like i said, Everton, Tottenham and Villa would have made top 4 in the last few years if Chelsea and City hadn't had unlimited budgets. Those clubs invested wisely and developed young players, but can't compete with the sugar daddies. That kind of disproves your point.
-------------------------------------------------------
And Chelsea were more often than not finishing higher those clubs before Roman, and qulifying for Europe.
There are no gaurantees of success, as I said in an earlier post Tottenham will finish above Chelsea this season as will Newcastle. Villa and Everton, there are clubs earning less than them that have done better than them this year and previous years. Not sure what your point is supposed to be but what is actually happening does not seem to support your theory whatever that may be.
brummieblue...................So we ignore the spending booms of the 70's that allowed Liverpool to dominate for so long - hypocritical!
_________________________________________
Liverpool were a phenomenal team & yes they bought well but so did many other teams in that era.
Everton, Arsenal etc but spending was nowhere near as profligate as it is now with players going for vastly inflated fees. Players also got paid less proportionately, with extra money if you were a regular International etc.
There was no player power in those days either, if you signed a contract then you were committed for the period. On the negative side, some clubs did not treat players as fairly as they should have.
city were only taken over in the first place because they were given a brand new stadium at no cost.
Apart from the £44m they had to spend to convert it from an athletics venue to a footyball stadium.
And Chelsea were more often than not finishing higher those clubs before Roman, and qulifying for Europe.
------
but weren't you in a financial mess before Roman took over? lucky escape
Chelsea & City sugar daddies
if city were still at maine road they'd never have been taken over and would be in the championship, at best, by now. how anyone can justify their spending is beyond me.
City balloted the fans over whether they wanted the club to redevelop Maine Road or move to Eastlands - Either option would have cost roughly the same so stop lying you bitter little man.
"city were only taken over in the first place because they were given a brand new stadium at no cost. that in itself should have been looked into at the time, especially when you see proper clubs like everton and liverpool unable to finance new stadiums. if city were still at maine road they'd never have been taken over and would be in the championship, at best, by now. how anyone can justify their spending is beyond me."
Ole,
I've already said about that, the move did make us much more buyable as a club. It is not at no cost though, and I think you know that. The move to the commonwealth stadium was a perfect move at the time, and a main reason behind why Bernstein got the job at the FA. As I also said earlier, that entire process is something that London could learn a lot from (although I highly doubt they will).
Genius Liverpool were still the club with more money than everyone else - all the top talent went to them, whilst the rest had what was left.
The money side may have risen exponentially but the financial principles were the same!
Not sure what your point is supposed to be but what is actually happening does not seem to support your theory whatever that may be.
------
just because Chelsea have spend crazy money and still managed to put together a pants squad doesn't disprove anything. You said FFP will make the gap between the richest and poorest clubs bigger, which is not true. And you said FFP will make it harder for clubs to break into the top 4, which is not true. Those are my points
"You said FFP will make the gap between the richest and poorest clubs bigger, which is not true. And you said FFP will make it harder for clubs to break into the top 4, which is not true."
Can I ask why you think this?
players went to us for the lure of the club not the money,
how many players now days move because of the money not the club as much.
also we wasnt even the first team to break the million purchase on a player, so this myth we spent money on everyone and sod the rest is crap!
melton, city spent roughly twenty million on removing the running track and were left with a brand new stadium. how is that possibly fair when clubs like liverpool and everton would have to spend hundreds of millions doing the same thing?
Are any of the top 8 clubs owned by a local businessman or a fans consortium?
So rumour has it but we did have a 20 year battle to secure our ground after having been sold down the rier by our chairman prior to Bates, during this period we secured the ground built a team and a stadium, struglling for money, sure we was and we know how difficult it is to compete when others have more money, I saw it for 30 years and can understand why some would feel bitter about it, I never dreamed it would happen to us, not even when we beat Liverpool to aqualify for the Champions league in 2003. Escape, lucky or not was most welcomed. We had been in worse situations over the years.
I was concerned when I first heard we had been bought, I feared the worst for the cub. That did not last.
So you realy cared about all the clubs you plundered for their best players Jenners - no not at all!
Nice try OP by the way
Unfortunatly the article was inevitably bound in a City and Chelsea 'defensive' position coupled with 'United have spent loads too' rubbish and even attracted a passing scouser and Leeds fan looking for some one-upmanship
And as for the Chelsea fan that thought your artcile was only worth a crying smiley
You wonder what's the point sometimes
how many players now days move because of the money not the club as much.
