Football 2013-2014

[eFestivals]

Although its unlikely that Rodgers will be a huge draw for overseas players either. Despite Man Utd likely having less money to spend and liverpool more, I would be surprised if the change is to the extent where liverpool will have significantly more spending power than man utd.

given that FSG have shown in the last 3 years that they're willing to invest, and the Glazers have shown in the last ten years that they won't invest, please do tell me again how it is that Utd will outspend just about any of the bigger clubs.

OK, I admit that that is not set in stone, but there's a hell of a lot more within the facts of history to support my future take than there is yours.

It will be down to who spend the money wiser

that's a different thing entirely and something that no buyer can know the result of until after the spend.

liverpool struck gold last January and will need to do the same this summer if they want to maintain their improvement.

It's a bit less about luck when you can offer what every top player wants - to play at the highest levels.

I think its a bit simplisitc the argument that man utd finish outside the top 4 and they are doomed while liverpool finish 4th and that slot is theres for a few years.

Oh, don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying what I'm saying as a more likely version of events than the "Utd will bounce straight back" that you and others are still saying, in exactly the same way you were convinced that Utd would hit form AND that L'pool's would fall off a cliff.

I'm merely saying that momentum is with the teams in the top 4 and not those out of it, and that no team is going to simply roll over to let Utd back into what you want to laughingly view as their rightful position.

It is a harder job to get into the top 4 than to stay in the top 4, and it won't be any different for Utd.

Finishing 4th may provide liverpool with more income but there will be other challenges, eg keeping Suarez if the vultures swoop, managing a league and champions league campaign together and managing increased expectations. With Chelsea and Man City having their loss making business model, no other team should be complacent that they will always make top 4. I dont see it going back to the days of man u, chelsea, arsenal and liverpool every year, I think we may end up regualr variation.

Liverpool have challenges going forwards, the likes of Utd have bigger ones. If everything is equal then Utd outside the top 4 get to lose every time - that's how it works.

We'll only get regular variation with new sugardaddies at different clubs to the ones that have them now.

Money is a far bigger factor on the game now than it's ever been - so it's sugardaddies or continued success on the field.

[pink_triangle]

There's a few problems with what you say.

1. they haven't put in any money, they've only taken money out.

2. the "losses" that you're thinking they'd make would be against "profits" they've never made - it's all "on paper". And what is on paper are fantasy valuations of the club anyway.

Unless they've got millions stashed under the carpet - and they haven't - they've got no asset to borrow against, because it's already all in hock to others.

[eFestivals]

Good quote from someone on the times podcast. It's not that united can't compete for transfers with chelsea and city, they can compete but they are using the money to pay off loans and not players.

there's been quite a few columns now in the 'better' papers around the same sorts of areas, with just about everyone concluding that the Glazers have to change or get out sharpish, else it's looking far from rosy for Utd.

I'm amazed that the Norwich supporting fans ( ) haven't been screaming about it so much it's on the national news. Quite why they're shrugging it off as not possible (much like they shrugged off the shit performances and where that's taking them) I've yet to work out.

If the suggested financial position in the accounts is the whole truth the Glazers can just about ride it out and still coin a few quid, while the club would be forever middling at best.

And if the accounts aren't the whole truth? Take your pick.

[kaosmark2]

Laudrup sacked. Barmy. Have they not learned from Newcastle what the Europa League does do a thin squad?

[zero000]

Laudrup sacked. Barmy. Have they not learned from Newcastle what the Europa League does do a thin squad?

[DomDom1984]

How much truth is there that there was dissension in the dressing room? I'd only heard it said on Football Weekly but they must have gotten it from somewhere. They don't tend to be the sort to make shit up.

[pink_triangle]

Laudrup sacked. Barmy. Have they not learned from Newcastle what the Europa League does do a thin squad?

[The Nal]

Losing to Utd again was the final straw.

[pink_triangle]

given that FSG have shown in the last 3 years that they're willing to invest, and the Glazers have shown in the last ten years that they won't invest, please do tell me again how it is that Utd will outspend just about any of the bigger clubs.

[pink_triangle]

http://twohundredpercent.net/?p=25352

Interesting that soem clubs may try to get Man City banned from Champions league next year for breaking FFP rules.

[pink_triangle]

If the suggested financial position in the accounts is the whole truth the Glazers can just about ride it out and still coin a few quid, while the club would be forever middling at best.

[DomDom1984]

If United don't challenge next season, other teams will take over, such is the money on offer in the CL. They're fucked if they're not top four next season. Especially if the same teams make it twice in a row.

[pink_triangle]

If United don't challenge next season, other teams will take over, such is the money on offer in the CL. They're fucked if they're not top four next season. Especially if the same teams make it twice in a row.

