Are Chelsea and City onfield success just side effects of a false economy?

No reason why, just that I liked it. The money the fans brought in was not disproportionately more for the well supported teams, but you had fan loyalty. I'm not claiming any moral high ground, I just thought the system worked well and rewarded the highest number of fans.

 

That's fair enough. But then if we take you're point to its logical conclusion, United would win every domestic trophy, every year. And the logical extension of that would be - more glory-hunter type fans from across the globe supporting United.

Just to ask though - you say the system worked well (indicating that that was the case in years gone by). I have to ask, when was it ever the case that the successful teams won only because they had more fans than their competitors?

 

And this league - would it or would it not include Arsenal, considering that the major shareholders of Arsenal (Kroenke and Usmanov (who have a collective 95% stake in the club) are Billionaires?

 

I'm talking about Billionaire owners that actually spend money, so that would exclude Arsenal

 

Well I think that the key point was that having more fans helped, but not to such an extent that it totally unbalanced the league. There was still an upper limit on what could be spent and although it helped, it didn't help so much that no one else had a chance.

What you have now with the billionaires is a situation where there is no limit on what can be spent at all. The only limiting factor is the incompetence of the manager.

 

Fair dos!

 

The advent of FFP should put paid to that. Although I'm not entirely convinced that FFP will work (the many loopholes etc etc etc).

To be honest, I think FFP should have been brought in many many years ago. Not today, when the disparity in wealth has already been established, as it will only mean a closed shop from now on. I guess City are fortunate in one sense, as the owners came in before the announcement of FFP (and a few years before it was to be implemented), but I just fail to see how it will help any ambitious club (with an owner who can put his money where his mouth is in the hope of elevating his club up the footballilng pyramid) in the future. It will merely safeguard the established clubs as they stand today. And if football stagnates (that is, no new challenges, no teams rising up from lower positions, and the top clubs having their elite status cemented), then it will only ever result in interest (competition) in the game falling.

FFP is good with its intent (that intent being to safeguard the financial future of all clubs), but in practice (whereby it will only see the current top clubs stay there), it will never be good for the game.

 

All FFP will achieve,it administered as Platini wants,is that clubs like wolves,Leeds,Coventry etc have no chance of ever being competitive in the top division ever again

 

Absolutely,

The only thing stopping those clubs from being competitive - time - had FFP happened 20 years ago, the clubs you mention might have stood a chance.


Ergo - it's arbitrary.

 

Agreed. It will merely protect city and chelsea from new challengers... If it works

 

Which makes it even stranger for me why so many club voted it in

 

It's the result of the amount of investment which is the salient point though.
It has certainly artificially propelled those clubs to the summit.

 

Actually you couldn't be further from the truth.

There is nothing artiifical about it. It is simply basic economics.

You just have a problem with it because it has the potential to be detrimental to your own club

 

I don't think you're understanding my point.

It is an irrefutable fact that as a direct result of the amount of cash invested, it artificially propelled City and Chelsea to the summit.

We're not talking about 'basic economics' here, we're talking about a game changing amount of money that completely transformed those clubs, the transfer market, the wage structures and the whole financial landscape of football.

 

If it wasn't the money, then tell me what transformed City from a mid table club to Premier league champions ?

 

No, what is an irrefutable fact is that is that the money invested into City and Chelsea ACTUALLY, not artificially, propelled City and Chelsea to the top.

Just as it ACTUALLY, and not artificially, propelled Arsenal to the top in the 1910s/1920s.

There is nothing artificial about it. And that is a point that you will either neither understand, or accept.

The game changing amount of money that you think has been caused as a result is nothing but your own skewed opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less. You need to step back and realise that.

And facts, historical facts that is, back up my reason for contesting your point. And those very same facts serve to undermine any point you are attempting to make.

You deal with that.

 

The money did. I never said it didn't. My point is simply that that money isn't artificial. It's real. It happened. It's just as real as any other money invested into the game.

You are the one who is clearly missing the point.

 

It actually propelled them to the summit in a very artificial way.

Unless you think that they got their on their own merit and the money had no effect ?

I'm beginning to see who has the skewed opinion here

 

Don't be so dense. Of course I'm not saying the money is artificial itself. I'm saying that the result of it was that it artificially propelled City and Chelsea to the summit.

You've already just admitted that they got there as a result of the money. You seem to be tying yourself up in knots with this concept.

 

Ok, so now we've established that you don't think the money was artificial. Slowly but surely we're beginning to get there. Your argument changing as the debate progresses. It's all just so telling...

I'm not tying myself up in knots. I'd said throughout that the money has enabled City and Chelsea to compete. Just as it has any other club throughout the history of the game. That's my very point.

So Investment happens, has happened, and has enabled clubs to reach the summit of football. Again my very point.

You're struggling with this aren't you? You have a problem with clubs who have owners who invest. Well look no further than Arsenal. For they have benefited from the very same thing. Ergo, belittle Arsenal's previous successes just as much as you are belittling City and Chelsea's current successes.

There is simply no difference. A fact that you are simply unable to comprehend.