Football 2011-2012

[pink_triangle]

Be interesting what there spending policy will be this summer with uefas fair play rule. They are where they wanted to be so can they substain success with not psending so much.

[eFestivals]

Be interesting what there spending policy will be this summer with uefas fair play rule. They are where they wanted to be so can they substain success with not psending so much.

It'll probably be the same as its being for every other club - of no consequence because it's easy to get around those rules.

[The Nal]

Talking of spending, there's a piece in today's Guardian which says that City's spending is now just a few quid short of £1Bn.

[eFestivals]

City aren't a big club though, not big enough to get around the fair play rules with that sort of spending anyway.

I'd disagree. There's a million and one ways around rules like these, as the normal sort of tax avoidance by the rich gets to prove.

Such as, for instance, moving the company's account's to Delaware ... I wonder who might have thought of that one?

[pink_triangle]

Its really really vulgar. The wages alone are unsustainable.

City aren't a big club though, not big enough to get around the fair play rules with that sort of spending anyway. They generate about the same revenue as Marseille and aren't too far ahead of Dortmund, Lyon and Hamburg. Even Shalke earn more, much more. Real and Barca have revenues three times that of City, Utd twice as much and Arsenal, Chelski, Liverpool and both Milan clubs earn much more too. City made a £200m loss last year.

Interestingly enough, I read an interview with Berlusconi who said AC Milan cant compete with City in the transfer market.

If City win the league at the weekend, which they will, well done to them. Been the best team. Must be amazing for their fans after all the shit they've gone through, playing in the third tier etc. That first league win, much like Utds in 93 and if and when Liverpool win the league in the next x amount of years, means so much after so long, being relegated etc. Having Liam G and Maradona singing City songs after the Utd game too. Incredible. Even better that they've beaten Utd after all their success and having the piss taken out of them for so many years by Utd fans.

However, The 2011/2012 Premier League will always have an asterisk beside it. Much like Ben Johnson's 1988 100m Olympic medal. Horrible, vulgar way to do business and run a football club. And the thing is, they won't pull out or stop what they're doing. They have so many other bigger irons in the fire it would be a PR disaster for them so its not like at Chelski where Abramovich could pull out and any minute. As soon as its safe for him to go back to Russia without being killed.

One billion pounds though!! A billion!?!

[thetime]

However, The 2011/2012 Premier League will always have an asterisk beside it. Much like Ben Johnson's 1988 100m Olympic medal. Horrible, vulgar way to do business and run a football club. And the thing is, they won't pull out or stop what they're doing. They have so many other bigger irons in the fire it would be a PR disaster for them so its not like at Chelski where Abramovich could pull out and any minute. As soon as its safe for him to go back to Russia without being killed.

One billion pounds though!! A billion!?!

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

I thought City got around the fair play rules by having the airline the Sheikh owns do a shirt deal?

With regards to City, it might just be A.B.U syndrome happening, but I'm inclined to feel pleased for City's success, even if it has come through spending (City's team vs United cost less than Utd's btw). I'm sure most people are aware it's only fifteen years since City were in the third division of English football, so I'm inclined to feel pleased for City's fans that less than two decades later, they've become a premiership winning team.

[pink_triangle]

I'm sure most people are aware it's only fifteen years since City were in the third division of English football, so I'm inclined to feel pleased for City's fans that less than two decades later, they've become a premiership winning team.

[The Nal]

I've no issue with spending money at all, but to that degree?! Where you're pricing AC Milan out of the market? And Arsenal too, as Wenger has said. Thats what I have an issue with.

If Utd were bought buy some gazillionaire and started throwing hundreds of millions at players and paying players 200k a week to sit on the bench I wouldn't like it.

Also, regarding Utd, Arsenal and even as far back as Liverpool in the 70s "buying" their league wins? They didn't. Any of these clubs built on success, not cash. Liverpool only started spending big after they won a few leagues, same for Utd in the 90s, same for Arsenal in the mid late 90s.

Look at Newcastle this season. Very close to a champions league spot. A sensation. It can be done without spending a billion.

And look at Spurs. Always spent mega bucks and have been a wet fart since February.

Citys effect on the smaller clubs is that they're costing them money as Citys behaviour is inflating the transfer market and wages clubs are being forced to pay. Citys spending is not irrelevant or positive for smaller clubs.

So where people think City are breaking through and helping football in general, they're actually not.

But sure, must be great for City and their fans as Ive said. But were in danger of going to the American Football/Baseball structure now with drafts etc because certain clubs have too much money. Which is shit.

Edited May 10, 2012 by The Nal

[Benj]

I'm pretty sure the Liverpool figure is gross (before the income from sales is deducted), so I'm guessing that they all are (or, at least, meant to be).

Interestingly, if they are gross, then that gets to mean that Man Utd spent more by net amount because Liverpool sold a few reasonably high value players while Utd didn't .... and Utd were of course starting from a far better squad strength position.

Which gets to put a whole new perspective on the idea that Liverpool have spent big and failed dismally. It means that Liverpool falling away from the likes of Utd would be expected rather than it being a huge Liverpool failure.