------------------
I agree
Tevez went to City because of his sheer love of Manchester, it's numerous eateries, cheap housing and year round sunshine
Good article <OK>
The FFP objective is to solve the very problems you are highlighting but it's vitally important these rules are enforced, which I have my doubts about, particularly following the City stadium sponsorship deal, which was the first real test and seemingly has gone through without issue.
That isn't aimed at City because I happen to be a United fan, I would say the same about this issue in relation to any club. It's actually aimed more at the regulators, because it's fair enough for City to do whatever is seen as legal to benefit their club, but how can that deal be acceptable to UEFA/FIFA under the FFP rules given it was much bigger than every other stadium sponsorship deal done in the history of sport (not just football) and paid to a team who hadn't won anything, with a relatively small world wide fan base compared to the worlds major sporting brands, and paid by a company that's never made a profit. Not to mention the owner being a relative of the of the city owner. This is sort of thing makes me wonder if FFP will ever work, much like rich people's clever accountants always find a way to get round tax rules whilst staying officially legal.
Away from the regulators enforcing FFP, I think the other thing that would massively help is if the Premier League and our Government was more stringent in both the application of the fit and proper person test that failed to stop e.g. the Portsmouth line of owners destroying the club financially, and also the legal rules about how a club is owned and run.
It seems to me that the German model is a shining beacon to every country and I wish our clubs were run the same way. If you dont know what the model is, then I'd really recommend looking it up, because it's great
just because Chelsea have spend crazy money and still managed to put together a pants squad doesn't disprove anything. You said FFP will make the gap between the richest and poorest clubs bigger, which is not true. And you said FFP will make it harder for clubs to break into the top 4, which is not true. Those are my points.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My point is in reponse to the point of this article, it is possible to compete, Spurs and Newcastle have proved that.
FFP will not make their task any easier, they will not be able to spend as much as us or Arsenal or United.
Ole,
That's not the point, the point is that City, and Manchester, maximised the opportunity as a whole, something that London could have done with the Olympic Stadium a lot smarter than they are doing.
By leasing the stadium to us, not only did the council not have to pay for all of the conversion, but they also benefitted from an ongoing cash cow - they made money out of the name change for example.
It was a win win situation for both the club and the council, and in turn the taxpayer as well. You say Liverpool or Everton couldn't do it, well perhaps they should bid for the commonwealth games then and see if they win it...
"You said FFP will make the gap between the richest and poorest clubs bigger, which is not true. And you said FFP will make it harder for clubs to break into the top 4, which is not true."
Can I ask why you think this?
------
richest clubs in the league
1. City
2. Chelsea
3. United
4. Arsenal
so if you take away the 2 richest clubs, the gap becomes smaller right? i don't get how anyone can argue with that.
and people say you need a sugar daddy to break in the top 4... but ironically Tottenham, Villa, Everton would have finished in the top 4 a few times if it HADN'T been for sugar daddy clubs.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
wtf are you talking about brumieblue!
why should i care if we take the best players from another team?
we didn't pay ridiculous prices for them and they wanted to come to Liverpool for the lure of the club not ridiculous wages or to keep their chavy wife and bank manger happy.
we didn't buy anything we earn't it on merit, we built the name and reputation of the club and reaped the rewards over time, but we didn't buy anything like you can now days!
OK, I'm a Man City and I'm a bit uncomfortable with what's happened but, like someone else said, I do enjoy watching great players at the Etihad.
In my view the problem is that when the Prem started, with the vast injection of cash, the teams at the top were likely to stay at the top because the cash allowed them to 'buy' (not the right word I know) success and so a spiral of winning and rewards followed.
The domination of a few clubs at the top has been the result. Compare how many clubs have won the Prem (4 but dominated by just 2 until Chelsea came along) with the number of clubs that won the old Div 1 in the previous 20 years (7).
The cash should have spread more evenly, especially in the lower leagues.
Sign in if you want to comment
Impossible to Compete With?
Page 6 of 15
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 10/5/12
like i said, Everton, Tottenham and Villa would have made top 4 in the last few years if Chelsea and City hadn't had unlimited budgets. Those clubs invested wisely and developed young players, but can't compete with the sugar daddies. That kind of disproves your point.
