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

Oh... my... gawd... is this thread still running? Just read through page 10 and it's the same old messages from the same posters from when I read it about a week ago on page 1.

PISKIE, you're a mod... surely you can see this has been going nowhere since about page 2. Close it.

 

I tend to agree.

Any objections ? If not I'll close it

 

Before you close the thread, I have to say, Man City's men might spend thrifty and do not exist in the real world, financially speaking (similarly with Chelsea), but their women's team are a complete disgrace. At least Man City's men's team didn't buy their way into the top division, being instantly promoted twice after finishing mid-table and forcing another team to be relegated for the very first time in their history, being relegated off the pitch rather than on it. Wonder if they feel any sense of remorse or shame. Doubt it.

 

Bergkamp was a superstar when you signed him: he's had a superb Euro 92 and USA 94, and then two disappointing years at Inter when you signed him at his peak, 25.

You hardly plucked him from Ajax under15s.

Henry became a megastar at Arsenal but cost £11m from Juve in 1999, not some French ligue 2 side.

He was the winners' top scorer in the 98 world cup

 

The point being that those figures are peanuts compared to the amounts that Chelsea and City spent to engineer their artificial rise to the top. Even then you managed to waste 30m and 50m on players like Shevchenko and Torres, which puts the 11m spent on Henry firmly into perspective.

 

I'm simply putting the spending from different periods into their proper context in regards to the period such spending/investments were made. Hence why I used Blackburn as an example - £50m enabled them to go from a 2nd tier club to winning the title. As well as rebuilding their ground. £50m wouldn't achieve anywhere near as much today. It wouldn't have achieved anywhere near as much in the early 2000s either (before Mansour and Abramovich came along), when we consider that at that time clubs were spending £20m - £30m on a single player (compared to Blackburn, less than ten years previously, building a squad not only capable of achieving promotion, but also winning the title, for a cost of £25m.)

Its why I also used the example of the cost of building Highbury in 1913 (£125k), to the cost of building The Emirates in 2006 (£390m). To put those figures into some kind of context. It's clear that using the base rate of inflation simply doesn't account for such financial increases. The evidence for that is unquestionable.

Football has always increased at a rate much higher than inflation. To say that football is a "financial landscape unto itself, largely skewed by City and Chelsea", doesn't explain how the game was a financial landscape unto itself long before Mansour and Abramovich came along. To say it's largely skewed by City and Chelsea doesn't explain the explosion in wages since the abolition of the maximum wage in the early 1960s. It doesn't explain the continual (much higher than inflation) increase in transfer fees pretty much since the game's inception. It doesn't explain the explosion of wealth that the formation of the Premier League resulted in. The explosion of wealth that football clubs benefited from when they started to float on the stock exchange. Nor the increase in TV revenue (from clubs earning a few £100k per season in the 80s, to earning tens of millions today) as the game benefited from a resurgence in popularity. Nor the advent of the Champions League, which I think we can all agree on is a huge cash cow for those who compete in it.

It would be silly for me to suggest that the likes of Mansour and Abramovich haven't had any affect however. They clearly have. But then this has always happened. I'm sure the investment made by Norris into Arsenal had an affect. Just as John Moores investment into Everton in the 1970s would have had an affect. The investment into Sunderland in the late 1940s having an affect. Berlusconi's investment into AC Milan in the mid 1980s having an affect. Indeed, Walker's investment into Blackburn having an affect. There are many more examples. Maybe it's because of the significant investments made into football pretty much since it's inception that is a major factor in why the financial side of the game has increased throughout its history at a rate much higher than inflation. And so the likes of Mansour and Abramovich are merely a reflection of that, as opposed to a causation. Take Mansour and Abramovich out of the equation, and football really wouldn't be that different today in financial terms. There is no reason to think that the TV deal would be any less. Or clubs would be earning less in revenue. Or that the Champions League wouldn't be as financially lucrative as it is. Or ticket prices would be lower. Or wages. Or indeed transfer fees. Because those things were increasing anyway, at a significant rate, long before Abramovich and Mansour came along.

