Fair enough, don’t get me wrong, I’m not sticking up for City or Chelsea but me personally I don’t see much difference between them spending money or Utd spending it.
Rival watch
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Fair enough, don’t get me wrong, I’m not sticking up for City or Chelsea but me personally I don’t see much difference between them spending money or Utd spending it.
It's spending within your means, which most clubs have to do.
I don't see many people giving Bournemouth or Leicester stick, though.
They both have higher wage bills than their revenue and a poor financial history with dodgy owners.
Exactly, even Wrexham at the lower end of it. They’re spending huge money compared to other teams in their league. The money in football is rotten throughout the leagues. I don’t like it when people act like it’s only City and Chelsea that ‘buy success’
I think there is a difference between a successful self-sustainable business and being a rich person’s plaything. There are so many strands to this issue, but the ability of the very rich to inject vast sums into clubs to create a huge advantage over others and skew the competition is wrong. But I do also acknowledge that the division of wealth in football is such- even when it’s acquired organically and not through huge injections of cash by nefarious means- that the rich are getting richer and competition is dying. Spurs are every bit as much culpable as Utd in that respect. Maybe the time is right for capping budgets, wages etc otherwise clubs will soon find that the tables mirror the wealth table (if they don’t already) and they will spend the rest of time fluctuating between ten or so places in the league pyramid. That will become extremely boring. Already we see teams who are destined to bounce between bottom five PL and top 5 Championship for all eternity.
City had not won a trophy since the early 1970s before they were taken over.
They were relegated 3 times in the previous decade to being taken over.
Prior to the take over they set a Premier league record (since matched by Huddersfield) that will probably never be bettered of scoring just 10 goals at home all season.
Everything city have won has clearly been bought imo
It's also the low
Yeah but how many clubs nearly go bust and then get taken over and improve? Not the same level as city but still due to owners being rich etc
Look at Chelsea before Roman, they were in debt and he saved them big time. Leicester wouldn’t have won the league without their owners even if they didn’t ‘buy the league’
You have rich owners too mate, the problem is they are much more interested in a NFL franchise than Soccerball.
In the 10 years before Chelsea got bought by RA they got to a cup final in 1994, had won the league and FA Cup and a European Trophy. They were an ever present in the Premier League and had also challenged for the title several times.
City hadn't won a trophy in over 3 decades before being taken over and hadn't been to a final since 1981.
They were a yo-yo club since the 1980s.
City were destined to keep on being ****. They only win trophies through money.
I have no respect for that.
Chelsea at least were a decent side before hand.
Every club needs money to get any kind of success so I am not nieve but no club has spent what city have.
For them to claim a lack of money regarding affording Kane is a joke.
That's just them negotiating, they will buy Kane and will pay big money, they just want it to be as little big money as possible which is understandable. Even if you can afford something you always try to get the best price don’t you.
BTW...the nail are running a report on a legal battle between the PL and City of City refusing to explain their income claims in relation to FFP rules.
Might be worth a read if you got time
They have just bought Paul Mullin league 2 leading goal scorer last season, who apparently was offered decent money to join at least 1 of the league 1s 'big clubs' (IE Sunderland, Portsmouth or Ipswich).
Heard about this. I’m not disputing that city spend ridiculous money btw. But they’re not the only club to spend it. Saying it’s ok for Utd (for example) to do it because they have huge sponsorship deals to me is the same as having rich owners.
Have to laugh as the same article has a link saying Sheik Mansour could be the saviour of football !!!
Someone ages ago IMHO gave a beautiful analogy of the situation.
The analogy is the game of poker.
No matter how skilled you are in the game, if you don't have
the "pot" money you cannot play. And if you are currently holding a
good hand and are skilled, then an inferior player with unlimited
money can repeatedly "raise the pot" with impunity to push
you to the financial line you cannot cross (and make you "fold" ) .
The Sugga Daddy FC owners are that inferior player.
The benchmark for money ruining the lower leagues at this point has to be Fulham when they were chucking around Mo Fayed's money, best summed up with them paying over £1m for Paul Peschisolido in spite being in the third tier at the time
Obviously there's other examples dotted around the lower tiers, with Crawley Town springing to mind as an example of a team bankrolled out of non league and into League One, but in each of those cases the money only gets them so far before they percolate back their way down from where they bought themselves up to
On the other hand, Chelsea and especially The Sheikh Mansour Team aren't just buying trophies hand over fist but have also destabilised the global transfer market, and that's why it can be said that they're ruining football because a team bankrolled from the bottom usually reach their desired level but sooner or later drop back down as Fulham and Bournemouth are currently demonstrating in the Championship yet Chelsea and The Sheikh Mansour Team have maintained their paid-for level and kicked the ladder down behind them with their practices of signing players solely so other teams can't have them in spite having little to no intention of playing them (i.e. Scott Parker, Jack Rodwell, Scott Sinclair, Danny Drinkwater) on top of how various clubs are in for a player only for one of them to come in with a higher fee and higher wages as happened to us when we were bidding for Batshuayi and Negredo
In comparison look at Hoffenheim and Monster Energy Dusseldorf as teams who bought their way up the German leagues, and they have been far less successful in buying trophies and kicking the ladder down behind them as Hoffenheim have percolated down into the Europa League pack and often end up midtable, while MED are currently in the process of having their team dismantled with Werner, Upemecano and Konate all leaving in the last year and Sabitzer slated to follow them in the next few weeks
This is why I gave up playing internet poker, because so many online players go All In as soon as the turn card is played (or, in some cases, right off the flop) with nobody ever bothering to Check or Call as instead they go for the nuclear option
And it's not just the stack leader who does this, either, in some cases I've been on a table where everyone's going All In because it's less a game and more a dick swinging contest to see who blinks the most
They had massive cash injections from Matthew Harding, RIP.
The guy that the Anti-Santa, pictured below, slagged off relentlessly.
You must log in or register to see images
(Look at the state of that ****ing pitch.)
This allowed them to bring in players like Gullit, Di Matteo, Hughes, Vialli, Lebouef and Zola.
They were West Ham without the claret before that and still ballsed up their finances.
Putin's mate had to stop them going under.