>>If Sunderland stay up this season is anybody going to accuse them of buying it?
I would
There is a reason that Everton finished above Tranmere and Liverpool above Everton virtually every year for ages.
Money.
Shanks,s pony (U2264)
posted 11 minutes ago
No you can`t dispute the cash gulf that exists today is far greater than in the past, but that is the world we live in now. Chelsea were bought by Abramovich because they were a bargain, a big football club situated in one of richest areas of one of the worlds richest cities.
And he would need to spend what to him was a realatively small amount to create what he hoped would become a world class football club.
The same applies to city.
Whereas anyone buying Liverpool would have to spend about 1 billion to buy the club and then build a new stadium in order for us to compete at the very top level, and that is before you start buying the big names that supporters would demand. I n my opinion that is one of the reasons these billionaires have given us a wide berth.
_______________________________________________________________
Are you really a Liverpool fan?
sunderland arent a threat to anyone at the moment, the moment you become a threat, all the deluded scousers come out the woodwork waving their dusty old history book about like it means something
------
We all agree that football is completely different now and you have to spend money to be successful. Every club has to do it, from Wolves at the bottom to Man Utd at he top. The difference is how sustainable it is. Wolves for example are now spendnig £7m on a defender because they've stayed in the PL and made money. Sunderland are also doing it within their means, by selling players (Bent £16m and henderson £20m) and re-investing.
The debate here is the difference between how Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal gained success and how Chelsea and Man City did and there is a massive difference. The former spent money they earned through success, the latter gained success through the money they spent.
And we're back....
doesn't take much does it Rushie?
Whilst at the same time the chavs shout and stamp their feet that they were actually a club that mattered before Roman came in and saved them from going into admin.
------------
Dont even get me started on how your shambles of a club was on the brink of being put into administration before it was rescued by a Lifelong Chelsea fan
FatjanMolby
You dont just get footballing success out of thin air. Same way in business, You dont just earn profits by spending nothing initially.
There is a reason that Everton finished above Tranmere and Liverpool above Everton virtually every year for ages.
Money.
*********
In business if you make a profit you give the directors their annual divvy and reinvest the rest back into the business. More staff, new machinery bigger plant etc. for year-on-year growth.
Why is the business of football slagged off for doing the same?
You dont just get footballing success out of thin air. Same way in business, You dont just earn profits by spending nothing initially.
------
Nobody said you don't need to spend money but in the past it was done sustainably and was generally based on how successful you were on the pitch.
Why don't you look back before 1992 (when unfortunately football beame all about the money), and you will see that plenty of teams gained success through spending within their means. Forget Liverpool for a moment and look at teams such as Villa (Euroean Cup and league), Everton (league in the 80s). Neither spent massive amounts of money, and the money they did spend was within their means, and both were successful. Only 5 years before winning the EC Villa were in the second division.. Good management bought them back up, they then had relative success and were able to buy a few players. They then went on to win the league and European Cup. That is organic growth. That is completely different to what Chelsea have done and what Man City are doing. Chelsea were doing ok in the early 2000s which is why Abramovich bought you, but you were at best a cup team. It was his millions that has made you as successful as you currently are.
fatjanmolby
ok i take your point
if you are so in favour of this approach, can you tell me why havent liverpool tried to bring a few youngsters through, win a trophy or two with them, reinvest any profits into the playing squad and grow year on year slowly to become a domestic and european force once again. why has kenny resorted to blowing 100m away in less than six months?
why havent liverpool tried to bring a few youngsters through, win a trophy or two with them, reinvest any profits into the playing squad and grow year on year slowly to become a domestic and european force once again. why has kenny resorted to blowing 100m away in less than six months?
******
I can.
Because the lunatics have been let lose in the asylum.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
greateamswinthepremierleague
i like the way you've taken a "delete where appropriate" approach to my paragraph
In the 80`s when Liverpool sold Ian Rush to Juventus we did so because we where skint despite almost 15 years of what was then unprecedented success.
The rewards in todays game are huge which is why some clubs wiil spend massive amounts either to catch up or stay with the elite clubs at the very top.
Liverpool are lucky that we are able to attract lucrative sponsorship deals, but if do not get back into the elite by winning trophies and getting into the champions league how much longer will this continue.
If the money we are spending now helps us achieve this goal it will have seemed money well spent. If not then god knows what may happen.
If you are so in favour of this approach, can you tell me why havent liverpool tried to bring a few youngsters through, win a trophy or two with them, reinvest any profits into the playing squad and grow year on year slowly to become a domestic and european force once again. why has kenny resorted to blowing 100m away in less than six months
----
We tried to in the past. In the early 90s we had Fowler, McManaman, Redknapp, Jones, Harkness, Matteo, Hutchinson etc who had all come through our youth system. But it didn't work out as we'd hoped.