You can call it artificial all you like. If we do, then it's an accusation that can be aimed towards many many clubs. You can say that Fiszman invested into Arsenal at a time when Arsenal were near the top of the game on merit. But you can't say the same for Norris. We can't say the same for Blackburn. We can't say the same for AC Milan (who were it not for Berlusconi, would have gone bankrupt). Same for John Henry Davies, who saved United from being wound-up all the way back in 1902.

 

In the end it comes down to scale in my opinion. You haven't made the argument that what was invested in Blackburn or Arsenal put them so far ahead of the pack in the way that Chelsea and City have become.

Nor did the historic spending have such an impact on wages and transfer fees that recent spending has. City had a spending spree (Robinho, Milner etc) and then had another one (Arguero, Tevez etc) when the first one didn't work. No one else has been able to do that before (except Chelsea). Nor does it explain how year after year City post huge losses, in the way Arsenal haven't. The injection of cash has to sustainable by the club to be "fair", City and Chelsea's investment hasn't been.

Finally Arsenal and Blackburn were never able to stockpile players they didn't want (Adebayor, Bellamy) just to stop other teams having them. When they were released it was in a way that helped City. Cardiff and Spurs not being considered rivals.

 

Any chance of you changing the record?
Every City related thread and up you pop with the same theme
No one gives a **** pal and no one ever will give a ****

 

To be fair, in regards to wages, the Bosnan ruling is more accountable for the vast increase in wages. In 1994 - one year before the Bosnan ruling, Chris Sutton becomes the first English based player to earn £10k per week when he signed for Blackburn. 6 years later in 2000, Roy Keane becomes the first player to top £50k (earning £52k per week). One year later, in 2001, Sol Campbell became the first £100k per week player when he signed for Arsenal on a free transfer. We've seen a greater increase in percentage terms in player wages prior to City and Chelsea's recent spending than we have seen in the aftermath of it. Player wages are, of course, still rising, but that's been the case ever since the abolition of the maximum wage in 1961.

As for the impact on transfer fees, again these have always risen. And I pointed out in an earlier post that in six years between 1996 and 2001, we saw a far greater percentage increase in transfer fees than we've seen between 2001 (before Abramovich and Mansour) and 2014 (after Abramovich and Mansour have long been around).

I don't agree that City's first transfer spree didn't work. The three biggest years of City's spending saw the team progress from a mid-table (at best) PL club, to one challenging for CL qualification, to one winning the league. Since then, City's spending has levelled out somewhat. Also, it's important to point out that City's spending in the first three years was so high because of the implementation of FFP. The initial approach of the owners was to see a more sustained level of progress, but the FFP proposal changed the approach - in simple terms - a "get it done in a faster period of time". And that, obviously had an impact on the losses that the club has had during those years especially.

Before we conclude whether City's spending has been fair or not, we have to afford the club time in order to see a return on the investment made. Progress is already being made in that respect - the club's losses are reducing, the wage bill has been reduced, and the spending has (as said earlier) levelled out. The owner's arrived in 2008 with a 10 year plan. They are only (just over) 5 years into it. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that we come back in 2018 and start to make our conclusions then.

In regards to Adebayor and Bellamy - the club did want them. It just quickly outgrew them as it sought to improve even further. Hand on heart, I genuinely don't think that City have ever signed a player just to stockpile him. What they have attempted to do is build a 25-man squad that has quality throughout it. Some of the signings worked. Some didn't. But then isn't that always the case anyway?

 

Changing the topic a little, has anyone read the BBC article where Mancini said he built the Man City team and that he should get a large slice of credit for there current success? Is this for real? What does he and Man City want, plaudits for being one of the top teams after the ridiculous spending sprees they've gone on? All Pellegrini has gone to do is get them playing more positive football. Try building a proper team like Arsenal or Southampton and then you can shout from the rooftops. Total total Nupties!!!