-------------------------------------------------------
And Chelsea were more often than not finishing higher those clubs before Roman, and qulifying for Europe.
There are no gaurantees of success, as I said in an earlier post Tottenham will finish above Chelsea this season as will Newcastle. Villa and Everton, there are clubs earning less than them that have done better than them this year and previous years. Not sure what your point is supposed to be but what is actually happening does not seem to support your theory whatever that may be.
posted on 10/5/12
brummieblue...................So we ignore the spending booms of the 70's that allowed Liverpool to dominate for so long - hypocritical!
_________________________________________
Liverpool were a phenomenal team & yes they bought well but so did many other teams in that era.
Everton, Arsenal etc but spending was nowhere near as profligate as it is now with players going for vastly inflated fees. Players also got paid less proportionately, with extra money if you were a regular International etc.
There was no player power in those days either, if you signed a contract then you were committed for the period. On the negative side, some clubs did not treat players as fairly as they should have.
posted on 10/5/12
city were only taken over in the first place because they were given a brand new stadium at no cost.
Apart from the £44m they had to spend to convert it from an athletics venue to a footyball stadium.
posted on 10/5/12
And Chelsea were more often than not finishing higher those clubs before Roman, and qulifying for Europe.
------
but weren't you in a financial mess before Roman took over? lucky escape
posted on 10/5/12
Chelsea & City sugar daddies
posted on 10/5/12
if city were still at maine road they'd never have been taken over and would be in the championship, at best, by now. how anyone can justify their spending is beyond me.
City balloted the fans over whether they wanted the club to redevelop Maine Road or move to Eastlands - Either option would have cost roughly the same so stop lying you bitter little man.
posted on 10/5/12
"city were only taken over in the first place because they were given a brand new stadium at no cost. that in itself should have been looked into at the time, especially when you see proper clubs like everton and liverpool unable to finance new stadiums. if city were still at maine road they'd never have been taken over and would be in the championship, at best, by now. how anyone can justify their spending is beyond me."
Ole,
I've already said about that, the move did make us much more buyable as a club. It is not at no cost though, and I think you know that. The move to the commonwealth stadium was a perfect move at the time, and a main reason behind why Bernstein got the job at the FA. As I also said earlier, that entire process is something that London could learn a lot from (although I highly doubt they will).
posted on 10/5/12
Genius Liverpool were still the club with more money than everyone else - all the top talent went to them, whilst the rest had what was left.
The money side may have risen exponentially but the financial principles were the same!
posted on 10/5/12
Not sure what your point is supposed to be but what is actually happening does not seem to support your theory whatever that may be.
------
just because Chelsea have spend crazy money and still managed to put together a pants squad doesn't disprove anything. You said FFP will make the gap between the richest and poorest clubs bigger, which is not true. And you said FFP will make it harder for clubs to break into the top 4, which is not true. Those are my points
posted on 10/5/12
"You said FFP will make the gap between the richest and poorest clubs bigger, which is not true. And you said FFP will make it harder for clubs to break into the top 4, which is not true."
Can I ask why you think this?
posted on 10/5/12
players went to us for the lure of the club not the money,
how many players now days move because of the money not the club as much.
also we wasnt even the first team to break the million purchase on a player, so this myth we spent money on everyone and sod the rest is crap!
posted on 10/5/12
melton, city spent roughly twenty million on removing the running track and were left with a brand new stadium. how is that possibly fair when clubs like liverpool and everton would have to spend hundreds of millions doing the same thing?
posted on 10/5/12
Are any of the top 8 clubs owned by a local businessman or a fans consortium?
posted on 10/5/12
So rumour has it but we did have a 20 year battle to secure our ground after having been sold down the rier by our chairman prior to Bates, during this period we secured the ground built a team and a stadium, struglling for money, sure we was and we know how difficult it is to compete when others have more money, I saw it for 30 years and can understand why some would feel bitter about it, I never dreamed it would happen to us, not even when we beat Liverpool to aqualify for the Champions league in 2003. Escape, lucky or not was most welcomed. We had been in worse situations over the years.
I was concerned when I first heard we had been bought, I feared the worst for the cub. That did not last.
posted on 10/5/12
So you realy cared about all the clubs you plundered for their best players Jenners - no not at all!
posted on 10/5/12
Nice try OP by the way
Unfortunatly the article was inevitably bound in a City and Chelsea 'defensive' position coupled with 'United have spent loads too' rubbish and even attracted a passing scouser and Leeds fan looking for some one-upmanship
And as for the Chelsea fan that thought your artcile was only worth a crying smiley
You wonder what's the point sometimes
posted on 10/5/12
Boo hoo
posted on 10/5/12
how many players now days move because of the money not the club as much.
