Having looked around not606 boards there is a lot of blah blah blah about City and Chelsea spending. Is this not unlike the stuffy billionaire scoffing at the new internet billionaire, new money riffraff, unrefined, no history ect ect yadda yadda, get over it money is made much quicker these days. With threads hinting at City trying to buy the title as with Chelsea in the past, isn't that how it is actually done. Liverpool Arsenal Chelsea City United for a start have a financial advantage over teams even with the new rules. United have had a financial advantage for years over 19 teams, now I am not saying this is unfair but they seem to think they got success without spending fk all wihich is not true, net spend net spend, bollox to net spend, that tells us the club is being run well financially compared to success but it does not tell us what they United have actually spent since the premiership started compared to City and Chelsea Liverpool and Arsenal, I have no idea but here is my point... at lasst Does it matter that you spend the money in 5 years or 15 if it amounts to there abouts the same amount of spending or even less overall if they can generate the income to cover it? Citys revenue must have surely gone up and will go up again next year, they are on the right track because they are movng forward, CL qualification 3rd place above Arsenal, that was a good season for them considering it all still smells like new car. With football being ever more corporate\rich guy owned, investments are there to be developed, so why are those slagging off what is basically sound financail strategy. Utter bitter jealousy I think. I have no issue with what City are doing. I have no doubt they will be in good shape when the rules come in, like they haven't considered that, lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thing is them next door might trip over gawking at their neighbours new lawnmower.
I agree with that.Seeing as Liverpool have got owners with deep pockets,they are going to be now competitive.However their overall turnover will ensure that they even with the FFP rules will remain competitive.Liverpool have no debt thus no interest repayments.Competition is a way of life,if you stand still you get left behind.Liverpool under Hicks and Gillett found that out before,and other clubs ie Spurs and Arsenal could find that out in the future. Okay when you are in a position of strength,you may only need to freshen up to stay ahead of the pack.However its up to the rest to make up the ground to over-throw the club thats in a position of strength.That again is competition. I personally don't care if Liverpool spend £85 million on players,as long as its good for the squad.Okay there may be a few departures,they will be not part of Kennys plans and therefore its the right thing to move them on.What annoys me however is the whining ''you spent this over the summer'',blah blah,these transferleague website which are inaccurate also do my head in. If you've money to spend,spend it.As far as I'm concerned,if you don't someone else will and you get left behind.However spending wisely is also a good thing too.
Difference is our strategy is alot more long term. We'll just buy british talent now, later we will have the incentives to actual develop it ourselves.
We are currently developing it ourselves,However we can't cover every position,thats impossible.Thats why there is a need for squad investment.
The thing about FFP which never occurred to me until right this minute is if the big European clubs don't like it the threat of a breakaway European league could rear its head again. Maybe some clubs which aren't adjusting their wage bills quite as seriously as others are hoping for that.
The sooner this happens the better imo... hopefully it will be run by an organisation that has the skill to at least be able to organise a piss up in a brewery
UEFAs new rules are to prevent sudden shifts in influence as teams are now rich boy toys and corp investment projects. The guys in the middle east are getting a financial strangle hold on certain aspects, with morre than one club financially tied to one group, funnily enough the two teams in the CL final, makes you wonder Revenues for City and Chelsea willl go up significantly for some magical reason in over the next while, wait and see
The business argument for a European Super League is becoming stronger as the tv rights start to slacken. Add to that the 'control' element vis a vis fottball associations and UEAFA and I believe that you will see a super league in about 5 years time. This will be followed by a world league in say 10 years as US and far east clubs get bigger and financially stronger.
There is a great article on Paul Tomkins site about the FPP rules, and how it will affect us and other clubs. Sorry I don't know how to post link, but well worth a read!
Hmmmm... I am less generous to the big money spenders, namely Citeh and Chavski. If Man U want to blow a load on a player, fair doos, they have earned the money, by beating everyone else in respect of commercial business. But when a rich playboy tips up and starts playing Football manager, it does irk me some... Especially when you look at Chavski a few years back, who were just buying players to stop other teams from getting them, and how Roman's money is all "ill-gotten" I can't quite say fair doos to them. Citeh is a bit different, in that the money is not so ill-gotten, and it's piss myself funny some of the players they buy, and how they are ruddy lucky that other teams did so bad, so they got into the top 3. No, I am happy that Liverpool is not in the same boat, we are not paupers (any more) but we are not obscene, we are not buying success, by just buying "big names" we are looking to build a good team that will outlast the classless new money clubs. and long may it continue.
Noblelox. Exactly. If we can destroy Ferguson and Man United in the process,it will make it all the sweeter.
I'd be embarrased if the Liverpool owners spent 200million and we popped up into the top two with overpaid, overpriced and overrated players sitting in our squad who all play in the same position. Arsenal and Man Utd earned what they worked for, for the most part, and spent what they earned. They build their position over countless years of effort, both in business and football. I respect them much more than I can ever respect City or Chelsea who went from a mid-table/bottom half team to title challengers over one transfer window with a sugar daddy. This doens't mean I like Utd of course, I can't stand them and will cheer on anyone they play against, but I respect them considerably more than City or Chelsea for what they've done and how they do it. Lets say we spend net this window of about 75million, I would be fairly happy because it's a long term investment. We're not buying 30year olds for 20million and then replacing them in a year's time. We're building long term and 75million now net spend with our current policy would mean we only need to spend maybe 50million the following year. Less the year after. We have alot to thank our owners for, and we are getting much needed money to spend, but hopefully we don't turn into a laughing stock like Chelsea or City.
JJ I agree with all you've said there. I don't think we're in the same boat as City and Chelsea because our owners are businessmen and need the club to work as a business. They may pump a bit of money in to begin with in order to get us back to a top competetive level, but they will always be keeping an eye on their long term objective of making it viable through success. The owners of C and C don't really have that aim- it's a plaything or a vanity project for them (apologies to genuine fans of those clubs- but that's how I see it). The only way they can make money is if they sold the clubs on for more than their net spend in buying and maintaining them.
I understand the opinion you have of the owners but lets not forget the 100s of people working there running it as a club, those tasked with a strategy with bringing the club into line and forward with success. It aint the owner saying do this do that from a throne in a dark hall, orderinjg his minions ot do his bidding, as you kinda paint it like that. The owners are usually tempered by these people if possible and if needed. RA is an exception, he will buy a player and pretty much demand you assimilate him into the squad, but the chelsea team of management at the club have done well, lets not forget that. They are known infinitly more than they were 10 years ago. That part of the mission is accomplished, they are in hte CL every year now, accomplished. Challenge for the league each season, again mission accomplished,. Revenues up cost going down, they will be fine. I wouldn't be embarrassed if Henry made 200m available tomorrow if he had a plan to raise revene afterwards and was successful in doing to, investment, noo not a bad thing. If they can invest and stay within hte rules, I just can't see the problem. Unbiteds net spend is a lot down to the fact that they got scholes backs giggs nevilles keane ect ect for nowt and they all stayed for a pretty much their careers for the most part, this meant they didnt have to buy for those positions for over 10 years for some more, so net spend will be good, but that is not down to brillaint management or great in the transfer market as tey would like us to think, it is down to being fortunate enough to have a group of players like that arrive at once and stay their careers
You have that entirely the wrong way round. Under the FFPRules, the Clubs that bring in the most money, ie Those at the top end of the Biggest Leagues who also participate in the Champions League Will get to spend the most most money on Player's Fees and Wages. And there is not a damn thing the next generation of 'up-starts' will be able to do about it if they want to join the party.