 

He also ignores Navas, Negredo, Fernandinho. Not insignificant players.

 

Change the word built to bought and he'd be correct.

 

Like buying is a bad thing in football all of a sudden.

I have to ask though, why, Lazarus, did you mention Southampton?

 

No, it's just more accurate in Mancini's case.

'Built' suggests that he nurtured and developed the players, he didn't he simply bought them.

 

Players are all individuals until they are "moulded" into a team.

So how much of the current squad has Arsene "built", as opposed to bought? He didn't nurture Ozil, or Rosicky, Giroud, or Podolski. Carzola, or Vermaelen. Or indeed Koscielney, Arteta, or Mertesacker.

How much money a club has to spend isn't the remit of the manager. He doesn't dictate that.

Your post (about Mancini buying a team) is just being pedantic. Is that what you're reduced to now - a cheap shot?

 

Other than Ozil and maybe Podolski, all of the other players you mention weren't household names, weren't coverted by the big clubs and weren't considered to be top talents. Koscielney who you mention was playing for Lorient a newly promoted side from Ligue 2. I would argue that Wenger has developed all of those players at whilst they've been at Arsenal.

Also you conveniently fail to mention players like Walcott, Wilshere, Ramsey, Gibbs, Szczesny, Gnabry, Oxlade-Chamberlin. The spine of the team that Wenger has nurtured and developed. In fact it's only probably players like Cazorla, Arteta, Ozil, Mertesacker and Podolski that were bought as ready made players. The rest have either come up through the youth ranks or been bought as relative unknowns and developed at the club.

What Wenger has done has developed and built a team around those key players and augmented it with a few established quality players. What Mancini did at City was buy a ready made group of players that were already performing at their peak and he spent £425m doing so.

It's not pedantic nor is it a cheap shot, it's simply an accurate observation.

 

No, it's a cheap shot all right. An unnecessary comment in a thread that has been, by and large, a relatively civil discussion. Whether the players mentioned were household names or not is irrelevant. Whether they were coverted by big clubs or not is also irrelevant (simply because of one obvious fact - Arsenal are a big club, Arsenal signed them).

It wasn't my point to suggest that Wenger hasn't developed the players while they've been at Arsenal. Just that he hadn't nurtured them. The same could be said of Mancini at City - hence my comment about moulding individual players into a team (capable of winning things - something which has proven to be beyond Wenger for the last 8 years - now that's a cheap shot).

You say the players Mancini signed were already playing at their peak. That is simply not correct. Toure has had his best years at City. Aguero likewise. Kompany - Hughes signed him for £6m and played him in midfield. Mancini dropped him back to defence and the rest is history. Zabaleta (again signed (by Hughes for £5.75m) - now arguably one of the best right backs in the world. Tevez - had without doubt the most productive period of his career to date while at City. Silva - likewise.

Of course Wenger has more of a history of developing younger players - for one very simple reason - he's been at the club for over 15 years. A period of time that would see a youngster become a football veteran. Mancini had, what, 3 years?

Look, I'm not dismissing what Wenger has achieved at Arsenal. Far from it. I have the utmost admiration for him. But let's not reduce this to "semantics" (built, bought, whatever). We're better than that. You seem (to me) to be better than that.

And by the way, I didn't "conveniently forget" about the likes of Walcott, Wilshere, et al, even if the majority of the players you mentioned were signed (players who spent their very early years at other clubs). Arsene has an eye for a talent - there's no doubt there, irrespective of whether they come through Arsenal's youth ranks, or whether they're bought from an early age from so-called lesser clubs.

 

It's not a cheap shot and you really should learn not to personalise an argument, otherwise it comes across as a bit of a rant. Where this thread has diverted from civility is when you have been laying accusations about what you think my intentions are, you'd do well to note that in future.

Anyway it seems that this thread is going round and round in circles and has basically run it's course. I've no intention of and endless back and forth with you. You have your opinion I have mine, so probably best to leave it at that.