A wage cap is good for football but bad for the league that has one. The Premiership is often quoted as the best league in the world. England can attract some of the World's best players errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr just like Italy did in the eighties. They do not come for the weather, ambience, a sense of history, the excellent museums, shopping, Stafford pottery, Haggis, to see where Dr Who is filmed, they come for the money. Being able to attract the best players was a key component of the Premier League strategy from the start and still is. Football managers, fans, sporting media all know a wage cap is essential to provide realistic competition and increase fan interest in the game. The Premiership will make noises of agreement then do everything in their power to block it. Nouveau riche clubs won't apply one if they don't have to because they and their fans will complain that other's have bought the league and it is their turn, they deserve it as it has been about bloody time. As has been mentioned all clubs buy the titles, especially since the start of the Premiership. Money is the key maintaining to a successful club. It has only been the threat by UEFA to ban clubs from European competition if they don't stay inside an operating cost budget that has driven some clubs to moderate their wage structure. Some clubs do recognise that long term survival depends on a sensible wage structure and have suffered in the league because of this ethic I would say Arsenal is a good example of this as is West Brom, who would rather be relegated and build slowly rather than risk over a hundred years of existence for one mad season.
TIAGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Wohhhhh Ohhhhhhh, Ok not the most consistent but worth his money and I'm still angry about Diarra, we made him so many promises and I think he showed afterwards we should of kept them. Sorry I digress.
I'm glad this has sparked a debate... it's made me see things from a slightly different perspective, albeit it hasn't entirely changed my opinion. Also interesting to note that of those who have disagreed, the fullest explanations have been blues fans, whereas davidako, HarrysDisciple etc haven't given one, and the best has come from a City fan
Really? I think they've had at least 5. Since Mourinho took charge they've had - Keegan, Pearce, Erikson, Hughes & Mancini - Twat!
Haha so off with the facts there mate. And are you implying City have a more coherent squad than Chelsea? Haha City's squad is a complete mess. Full of talent, no sense went into buying.
What complete and utter bollocks, in the time City have had the spending power they currently have they have won just one trophy while we have won five PLUS a CL final with one to come next Saturday. City have thrown money at players and only been in the top four once since the Sheikh came in. Likes of Silva, Aguero et al were all linked with Chelsea, United and Arsenal but went to City purely due to the fact they pay twice as much as any of those three.
every body has a pop at chelsea having so many managers but we have won plenty!! thats what makes me laugh
Aye, but remember that City have only thrown the really big money three or four marquee signings, the rest of their squad still earns comparatively less than Chelsea's. In defence I think Kompany is on around £90k a week, which is only a bit more than Cahill. I think once City get more established they will be able to get the top players without having to pay such ridiculous wages, but then their squad players will start demanding extra as a result. Ultimately I reckon both clubs will end up with similar salary structures.
Fair point but how many do you think we pay top dollar? Terry, Lampard and Torres at £150k, then Drogba and Cole around £120...the rest go down from there. That's five players for less than three of City's, and with the exception of Torres they have won three league titles, four FA Cups, aa couple of league cups and been in two champions league finals... Our new signings are on far less.
Well let's see...in the first four years of ownership Abramovich had Ranieri, who he fired after a year, and Mourinho. In the first four years of ownership Mansour had Hughes, who he fired after a year, and Mancini. Let's see what Mansour and co do if Mancini screws up the CL again next year and drops off the pace in the PL whilst criticising the owners about anything he can think of...
Those are the headline amounts the club reports, but you forget that the image rights go on top of those as well. Torres is reported as £175k plus image rights, and given Rooney is £160k plus £90k image rights then it's a fair bet Torres is breaking the £200k barrier in total. Also worth noting that last season your total wage bill was only around £4 million less than City's (168 million vs 172 million). Since then City have been boosted by Aguero and Nasri but have also lost a fair few big earners (Boateng, SWP, Jo, Given and Bellamy) so it'll be interesting to see how the total amounts compare come next season.
At the end of the day Man City had the cash to burn and spent it. No one thinks Milner was worth 30m, and City probably didn't think he was worth that, but if they have the cash just sitting there and Milner would improve the team..... Why not? lol
I think it's important to recognise City were midtable and even battling relegation before and were at a different stage to us before the takeover so had to things in a different manner. At least we had CL Football as well as a hugely successful period in the mid-late 90s in which foundations were built to entice players to come and join us. The media have successfully convinced the public that the best way to manage a football club is to have a long-term manager who has total control over transfers and dealings. Real Madrid, Liverpool, Chelsea and City are proof that this isn't always the case. Who says that Chelsea are "wrong" in the way the club is managed? As Pep Guardiola says in these days, 4 years at one football club is a long time, He did his 4 years and then left an even bigger legend than he already was. I can't see what this obsession is with having long term managers, football has long since changed and if SAF and Wenger joined their clubs now they would be sacked if they went 2/3 seasons on the bounce without trophies, it's only their status at those clubs that has kept them in jobs. Having long term managers makes clubs develop blind spots. It happened with United years ago and has happened to Arsenal more recently, the fans of those clubs treat everything those managers say as if it were written from the Old Testament. To answer the question though yes it is hypocritical, but if you are winning then nobody can really criticise. The likes of Yaya Toure are not going to leave World Champions Barca to join a big, but midtable club in England without being handsomely paid