------------------
I agree
Tevez went to City because of his sheer love of Manchester, it's numerous eateries, cheap housing and year round sunshine
posted on 10/5/12
Good article <OK>
The FFP objective is to solve the very problems you are highlighting but it's vitally important these rules are enforced, which I have my doubts about, particularly following the City stadium sponsorship deal, which was the first real test and seemingly has gone through without issue.
That isn't aimed at City because I happen to be a United fan, I would say the same about this issue in relation to any club. It's actually aimed more at the regulators, because it's fair enough for City to do whatever is seen as legal to benefit their club, but how can that deal be acceptable to UEFA/FIFA under the FFP rules given it was much bigger than every other stadium sponsorship deal done in the history of sport (not just football) and paid to a team who hadn't won anything, with a relatively small world wide fan base compared to the worlds major sporting brands, and paid by a company that's never made a profit. Not to mention the owner being a relative of the of the city owner. This is sort of thing makes me wonder if FFP will ever work, much like rich people's clever accountants always find a way to get round tax rules whilst staying officially legal.
Away from the regulators enforcing FFP, I think the other thing that would massively help is if the Premier League and our Government was more stringent in both the application of the fit and proper person test that failed to stop e.g. the Portsmouth line of owners destroying the club financially, and also the legal rules about how a club is owned and run.
It seems to me that the German model is a shining beacon to every country and I wish our clubs were run the same way. If you dont know what the model is, then I'd really recommend looking it up, because it's great
posted on 10/5/12
just because Chelsea have spend crazy money and still managed to put together a pants squad doesn't disprove anything. You said FFP will make the gap between the richest and poorest clubs bigger, which is not true. And you said FFP will make it harder for clubs to break into the top 4, which is not true. Those are my points.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My point is in reponse to the point of this article, it is possible to compete, Spurs and Newcastle have proved that.
FFP will not make their task any easier, they will not be able to spend as much as us or Arsenal or United.
posted on 10/5/12
Ole,
That's not the point, the point is that City, and Manchester, maximised the opportunity as a whole, something that London could have done with the Olympic Stadium a lot smarter than they are doing.
By leasing the stadium to us, not only did the council not have to pay for all of the conversion, but they also benefitted from an ongoing cash cow - they made money out of the name change for example.
It was a win win situation for both the club and the council, and in turn the taxpayer as well. You say Liverpool or Everton couldn't do it, well perhaps they should bid for the commonwealth games then and see if they win it...
posted on 10/5/12
"You said FFP will make the gap between the richest and poorest clubs bigger, which is not true. And you said FFP will make it harder for clubs to break into the top 4, which is not true."
Can I ask why you think this?
------
richest clubs in the league
1. City
2. Chelsea
3. United
4. Arsenal
so if you take away the 2 richest clubs, the gap becomes smaller right? i don't get how anyone can argue with that.
and people say you need a sugar daddy to break in the top 4... but ironically Tottenham, Villa, Everton would have finished in the top 4 a few times if it HADN'T been for sugar daddy clubs.
posted on 10/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/5/12
wtf are you talking about brumieblue!
why should i care if we take the best players from another team?
we didn't pay ridiculous prices for them and they wanted to come to Liverpool for the lure of the club not ridiculous wages or to keep their chavy wife and bank manger happy.
we didn't buy anything we earn't it on merit, we built the name and reputation of the club and reaped the rewards over time, but we didn't buy anything like you can now days!
posted on 10/5/12
OK, I'm a Man City and I'm a bit uncomfortable with what's happened but, like someone else said, I do enjoy watching great players at the Etihad.
In my view the problem is that when the Prem started, with the vast injection of cash, the teams at the top were likely to stay at the top because the cash allowed them to 'buy' (not the right word I know) success and so a spiral of winning and rewards followed.
The domination of a few clubs at the top has been the result. Compare how many clubs have won the Prem (4 but dominated by just 2 until Chelsea came along) with the number of clubs that won the old Div 1 in the previous 20 years (7).
The cash should have spread more evenly, especially in the lower leagues.
Page 6 of 15
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11