As I've said, football is a completely different beast nowadays and every team has to spend money. We're having to spend money to compete and therefore make money. The PL and CL have completely changed football and it has become more and more about money.
All this doesn't change the fact that Chelsea have bought their success, as before the money you were a good cup team at best (like Spurs). You didn't try the organic growth model, or try to bring in youngsters, you went for the quick fix. Throw £500m at a club and it'll be successful. We'd have more respect for you if you just admitted it.
I am a fan of the approach of developing from within and I think in a few years we'll have a few players in the first team that we have developed. We've already have seen Kelly, Flanaghan and Robinson get a chance and we have high hopes for Suso, Morgan, Coady and Sterling. In the short term though we have to spend some money to get ourselves back into the top 4 and CL, so we can make money and balance the books. But its all sustainable. If we make the CL next year, that pays for Carroll, and our sponsorship deal with Standard Chartered has paid for Henderson and our our deal with Warrior has paid for Downing. The rest of the money has come from selling Torres and Babel. A sustainable model mate, not like what's happening with Chelsea and Man City.
As I've said, football is a completely different beast nowadays and every team has to spend money. We're having to spend money to compete and therefore make money. The PL and CL have completely changed football and it has become more and more about money.
=============
There you have your answer as to why Chelsea and City are doing what they're doing. Football is a totally different animal than what it was before.
You're just contradicting yourself again. You say you need to spend money in order to make money but at the same time you're effectively saying, its not ok for city and chelsea to do the same
the £100m you've spent so far. isnt that a quick fix?
if you liverpool fans realise, football is different to what it was back in the 70s and 80s and this organic growth model you keep pointing out has no chance of working as we've seen with kenny and his chequebook, we'd have a lot more respect for you but as you keep belittling our achievements, the little petty fueds on here will carry on
We do not know yet if Kenny`s strategy is going to work, at the moment because of lack of champions league football we cannot attract the real top draw players we might need to win the prem so we buy what kenny sees as players below that level, but good enough to challenge for 4th and a chance of a champions league spot. Which is what i think most reasonable Liverpool supporters would hope for.
As for belittlling chelsea`s achievements that is something i would never do and would hope that no liverpool supporter would do, if anything i envy what your club has done over the last few years.
The fact that people on this thread can't see the difference in Liverpools success and what Chelsea have been doing under Roman is quite frankly embarrassing and an insult to football in general.
City have only won an FA cup yes, but why all of a sudden are people talking about them being challengers for the title....
Money !
Errr ok Metro
http://rlv.zcache.com/thanks_for_stating_the_obvious_tshirt-p235090716804056382trlf_400.jpg
comment by mr chelsea (U3579)
-----------------
Thank you for admitting that you've bought your success
City have only won an FA cup yes, but why all of a sudden are people talking about them being challengers for the title....
Money !
-----------------
Good work Sherlock
Thank you for admitting that you've bought your success
Chelsea and City have only done what every club with the sort of money they have had would do.
Sign in if you want to comment
The History Thread
Page 2 of 3
posted on 3/8/11
And we're back....
posted on 3/8/11
>>If Sunderland stay up this season is anybody going to accuse them of buying it?
I would
There is a reason that Everton finished above Tranmere and Liverpool above Everton virtually every year for ages.
Money.
posted on 3/8/11
Shanks,s pony (U2264)
posted 11 minutes ago
No you can`t dispute the cash gulf that exists today is far greater than in the past, but that is the world we live in now. Chelsea were bought by Abramovich because they were a bargain, a big football club situated in one of richest areas of one of the worlds richest cities.
And he would need to spend what to him was a realatively small amount to create what he hoped would become a world class football club.
The same applies to city.
Whereas anyone buying Liverpool would have to spend about 1 billion to buy the club and then build a new stadium in order for us to compete at the very top level, and that is before you start buying the big names that supporters would demand. I n my opinion that is one of the reasons these billionaires have given us a wide berth.
_______________________________________________________________
Are you really a Liverpool fan?
posted on 3/8/11
sunderland arent a threat to anyone at the moment, the moment you become a threat, all the deluded scousers come out the woodwork waving their dusty old history book about like it means something
------
We all agree that football is completely different now and you have to spend money to be successful. Every club has to do it, from Wolves at the bottom to Man Utd at he top. The difference is how sustainable it is. Wolves for example are now spendnig £7m on a defender because they've stayed in the PL and made money. Sunderland are also doing it within their means, by selling players (Bent £16m and henderson £20m) and re-investing.
The debate here is the difference between how Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal gained success and how Chelsea and Man City did and there is a massive difference. The former spent money they earned through success, the latter gained success through the money they spent.
posted on 3/8/11
And we're back....
doesn't take much does it Rushie?
posted on 3/8/11
You're not wrong...
posted on 3/8/11
Whilst at the same time the chavs shout and stamp their feet that they were actually a club that mattered before Roman came in and saved them from going into admin.