[kaosmark2]

Look at Newcastle this season. Very close to a champions league spot. A sensation. It can be done without spending a billion.

[thetime]

Liverpool only started spending big after they won a few leagues, same for Utd in the 90s, same for Arsenal in the mid late 90s.

[kaosmark2]

People have been saying abromovic will leave for the best part of a decade now. I think its good for football that other clubs are spending big to get them higher up the league.

[Benj]

Which could be a one-off. You can't use us as a role-model unless we continue challenging for several seasons without spending mega-bucks

[Benj]

Isn't the consensus that once he's got the Champs Lge he's going to throw Chelski in the shit?

[pink_triangle]

I've no issue with spending money at all, but to that degree?! Where you're pricing AC Milan out of the market? And Arsenal too, as Wenger has said. Thats what I have an issue with.

If Utd were bought buy some gazillionaire and started throwing hundreds of millions at players and paying players 200k a week to sit on the bench I wouldn't like it.

Also, regarding Utd, Arsenal and even as far back as Liverpool in the 70s "buying" their league wins? They didn't. Any of these clubs built on success, not cash. Liverpool only started spending big after they won a few leagues, same for Utd in the 90s, same for Arsenal in the mid late 90s.

Look at Newcastle this season. Very close to a champions league spot. A sensation. It can be done without spending a billion.

And look at Spurs. Always spent mega bucks and have been a wet fart since February.

Citys effect on the smaller clubs is that they're costing them money as Citys behaviour is inflating the transfer market and wages clubs are being forced to pay. Citys spending is not irrelevant or positive for smaller clubs.

So where people think City are breaking through and helping football in general, they're actually not.

But sure, must be great for City and their fans as Ive said. But were in danger of going to the American Football/Baseball structure now with drafts etc because certain clubs have too much money. Which is shit.

[kaosmark2]

Everton did it in 05ish, fair while ago but shows it can be done, a decent squad, bit of luck with injuries and results

All you need to do is get lucky with a couple of buys like Newcastle have. If Everton had had Jelavic from the start of the season (at anywhere near the form he's showed since joining at the end of Jan) I suspect they would have been up there with a shot this year too.

[Benj]

Yeah, and that was again a one-off.

And I'm willing to bet Jelavic will fall off pretty soon. Moyes has an awful record of buying good strikers, getting them crocked and them failing at Everton for several years before he sells them on again.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Benj

[The Nal]

1. Man City have to outbid the likes of Milan and Arsenal if they didnt how would they attract players that these teams wanted.

Edited May 10, 2012 by The Nal

[kaosmark2]

True

*cries*

Then again, he's got to get one right at some point, barring injury, I don't think Jelavic will get less than 20 next year, as long as we resign Pienaar/ replace him with someone as effective

Re- the Newcastle thing then its a 2 off (not that they've done it and hopefully wont as EFC beat them on Sunday), or at least a once every 7 years off

[eFestivals]

To be fair im sure smaller clubs were finding united spending vulger when they were spending 30m on the likes of veron, ferdinand and 20m on the likes nistlerooy and then 17 m on the likes of nani and anderson. United bought success the same way chelsea did and the same way city did.

Spot on!!

It's difficult to pin-point exactly when money became the requirement for winning the league, but it definitely has done at some point since around 1980 (but perhaps a decade or more later).

[kaosmark2]

Any opinion is pure conjecture (including the one Im about to make!)- I can't see why he would, what would the point be? (bar for the laugh!)

[eFestivals]

Except it doesn't take into account the 11 Winter Transfer window, in which case you need to add 57 million to Liverpool's spend, for a true reflection, unless of course you want to massage the truth, as is the Liverpool way

Except of course my comment was regarding net spends, and that window only adds £7M-ish to Liverpool's net spend.

So add that in, and get to realise there's nothing being massaged in what I said there.

It makes me laugh, how so many want to call Liverpool a shit team, and then also want to condemn them for attempting to not be a shit team. Talk about twisted double standards.

[kaosmark2]

Moses' agent come out and said he's looking for a move up the table. Supposedly there's quite a lot of teams interested, including us.

While he's clearly a very good player, I can't say that I'm that enthused by the prospect of signing him. We've got a couple of good young left-wingers getting promoted from our youth squad at the mo (Sammeobi and Shane Ferguson), and with Ben Arfa, Marveaux (should be fit next season) and Jonas, I'm not sure that's where we need to be making signings. Tighten up our defense and add more depth to centre-midfield (particularly if Guthrie leaves as is looking likely).

[Benj]

I don't think the failing is the buying though, I'm guessing it's a training/striker-management issue. Andy Johnson and Yakubu both did well again after leaving.

Well, we had 3 years of it a while ago. But we didn't sustain it due to mismanagement and the Abrahamovich era pushing a team out of the top 4. Obviously Liverpool missed out before, but without his investment it would have been Chelsea being a one-off and we might have managed to sustain it a bit longer before collapsing.