I see your point, Lord Duckhunter, but to some extent most players in the Premier League are mercenaries except for players who have come through the youth team (and not even all of hem) and the few players that do develop a genuine relationship with the club (and I don't mean kissing the badge when they score). Take us for example, when we were on a spending spree, a lot of our players could be seen as mercenaries: Muntari, Diarra, Johnson, Campbell, Distin, Defoe (especially Defoe). We did have a few players who I wouldn't class as mercenaries: Mendes and James for example. That is just a result of the ridiculous salaries, the focus of money as central to football and the ability of players to force moves to earn more money. The difference between Wigan and Man City is that the Wigan players seem to care a lot more and the players at Man City are paid so much that it almost doesn't matter to them if they fail to win the trophy. I'd say with Wigan, with the players being paid so much less, money is less of a motivational factor. Not saying it isn't a motivational factor, but when you're paid £250k a week, depending on what drives you, cup finals don't mean much in comparison. Not saying they don't desire to win things, but I'd imagine for a lot of the players at Man City, they go there for the money. And that's the difference and the reason why people are calling Man City a team of mercenaries, the extent to which money is a motivational factor.
And if you include Fulham and Wigan, you have to include us. It's worth noting that, while Wigan recorded fairly significant losses over the year (most of which have been converted to equity), they were actually profitable in 2012. They spent to get here, and spent in the early years to remain, but there are far worse examples in terms of financial profligacy.
Let's get real fellas. Most top players, not all, but most top players become mercenary to some degree because the greed for more money is infectious and addicitve in one.
Indeed. Besides, I think the point has been covered sufficiently. It's all about relative outlay. Man City's team cost many, many millions [I don't know the exact figure], and Wigan's cost £11M. They'll be earning salaries commensurate with their so-called value, so isn't that an obvious enough explanation..? Bournemouth were promoted to the Championship this season. They didn't do it on fresh air, but with relatively wealthy backers. All success is bought, to a greater or lesser extent. Has the point got through yet [not aimed at you Schad]..?
Of course the players are ultimately playing for the money. But they are also playing for each other and for the manager in a way that the Man City team were not. They wanted to win the FA Cup and the shear delight for them and their supporters was plain to see. Remember when Arsenal beat us in 2003? It was like their fans couldn't really care less, yawn, another trophy! Really, if you can't see any difference between Wigan and Man City then I feel sorry for you because you will never understand the romance of the cup. The only thing I object to is the constant harping on about what a huge upset it was and comparing it to the Wimbledon 'upset'. True, both these teams had come from quite recent and humble backgrounds but both were well established in the top division for some time when they won. It shouldn't be quite so much of an upset when one Premier League team beats another even if Man City were favourites. I always felt that Saints never really got enough recognition for their achievements in 1976 because we were in the top division for so long that people seem to forget that we were in the 2nd Division at the time.
You've lost me. So which teams haven't bought success and done it the "right" way? Not Saints presumably. Wigan's wages are the lowest in the league and they've sold Valencia, Baines, N'Zogbia, Moses etc to fund their signings. Not sure what they are supposed to have done different.
Its harsh calling players mercenaries, the only City player I would call that is Sinclair. City offered the players better money and a better chance of winning things. If you are at work and someone likes how you work and offers you a better job with more money and perks, would you be a mercenary if you took the job? it did happen to me but I rejected the guy and I was very lucky and happy with my career- yet I stil have the wHAT IF devil on my shoulder
Oh, I don't know. Saints were even mentioned at least half-a-dozen times yesterday, about the 1976 win, for example, and I've never felt that the achievement has been belittled in any way. The 1976 win is often spoken in the same breath as Sunderland's 1973 win, and that was impressive enough too. I think professional opinion of the time was that Saints should have been in the top division, bar the relegation season, instead of lounging around in the second tier, anyway. We were good enough, just inconsistent. And we know that inconsistency goes with the territory.
Here's the clincher... Portsmouth FC. No. I'm not writing about their Premier League and FA Cup winning achievement, but their stony broke status. What becomes of being stony broke..? You fail, or more accurately you find the level where no money takes you, despite the team genuinely playing as well as they can. The club simply couldn't afford good enough players [barring Connolly and a couple of others] to survive. So their relative lack of money bought/brought failure, just as enough money will bring a measure of success. The rest is down to the manager/coach to make the team as good as it can be. But there are no miracles to be had.
It was yesterday I agree, but all the time we were in the top division it hardly seemed to get a mention, it was always about Wimbledon. It seems it took a relegation or two for it to happen. Anyway, who cares really. We won!!!
Manchester City the past 50 years have been a established top flight club, they were a big club who got a wealthy backer to take them to another level. In the same period Wigan were a 4th Division or non league club that got a wealthy backer to take them to another level. I have no problem with either, I have no problem with Fulham or Boscombe doing the same. What I do have a problem with is people who decide there is a difference between Man C "buying" success" and Wigan somehow earning it differently. That Wigan's players are somehow more deserving than Man City's. If I was a Wigan supporter I would be asking questions about the attitude and application of the players, that can play like that in a final, but be awful in bread and butter league games. One final point; lets just see who the mercenaries are when Wigan are relegated on Tuesday. In my opinion the players will be exactly like QPR's and be looking for a move out of there.
Of course those that are considered top league quality players will look for a move back to the league that they befits their ability. Whether or not they are abl to get that move depends on if an offer comes from a top league club. That's dictated by market forces, not by the players. They won on Saturday because they applied themselves far better than an incredibly inept and uncommitted City. However, as a team, they've struggled more than City in the league because they're nowhere near as good as individual football players. I think the greater questions following the Cup final need to be asked of the City players, not the Wigan ones......
Doubtful that money is a motivator, it is a great de-motivator if you think someone else is earning more than you. Apart from the scale of things, I don't see any difference between a player being offered £100,000 a week to attract him when he is currently earning a mere £65,000 and how I would have been attracted to a job that offered me a substantial pay rise. Professional footballers go to work, and try to get the highest price they can for their skills. Does that make them different to anyone else? Does this make us all greedy? This is a genuine question, btw, not a criticism.
Alright lads, interesting debate. Whelan's net outlay over the time he has owned the club is around £30m (that is the total debt he converted to equity a couple years ago, less the distributable profit from last year). He has owned the club for 18 years now, so that' less than £2m a year. Very hard to say that he has "bought" success. That amount of money would buy success in the lower reaches, but we have been in the PL for eight years - we've hardly done a Leeds in that time. What is undoubtedly true is that Whelan set himself to get Sky money, which he could see would give a club a disproportionate income to their fanbase. So the qualities he used to get that were nous, judgement of character and leadership. Whenever I read people like Duckhunter make this argument - about any club really - I think they're using the word "money" to mean a lot of different things that they associate with successful business people and successful transactions. In fact there are many more variables, and it's the ability of an individual like Whelan to make the right judgement calls at the right time that gives the greatest chance of football success. Value for Money - £30m = 8 years in the PL, an FA Cup, a League Cup final and a season playing in the Europa League for WAFC - and that's the same that Liverpool paid for Carroll, or half of what Chelsea paid for Torres. I think our conversations about money might be orders of magnitude different.
Additionally, the outlay is at least partially offset by what Whelan would receive if he opted to sell. He paid something like £400,000 for the team; the valuation now, even if the team drops into the Championship, is a great deal more than that.
