MITO makes a great point in the end, which is ... splashing 100M on a transfer window while you can't guarantee CL will buy you only grief. See Spurs. There's a time for smart internal growth, and a time for going out to buy quality.
Won't happen as much now but Lille and Montpellier both won the French ligue battling against the likes of Lyon, Marseille, PSG who were the predominant champions all the time and have the cash. Bordeaux recently as well ( not as recent). German league used to ( before the BVB and Bayern years) have interchanging champions. Wolfsburg, Werder Bremen to name two.
Also depends what you mean by "a lot of cash". There's plenty of stupid money to be had (by the bigger teams) in football through legitimate football-related channels. It only pales in comparison with the stupendously obscene amounts introduced by some from outside of the game. Rather than trying to catch them, we should be looking to curtail them. Their money will only be detrimental to the game in the long run.
The plans for the expansion of the ground and training facilities, youth academy etc are also impressive, they seem to have a long term plan unlike Chelsea.
You know why? Because one big gun can fail on a given year (a Bayern), but the odds of two big guns failing (Real & Barca), or three (United, Chelsea & City) diminish exponentially.
True but let's look at Spurs, ahead of us last year - lost their best player BUT spent well over £100mil, and look where they are? Also I hate to say it but United haven't splashed the cash like City have and look at their recent success, which was down to SAF - certainly no quality in the team yet they were winning titles
well... yes but they i think are a bit of a case... I'm not really sure but i have formed a sort of opinion based on bits and peices that may or may not be true. tell me what you think. based on the randomness of buys and how avb was sacked for not picking levy's choices among other things i have thought that perhaps daniel levy has believed his own spin and gone a bit doolally with the cash, deciding he's a football genius. Spurs have basically destabilised themselves from the happy harry days by changing managers twice and its not the money that's at fault but the interference at the higher level. I pointed to that with chelsea and city too. I think if you give someone like martinez at everton 500mil to spend to build on what he's got and also the time... and of course the wages I think he'd deliver a league no question..... I really think so. Look at how disorganized QPR did things, trying to do it too fast, building up bad players, misshapen squads players at loose ends. its crazy stuff so i guess rodgers is right. act crazy get crazy results. Give a well run club with talented staff the money and I think they will deliver.... and if you've two equally well run clubs and equally good staff but one gets 100mil to spend and the other gets 0.. i can tell you which will be higher in a league table.
I agree and this is where City and Chelsea differ, Chelsea are a play thing for Roman and there doesn't seem to be a lot going on other than buying and selling whereas City have big plans and are looking to the future and putting the right infrastructure in place, they are here to stay and will be a huge club in the future. http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/c...ter-city-unveil-best-project-around-eastlands
I'd probably agree though i do feel they have only got to that recently and went through too many changes early on and it held them back despite throwing cash at it. City should be carefully regulated I think so midnight shady emirates deals to sponsor agueros left toe for 200 million don't occur to balance the books and create an unlimited spending power. I also think that actually the wage structure per revenue should actually have a cap. If you've 1billion revenue (no club has) in theory every player can have 300k per week. however... if one club has say 200mil revenue and one has 300mil.. should either hit a cap. I don't know. these clubs are rare. I think a club should have say some sort of cap that ssays oh you want yaya or rooney or whomever to have 300k... fine grand. you have to pay rafael or milner 50k per week as a result max as if you give everyone 150k per week you hit the cap. It should be high enough say to let the too 8 say pay what they want largely within their means but the top 2 cannot simply pay 50 players twice the norm then loan them out cos they've some weird articifical revenue number. They should hit a hard cap. the top 2 would prob still have 5 guys on massive money whereas the rest of the top 6 could have say 2.
I like Rodgers and he talks a lot of sense. Maybe what he is doing here is warning clubs/agents and players that we will not pay more than the players real worth. It's clear to see that the money clubs just throw money at it to get their man or,as in chavs case, to stop someone else getting him. Once you make it clear your going on a spending spree prices rocket as manure ,with their supposed £200 million to spend, will find out when they haven't got CL to offer the type of player they need. Who would rather have Ozil in the team right now instead of Henderson. The first thing we should do as a club and I think Rodgers has stated this before, is find out how much he wants to play for Liverpool. Rather have a hungry player than a pampered show pony. I think this summer we will see a few top players coming to us but if they mess about (konoplyanka !) let them go else where and warm the bench (Salah)
Good point KPH. Utd on the other hand have been very stupid by announcing that they're going to have a busy summer and will be buying a lot of players.
If one thinks money doesn't buy success, isn't it a bit hypocritical to believe throughout that Man City were/are big favourites on the back of their 4 big summer buys added to the likes of Aguero, Silva, Nasri and Toure?
Do you think BR was saying money doesn't buy success? I read it like he was saying putting ideas in place and players start to make them work can't be bought. Thoughts!
Squirming out of things on Rodgers behalf now? Cause, yes, he did say THAT. Now, obviously spending 200m on top players and coaching them to touch their noses and rub their bellies on the field won't get you very far, and neither will you coaching them to play 80 crosses, but let's not be too literal here. My question stands.
Money doesn't buy success and Money doesn't guarantee success are two very different statements! Brod said the latter.
Yeh you're right. If every club threw money at it, there'd still only be one winner so he's right in what he said.
I think Gerrez may beg to differ on that one - I think it's guaranteed that you can't live without food
Not really being pedantic. That one word completely changes the complex of the discussion A team can buy success but they still need to have a good management in place. If not, how come QPR didn't do very well despite throwing money at things? Mark Hughes didn't do too well at Man City either.
