We are a different club than those who have eclipsed us to the title since our last win in 2003-2004. Man Utd, Chelsea and Man City have a different philosophy on achieving success, there's is a more immediate criteria and there aren't many things that will get in that way. Both have spent more than they've recouped in the transfer market (despite United luckily getting an exaggerated windfall for Ronaldo) Wages are of no concern to them and in the case of Chelsea there is a revolving door for Managers We chose to balance the books, have a wage structure and keep faith in the manager and players. We're frustrated at the lack of success but understand we're using a different method, a more cautious long term approach, possibly with the impact of the financial fair players rules a safer choice that might (if it ever is implemented) flip the tables in our favour. I think the frustration has been that despite the gulf in spending we've sometimes come close to challenging these clubs but always seem to fall just short. Faith in some players has been unwarranted and cost us dearly....players have saved their best performances until a contract expiration is looming which has wasted years of development and another step back (i.e. look at how many years it took for Song and RVP to be considered quality/injury free and there gone so we have to start all over again) One of our greatest signings was Sol Campbell on a free, we took our main rivals captain for no transfer fee but part of that was because we were paying him $100k per 11 years ago! We have weak quad members now making $50k per week, the distribution of wages is completely off and that's why we can't off load the deadwood Leeds was a warning sign that you can't buy success for the long term and maybe one day Man City and Chelsea will get caught in the same trap This summer did show some signs of things changing with 3 (seemingly) quality proven players signed, there won't be the same mark up as with a Song, RVP type sale but on the flip side they're closer to being ready to perform for the 1st team. If we remained with our values but released the shackles ever so slightly we might just have enough to have success which would be an amazing achievement. 1. Top players need to be offered higher wages and locked down to deals much sooner 2. We need to add more depth to the squad...it wont cost us that much for a stronger No.2 GK, and decent back up forward and a Defensive Midfielders 3. Need to be more ruthless with under performing players...Diaby, Ramsey, Gervinhio, Djourou all aren't good enough to help us move forward...we have the weakest back up keepers in the league and also the smallest strike force...even Everton have more depth upfront than us
It does not always work tho, if say. 2 years ago the club had gone out and given RVP a new contract on huge wages, you would have put him in the same bracket as number 3 on your list, underperforming and injury prone, and just taking up valuable space on the wage bill without really contributing his worth.
The comparison doesn't work I'm afraid. We're dealing with something completely unseen in sports...a near limitless pot of money from BILLIONAIRES. Unless there's a risk of them running out of money they can continue this nonsense for decades.
Heres hoping someone comes up with an alternative power source to oil, then the middle east and Russia will go bust.
Agree with Shawn Utd do not belong in that group. To be fair the unstable financial models are - Man City, PSG, Chelsea, Malaga (prob not for much longer), Real Madrid, Barcelona, that russian club and a few chinese clubs (where drogba went) and the clubs in the middle east no one has heard of. Other clubs with financial issues are more on the over leveraging/costs vs income ala everton, vaencia. We are a very well run football club in terms of finances less so in sporting success others like us in the financial model are Tottenham, Man Utd etc.
Fussion anyone? Oh and OP i was finding your article interesting until you stated that Diaby wasn't good enough for us. Seriously everyone needs to stop with the rubbish about Diaby not being good enough. He is a quality player, he has struggled with injury just with RVP, but he is good enough for us no doubt. I'm very glad to have him in the squad and i'm pleased he is managing to stay injury free. I think some people have forgotten how good he was in his last proper season with us. Keep the faith - i bet you were calling for RVP to be sold because of his injuries prior to last season as well? And saying Rosicky was past it?
Why is it when any fan decides to get on their high horse about finance (and this is with all clubs) they use leeds & pompey as an example of what can go wrong?. Virtually all top clubs in world football have debt, and all clubs which win the major trophies are in debt, its how that debt is managed which is key and clubs such as Chelsea, Man City, Barca, Madrid manage their debt in a way that it will never and I mean NEVER cause them to do a leeds, its just won't happen. IMO The reason Leeds went how they did, was because they spent money they didn't have and relied on continued success at a certain level and income to help them manage their debt, that was suicide! its no wonder they went bust! They would have had to get to the champions league semi final each year just to survive at the rate they was spending.
It is because as fans the reality of our club is the one we most adhere to in the large majority. There isn't a Chelsea fan who wouldn't be bitching about City buying the league if they didn't have Abramovich. Whatever your reality is you eschew it for others in most cases. Pompey and leeds are examples of clubs who over leverage but don't have rich benefactors and it catches up to them unless they meet a high level of success. But clubs like Real just continually have there debt wiped out by the king of spain so are never an ideal way to run a club (there debts on many occasions are not managable). Barcelona are run terribly inefficiently they took a 125mn euro loan a few seasons ago just to ensure wags would be paid that season. The whole point is City, Chelsea, Real, Barca don't manage their debts they just have money or outside help to cope with them it is effectively the same as the government bail outs. And as we have seen with Malaga if the owners stop helping all hell breaks loose - that is what we mean by manageable. They are certainly not using their income to cope with their debt. In my opinion the perfect examples of Buissness and Football success is Man Utd and Bayern teams like Us and tottenham have got the business side down to a T but we are not replicating the pitch success to go with it. Admittedly made harder by the artificial inflation due to the above mentioned clubs.
How many other clubs in Spain would be allowed to carry the debt that Madrid & Barca do ? Chelsea & Citeh do not manage their debt as they are bank-rolled by wealthy individuals.If owner of either club pulled out both clubs would be up **** creek without a paddle
velachiperoo, i guess it comes down to how you view the debts as manageable, as if there is always a source of fund to manage that debt, that that's manageable. If of course one of these rich owners decided one day to sell the club, then there is a slim chance the crap could hit the fan BUT another rich owner will come along and take control. Yes its great that my club (tottenham) are run with a sensible approach but there are limitations as it means we can't compete, much like Arsenal seem to be prudent with cash and rely on Wengers talent to keep you at the top BUT even after all his previous success, you have gone nearly 8 years without winning a trophy. Therefore, there are limitations to what can be achieved by a prudent/sensible approach and the balance between sensible and financial risk isn't correct, in terms of football success.
Yes I understand that BUT they are allowed, when will that ever change? look at the income Barca & Madrid both bring in as a club, and there is Man Utd, they are said to be debt BUT they can go out and sign RVP and give him a huge contract. Their owners aren't concerned about the debt as they know they can manage it and if they sell the club, they will make a profit.
It may be what fans want, but it won't happen. City, Chelsea are going to be around for a long long time, their owners won't walk away or allow the club to go into financial meltdown.
Fair play to Man Utd they are like us.They may be in debt but like us they make a profit.If the Sheiks were to sell Citeh how many buyers do you think they'd find for a football club that loses close on £200 million a year ?
Ok, but why would they sell the club? Fans have been hoping Roman would have deserted chelsea or sold them because he became bored. He looks as interested now, as he ever was. For whatever reason, there are certain people in the world with obscene amount of money that are happy to throw it away to keep clubs at the top. The only case I can think of, in which a rich owner leaving a club has left that club in dire straits is malaga, but from what I gather, they were forced out and it was made impossible for them to run and finance the club.
That's what FFP was created for. It remains to be seen whether it will have any teeth. If the Etihad stadium naming rights deal was anything to go by, then it doesn't look like it's going to be very effective as they did sweet FA about that.
