA control to possibly united group of foreign owners of the top clubs in europe. It is a politically based move to retain UEFA and current elite control of european club football.
No disrespect, but what Spurs have achieved is fk all. It's a shame that we all now regard finishing top four as an achievement. In fact, that actually speaks volumes for the game without us even realising it. Go back 20 years and 4th place meant nothing. So why does it now? Answer that question, and you have your answer as to why City have had to spend the money that they have. And the irony being? Well, work that one out for yourselves. And you will, if you've anything about you...
I'm not sure why you "need" to buy your way into the elite. Need implies that you think your club is somehow lacking without being part of the elite, which sounds a bit insecure given that 90% of football clubs in Europe will never get near the elite. I agree - that's the big reason I'm not entirely ecstatic about the FFP. But then I wouldn't mind City spending if it were all about shaking up the elite. The problem, imo, is that City have now spent more on transfers in the last three and a bit years than Utd did in the previous twenty, just like Chelsea did from 2003 to 2006, and four of the top five earners in the PL are now at one club (Tevez, Toure, Silva and Aguero, with Rooney the fifth), which has to the best of my knowledge never happened before. That amount of money coming into the game is only going to damage the smaller clubs who can't keep up with the inflation, and so all that will happen is that we get a new elite, probably Utd, City, Chelsea and Arsenal / Liverpool, who are that little bit further above the rest than the old elite were. Like I said before, I'd rather FFP be structured better, so that external investors can bring clubs up to the level of the current biggest spenders as long as they also give money to the smaller clubs. I think that would be a better solution to make the whole league more competitive and also make it truly competitive at the top. The main beneficiary from the stock market floatation was Martin Edwards - the club didn't get much of the £18 million raised. Tho' we did get some cash to expand the stadium, and you are right that without the floatation we wouldn't be as strong as we are now, tho' being a plc did start to hinder us in our final few years like it has recently been hindering Arsenal. But then I think everyone would applaud if Mansour was using his money just to expand the stadium, the commercial side and the training facilities. It's the short term dumping money into the transfer and wage markets that has me worried about the future. You've probably hit the nail on the head with that one. UEFA likes having a small group of elite clubs cos they know those clubs will still earn more from the CL than from a breakaway league. I wonder - they did **** all when Chelsea were throwing cash around and didn't seem to care about Real's government subsidised splurges on all and sundry. Maybe they're figuring that when the dust in England settles, and only four out of Utd, Chelsea, City, Arsenal and Liverpool find themselves able to get on the CL gravy train, that might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back and causes the former G14 clubs to go for the money themselves?
And you do realise that the end goal is exactly the same? Please say you do. What gets me is that fans love the fact that their club makes loads of money, and they use it as a sign of one-upmanship over fans of clubs who make less money than their club does. Well is it any wonder then that the game attracts such wealthy people who want a piece of it? And yet when they do, fans are up in arms about it. Try working that one out.
Of course I do but floating on the stock exchange, which incidently every single club has the option of doing, is not the same as having billions of pounds thrown at you. However you might like to pretend otherwise. *I am not and have never been up in arms, I'm just pointing out a simple fact*
I'm not pretending otherwise. Not sure what gave you that idea. But where has this idea come from that states one approach is better than the other, especially when either approach shares the same end goal? What, did you make it up - that a club floating on the stock exchange is more admirable and acceptable than an owner who puts his money where his mouth is?
Liverpool FC under David Moores(pre flotation)bought players,paid top wages,won trophies,got a share of tv rights money,made good gate money,sold merchandise globally as well as locally etc. United pre-flotation had a similar story.
Firstly, good luck to City. I'm actually enjoying a genuine rivalry with the other club in my home town, about time. Every single club had the opportunity to float on the stock exchange and become a plc. No one is prevented from doing so, including Liverpool, City, Arsenal or whoever else. What happened with United is that they exploted a niche and got very, very lucky with the onset of the premier league and sky sports coming hot on its heels. United needed a way of making money and they did that in perfectly legitimate way, the rest followed and fell into place nicely and with success came more money and more success. You must see though that this not even remotely the same as having somone coming in and going 'hip dip dip' and choosing one lucky, random, club onto which he can throw literally unlimited billions of quid. It's not the same, nothing is the same as that. United became a business then self made their money. That's all. Following on from the opening line, I genuinely don't care a **** what City do but it's a whole lot better when its supporters aren't trying to make up comparisons justifying its wealth. Just enjoy it, you're not fooling a single person on the other front.
Is that what you really think happened? I mean, really? No better or worse than opposition fans who are making conclusions in regards to City when the club itself is not even 1/3 into the way of its original 10 year plan. Come back in 2018. Let's discuss it all then.
