You are right Bidley they have wasted a 5hit load of money on the players you mention. Santa Cruz and Adebayor in particular. Then because of the wages they are paying them they can’t off load them because the players won’t take a pay cut and other clubs won’t match the over inflated wages. I still think any clubs in City’s position who come into money and want success quickly have to do this, although I don’t agree with it. When UTD started out building for success it was a different world. TV money was different as the Premiership and SKY hadn’t been borne and there wasn’t a massive difference in the European tournament with regards to TV money that there is now. Back then if you were in Europe (be it the European Cup, UEFA Cup or the old Cup Winners Cup) it didn’t really matter it enabled you to attract the best players. The European Cup was still the most prestigious but there wasn’t the gulf there is now between the tournaments. There also wasn’t the massive gulf between the top and bottom of the league as there is now so you didn’t have to spend as much to go from mid-table to challenge for the title. UTD and Arsenal invested at a time when you didn’t need to spend as much but you did still needed to spend which they both done. Now you need to be in the UCL to attract the best. You’re not going to attract the best with Europa League. As city were starting from a lower point they had to bring in a number of players like your Adebayors etc to get you into a top 4 position which would then enable them to attract the Agueros and Balotellis. You can try to do it by building a squad like Spurs and Newcastle but that’s not out of choice that’s due to the purse strings at those clubs. UTD did build on success with youngsters but prior to that they did spend big too to get to the top. Ferguson spent a lot on players like Bruce, Hughes (for a British record), Palliser Web Ince… These were the players who won UTD their first title before their youngsters came through. I think because it was 25 years ago people don’t realise that and assume they have always been there. When Ferguson took over UTD they were a mid-table team and he spent a lot of £££ to get them to the top initially. I’m not saying I agree with it but in recent years clubs have had to spend big to get to the top even UTD.
I don't disagree with you on FFP, but we are as guilty as City of 'buying a new squad'. Their signings came in a period of more than one season, and included players bought by one manager (Hughes) who didn't last long and weren't wanted by his successor. Let's compare Fulham's signings in a similar period of two seasons, the Sanchez/Hodgson year and Roy's first full year in charge. In that time, we signed the following: Schwarzer, Baird, Pantsill, Kelly, Hughes, Hangeland, Konchesky, Gera, Murphy, Etuhu, AJ, Zamora, Kamara, Healy, Nevland. That looks pretty much like buying a new team to me. Even the only prominant first-teamers who pre-dated that era and also survived it (Davies and Dempsey) were only signed by Chris Coleman in the previous transfer window. And I haven't included all the unsuccessful signings like Stoor (remembered it now!), Steven Davis, Cook, Buazza etc. What City did isn't that different to what a lot of teams do from time to time. The one way it is different, as I said, is scale. To borrow Micky Adams' unfortunately timed turn of phrase in 1997, we were shopping in Woolworths and they were shopping in Harrods. The fact that they can afford to blow other teams out of the water with wage levels is a problem, but until FFP kicks in they aren't doing anything different to what the biggest richest clubs have always done.
Of course we've signed a lot of players. Sunderland signed 11/12 new players last Summer? But would us or them have fallen foul of FFP? City would've*, which is what I'm getting at. City are doing it on a bigger scale, a scale which is totally ridiculous and makes a mockery of the game. Every team makes signings and pays inflated transfer fees, this is very true and I'm well aware of this, but no team other than City goes for (quite literally!) a comprehensive list of Europe's top players and buys them for any given amount and pays them whatever they like a week, regardless of if they even need them! United have never done that, Arsenal, Liverpool etc... Chelsea did it a few years ago and people were saying what I'm saying now. Come to think of it, City will never fall foul of FFP as they'll always find a phantom sponsorship deal to make ends meet, after the last one is apparently ok as UEFA/FIFA have let it do. And it makes no difference anyway, City have bought their way to the top and already have what they need to attract top players/sponsorship deals.
We seem to be arguing about agreement - we both see it as a matter of scale. As far as the Chelsea thing goes, you're right that people were saying the same about them, and I was disagreeing with those people at the time, despite my dislike for Chelsea! Until the rules change - and FFP may make a difference - clubs are always going to use whatever financial advantage they have. Football has always been like that, sadly. It means that when clubs like ours do something extraordinary like reaching the Europa League final, it's all the sweeter, and that's something that the fans of the biggest clubs will never understand or experience. Have UEFA ruled on the stadium sponsorship? I hadn't heard that. The last I heard was that they were going to look into whether the amounts were artificially inflated due to the links between Etihad and City, and if so the full value of the sponsorship wouldn't count towards FFP figures, only the 'true' value of the sponsorship. Did I miss City getting cleared?
The last I heard was Uefa were looking into it, that was a long while ago, and I've heard nothing since; so I'm being negative and assuming they've let it go!