[thetime]

If United don't challenge next season, other teams will take over, such is the money on offer in the CL. They're fucked if they're not top four next season. Especially if the same teams make it twice in a row.

[DomDom1984]

Not sure about a Leeds. That's a drop of massive quality and their fanbase should ensure that this won't happen. But it could see a barren time as far as trophies, CL football goes, and with that, a gap could widen. So it's more of a "by their own standards" thing. It's certainly not something that's out of the question. For the record, I don't think it'll happen. I think United will strengthen the defence and midfield a touch and do enough to get at least a top four spot.

[pink_triangle]

Out of boredom I looked at all the top 4 (I know top 4 hasn't always had the relevance it does now) finishes since 2000. Man Utd and Arsenal have always taken 2 of those slots but I was surprised at how much the rest had varied. Apart from 2006-2009 when Liverpool and Chelsea had the positions locked in, there was no occasion where the same 2 teams had the postions in successive years. It may be that new sugar daddies will come, but I just don't see 4 teams running away from the rest that some do.

[kaosmark2]

I miss the days when Newcastle were finishing top 3/4. They were good days.

[eFestivals]

While FSG are willing to invest their motives for getting into football are closer to the man utd owners than that of Chelsea or Man City. They want to make a profit and will not spend the amount of money that almost guarantees top 4 football, like the 2 clubs with sugar daddies have.

I agree that they're more like the Glazers than the sugardaddies, but they still sit somewhere between them.

After all, they've put actual real money - and their own money - into the club.

In complete opposite to that, the Glazers have put not a single penny into Utd ever - not even to buy it. They managed to have the club buy them as the owners (and if that doesn't show you how fucked up the world of business finance is, nothing will).

The point is for now and Utd, will the Glazers finally put their hands in their pockets? There's still no reason to think they will.

I think Glazers will look to sell Man Utd at some point from a relatively strong position.

too late, that ship has sailed.

They will look to spend the minimum possible to achieve a top 4 position, that's a gamble and whether it will be successful time will tell.

perhaps they will - but there's not jot of evidence to suggest that they will, from history.

[eFestivals]

Out of boredom I looked at all the top 4 (I know top 4 hasn't always had the relevance it does now) finishes since 2000. Man Utd and Arsenal have always taken 2 of those slots but I was surprised at how much the rest had varied. Apart from 2006-2009 when Liverpool and Chelsea had the positions locked in, there was no occasion where the same 2 teams had the postions in successive years. It may be that new sugar daddies will come, but I just don't see 4 teams running away from the rest that some do.

so you don't see a general theme of clubs newly with sugar-daddies coming along and pushing out those without them?

What do you think is happening right now, then?

Liverpool have a sugar daddy. It might not be the same league as Chelsea and City, but it doesn't need to be. All it needs to be is a greater amount of money than others - such as Utd.

And the few oddities that have happened over the years? That merely gets to prove that money for players is not always spent as well as it could have been.

[eFestivals]

What do you mean fucked? You going on the same lines as neil and united doing a leeds.

I've not said that Utd *will* do a Leeds.

But any look at the finances of Utd should be suggesting to you that it could do.

If you think it's an impossibility, the error is in your judgement.

Edited February 5, 2014 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

Ladrup to United? Be a bit of sideways move for him, but maybe get some extra points on a new manager bounce...

[eFestivals]

Ladrup to United? Be a bit of sideways move for him, but maybe get some extra points on a new manager bounce...

PMSL

That's made me laugh out loud.

[pink_triangle]

perhaps they will - but there's not jot of evidence to suggest that they will, from history.

[pink_triangle]

so you don't see a general theme of clubs newly with sugar-daddies coming along and pushing out those without them?

What do you think is happening right now, then?

Liverpool have a sugar daddy. It might not be the same league as Chelsea and City, but it doesn't need to be. All it needs to be is a greater amount of money than others - such as Utd.

And the few oddities that have happened over the years? That merely gets to prove that money for players is not always spent as well as it could have been.

[Bobs]

I guess at the end of the day, for all the positives liverpool got this week, and even after doing us in 4-0, you only gained 1point on us, which when you look at it like that, it isn't so glossy, whilst I concede that Liverpool probably are favourites, you;ve arguably just seen Everton have their bad spell, and as for Spurs, there's no shame in losing to City, who are usually unstoppable, and going to Hull away is a tough ask.

As for United, you feel for every two step forwards they take, they're just doing stupid things like losing (however unfairly) against Stoke. I'd certainly say they can get 5th, but i just think there will be a roadblock and United won't have the mentality to finish 4th, 7 points off is a BIG ask.