A drop in the ocean compared to the owners wealth. But its no good for the overall good of the game,, imo.
I think its a mark of where they have come from to where they are now. It is an obscene amount of money but it has brought success and as someone marrying into a family of Manchester City supporters I could not be happier for them. Having been to a few games, including the derby the other week the owners are still listening to the fans and putting the supporters first. I am pleased for them but when you look at where Swansea and Norwich finished amongst all the spending in the Premier League then they are real winners on points per £ spent. Hopefully the spending rules by FIFA and UEFA will curb the spending but I have a feeling that the powers that be at Manchester City will find some way around this or at the very least dress up the accounting to make it look like they have. You have to look at the money Real Madrid and Barcelona are bank rolled with and I'm sure they are not too far behind the likes of Man City and Chelsea.
Man Utd spent just short of £170 million between seasons 01/02 and 04/05, so not too far off the £200 million Man City have reportedly spent in last 4 years.
yeh but the difference is man u's spending during those years didn't come from an undeserved source... They were champions between 2000-2003 and Fa cup winners in 2004, it makes sense to spend money when you are successful. It had been earned. Man city's owner has given £500million of his own money, so "unearned money". There's no "building" element to it, it came over night pretty much... I really don't get why people are so happy with city winning, they may see it as a "change" for once but it isn't, city will just replace man u and win every year now. Then what?
I'm not sure I follow the point you're making. Are you suggesting that Man U received £170m for winning the league and FA Cup? I'm not sure about the reference to "earned money". You say that it makes sense to spend money when you are successful, but surely it also makes sense to spend if you are unsuccessful in order to improve. If the stats quoted by tigerscar are correct then Man City spent a comparable amount over 4 years, not overnight.
If you read the article on the link, it shows that Man City spent a total of £930.4m in three years, no other club comes anywhere near that amount.
The £930m wasn't just on player purchases though looking at the article. Towards the bottom it says that in the first 3 years under Mansour they paid £266m cash on players after sales
Indeed, I was just pointing out that overall their spending far exceeds that of any other club, when you've got players earning upwards of £10m a year in wages, then you're going to burn money. Half their squad are on at least double what they're worth, I know the bloke can afford it, but it's a ridiculous situation really.
From 1988-91, Man Utd spent £15.2m which was 1.62x their 1989 revenue of £9.4m. You can look back, 20 years later, and say that they 'earned' the ability to spend money - but they didn't. They spent big, and then reaped the rewards by winning things. Why can't Man City do the same thing now? Spend more than their revenue in the short term, and then reap the rewards over the next decade by winning things? I imagine for most on this forum, as roughly neutral watchers of the Premier League - it is much more entertaining to watch the types of events that occurred yesterday, and over the course of a great season, rather than watching Man Utd stroll towards another victory. Obviously it isn't so great for the part-Hull City, part-Man Utd fans, but...
That's peanuts when you consider that Man City have spent £930m and their total revenue is just £120m a year.
I agree that it is a ridiculous situation. Their wage bill alone appears to exceed their income so it cannot continue like that surely, particularly with the FFP rules?
Well, it's the equivalent of £533m today, and i'm not sure that the £15.2m figure has the same scope of that £930m figure. Either way, they both spent much more than they earned. Man Utd reaped the rewards from that spending at a particularly profitable time, when football was spreading across the globe. Man City may go on to reap the rewards.
But every team pretty much spends more than they earn... even portsmouth! Like it was said above, it makes sense for teams that aren't winning to want to improve and therefore spend more than they should... but that's not my beef against man city, the problem is that the way they spend money equates to literally b uying the title. Even I could have won the PL with that kind of money if I can just go and pick whoever I want to buy, whenever and entice them with the highest wages possible. If you think man u's success over the last 20 years is solely down to money then you know nothing about football. And if you think that they won the treble because 10 years earlier they spent x1.62 more than their revenue you also know nothing about football. Actually most of Man u's big money purchases have been ****e and far from fruitful like Veron. They've been successful because of the likes of their youth system, astute purchases, where they returned massive profit like ronaldo's (when has man city ever made much profit on the sale of their players, they're buying players at full price and paying them full wages) Here are some better figures: they've spent £480 million pounds on transfer fees in 4 seasons! and sold only £100 million during the same period, so they've actually spent roughly £380 million pounds in 4 years. They've made losses on many players: £10 million on robinho, £14 million on craig bellamy, £15 million on Jo etc... only made profit on these: Boateng £4million In the last 4 years Man utd have spent £145 million pounds and sold £115million so spent a total of £30 million pounds... (should I carry on?) They've made losses on: £9million on Tevez, (Owen Hargreaves £17 million, although I wouldn't include him as this was down to injuries) made profit on these: Ronaldo £68 million, Rossi £6.5 million, Foster £5million, Campbell £3.5 million, Piqué £6 million, Tosic £2 million, Oshea £4.5 million, Wes Brown £1.5 million Man u have bought 17 players in 4 years, man city almost twice as many with 31. http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/manchester-city-transfers.html Man u have clearly spent less and sold more... they've bought for cheap and turned a profit or increased the value by a lot (evra cost £5.5 million and vidic £7million as an example) , they've made massive profits on players that came through their academy. They are running a solid football club, yes they spend a lot but they can afford to because they've been successful and have done a lot of things right. Man city aren't doing any of those thing they have just spent. that is why I would disagree with the overall comments that Man u once did exactly what city are doing now. man city players that came from the academy: micah richards is the only one left really, sturridge and wright phillips are another couple big names but that's it... oh and they produced the likes of barton and ched evans Nothing compared to the likes of Welbeck, Evans, hughes, Piqué, Rossi, beckham, Fletcher, giggs, scholes, nevilles, campbell, o'shea, Charlton, Platt, Edwards and the legendary Paul mcshane. (mind you, they did produce Robbie savage) The reason why I wanted Man u to win title this year is because I didn't want Man city to win it, football was already on a crazy spiral of spending money... man city have just justified why we should keep doing, and they have accelerated it ten fold.
