or to join or start a new Discussion

184 Comments
Article Rating 3 Stars

£400 million cheque

Serious question - do you think there are any top Managers that would fail to build a squad capable of competing for the title, given approx. £400 million investment over a 4 year period?

I'm not so sure.

posted on 22/8/11

A lot of rags on here tonight considering KO's only 45 minutes away and there's plenty of spare seats at the swamp.

posted on 22/8/11

Right, am off to the pub.

Boris - the article isn't designed as a wind up or a dig - it would be nice if you could answer the question and take part in the debate, rather than making sly digs.

I've notice that you do that a lot, which you presumably blame on the fact that others do it to you?

Either way, try and have a debate - you might enjoy it

posted on 23/8/11

comment by gratedbean (U4885) posted 13 hours, 50 minutes ago

Jeeves

Granted he bought in a few good buys, but compare his purchases to the quality of player that Mancini has attracted - with 400m most managers would still not be able to attract a certain quality of player.

=======================================

Really?

Seems to me that as City have improved, and looked like heading for CL, more top players have been interested.

I just don't see how Hughes would have failed to build a title challenging squad - he was heading in the right direction.

comment by (U7120)

posted on 23/8/11

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

posted on 23/8/11

the green puss from your open wounds is oozing out all over 606............
stop wishing for what you want the reality to be, and accept what the reality is...

we aint in the 3rd tier and we dont play at legoland anymore......we have Silva and not Buster Phillips.. and we will score more than 10 home goals this season.

and lets both destroy North London this weekend..

posted on 23/8/11

Let's have a test - let City and Chelsea offer exactly the same wages and transfer fees as the other "top" clubs and then see how many of the superstars flock to join them then

---------------------------------

Roy Keane, back in 2000, said "We would love to have a Figo, Zidane or Rivaldo at United but we realise those sort of players are never really going to come here....You get these big, world stars and the fee is one thing but their wages are possibly unrealistic for United's policy"

This test of yours, how do you suggest we go about it? Do we cite the proposed transfer of Nasri to City as an example, and the reported increase in wages that he will receive should it happen to prove the point that you are so obviously making? Maybe we can point to the transfer of Adebayor - who undoubtedly earns more at City than he did at Arsenal. Would that prove that City can only attract a player away from (or under the noses of), say, Arsenal by offering him more money?

Maybe it would, but then where does, for example, the Oxlade-Chamberlain transfer to Arsenal sit in regards to this test? Is he on more money at Arsenal than he was at Southampton? If so, are we to then conclude that even Arsenal can only attract players from lesser clubs by offering them more money?

Clearly the point behind your test is to prove that top players are only signing for the likes of City and Chelsea because City and Chelsea are offering such players more in wages. Yet offering higher wages is precisely what the likes of United, Arsenal, Liverpool, do all the time also. So what are we to conclude from that?

comment by (U7120)

posted on 23/8/11

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

posted on 23/8/11

With all due respect, I think this conversation is pretty pointless.

Some players see their football career as a money generating exercise - fair play - and they want to earn as much as possible. Some are influenced by where the club are based, where their home country is and what their family want to do.

Some are more flexible on these elements and want to focus on winning trophies.

Some are fairly flexible with all of that and put more emphasis on the club that they wish to play for.

But in truth, there'll be an element of all of these things for most players.

Of course, if it was a straight decision based on the stature of a club, then the Man Utd, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barcelona's of this world would stand out ahead of Man City and Chelsea - I don't think that's disputable, is it?

Not really sure what the point is, so sorry to waffle on!

posted on 23/8/11

It ended 10 years ago when the CL expanded to 4 clubs qualifying from the top leagues.

posted on 23/8/11

That those who spend most will win and the gap in spending is now so vast that meaningful competition between the doped clubs and the rest has now ended

----------------------------------

And yet many pundits are seemingly of the opinion that the premier league is now more competitive than it's been for a long time.

I would argue that City's spending over the last few years has resulted in them closing the gap between themsleves and the top clubs, and not resulted in City being light-years ahead of them.

Question to you: Would you regard Villa as a "doped" club? And Sunderland as a "doped" club? And indeed Liverpool as a "doped" club? All have benefitted from significant investment in recent years (Liverpool themselves seeing their owners wipe the reported £350m debt that was attached to the club under Hicks and Gillette).

And given Everton's precarious financial situation, would you say that their quest to find investment would result in them becoming (what you regard to be) a "doped" club?

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 3 from 6 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available