------------
Dont even get me started on how your shambles of a club was on the brink of being put into administration before it was rescued by a Lifelong Chelsea fan
posted on 3/8/11
FatjanMolby
You dont just get footballing success out of thin air. Same way in business, You dont just earn profits by spending nothing initially.
posted on 3/8/11
There is a reason that Everton finished above Tranmere and Liverpool above Everton virtually every year for ages.
Money.
*********
In business if you make a profit you give the directors their annual divvy and reinvest the rest back into the business. More staff, new machinery bigger plant etc. for year-on-year growth.
Why is the business of football slagged off for doing the same?
posted on 3/8/11
You dont just get footballing success out of thin air. Same way in business, You dont just earn profits by spending nothing initially.
------
Nobody said you don't need to spend money but in the past it was done sustainably and was generally based on how successful you were on the pitch.
Why don't you look back before 1992 (when unfortunately football beame all about the money), and you will see that plenty of teams gained success through spending within their means. Forget Liverpool for a moment and look at teams such as Villa (Euroean Cup and league), Everton (league in the 80s). Neither spent massive amounts of money, and the money they did spend was within their means, and both were successful. Only 5 years before winning the EC Villa were in the second division.. Good management bought them back up, they then had relative success and were able to buy a few players. They then went on to win the league and European Cup. That is organic growth. That is completely different to what Chelsea have done and what Man City are doing. Chelsea were doing ok in the early 2000s which is why Abramovich bought you, but you were at best a cup team. It was his millions that has made you as successful as you currently are.
posted on 3/8/11
fatjanmolby
ok i take your point
if you are so in favour of this approach, can you tell me why havent liverpool tried to bring a few youngsters through, win a trophy or two with them, reinvest any profits into the playing squad and grow year on year slowly to become a domestic and european force once again. why has kenny resorted to blowing 100m away in less than six months?
posted on 3/8/11
why havent liverpool tried to bring a few youngsters through, win a trophy or two with them, reinvest any profits into the playing squad and grow year on year slowly to become a domestic and european force once again. why has kenny resorted to blowing 100m away in less than six months?
******
I can.
Because the lunatics have been let lose in the asylum.
posted on 3/8/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/8/11
greateamswinthepremierleague
i like the way you've taken a "delete where appropriate" approach to my paragraph
posted on 3/8/11
In the 80`s when Liverpool sold Ian Rush to Juventus we did so because we where skint despite almost 15 years of what was then unprecedented success.
The rewards in todays game are huge which is why some clubs wiil spend massive amounts either to catch up or stay with the elite clubs at the very top.
Liverpool are lucky that we are able to attract lucrative sponsorship deals, but if do not get back into the elite by winning trophies and getting into the champions league how much longer will this continue.
If the money we are spending now helps us achieve this goal it will have seemed money well spent. If not then god knows what may happen.
posted on 3/8/11
If you are so in favour of this approach, can you tell me why havent liverpool tried to bring a few youngsters through, win a trophy or two with them, reinvest any profits into the playing squad and grow year on year slowly to become a domestic and european force once again. why has kenny resorted to blowing 100m away in less than six months
----
We tried to in the past. In the early 90s we had Fowler, McManaman, Redknapp, Jones, Harkness, Matteo, Hutchinson etc who had all come through our youth system. But it didn't work out as we'd hoped.
As I've said, football is a completely different beast nowadays and every team has to spend money. We're having to spend money to compete and therefore make money. The PL and CL have completely changed football and it has become more and more about money.
All this doesn't change the fact that Chelsea have bought their success, as before the money you were a good cup team at best (like Spurs). You didn't try the organic growth model, or try to bring in youngsters, you went for the quick fix. Throw £500m at a club and it'll be successful. We'd have more respect for you if you just admitted it.
I am a fan of the approach of developing from within and I think in a few years we'll have a few players in the first team that we have developed. We've already have seen Kelly, Flanaghan and Robinson get a chance and we have high hopes for Suso, Morgan, Coady and Sterling. In the short term though we have to spend some money to get ourselves back into the top 4 and CL, so we can make money and balance the books. But its all sustainable. If we make the CL next year, that pays for Carroll, and our sponsorship deal with Standard Chartered has paid for Henderson and our our deal with Warrior has paid for Downing. The rest of the money has come from selling Torres and Babel. A sustainable model mate, not like what's happening with Chelsea and Man City.
posted on 3/8/11
As I've said, football is a completely different beast nowadays and every team has to spend money. We're having to spend money to compete and therefore make money. The PL and CL have completely changed football and it has become more and more about money.
=============
There you have your answer as to why Chelsea and City are doing what they're doing. Football is a totally different animal than what it was before.
You're just contradicting yourself again. You say you need to spend money in order to make money but at the same time you're effectively saying, its not ok for city and chelsea to do the same
the £100m you've spent so far. isnt that a quick fix?
if you liverpool fans realise, football is different to what it was back in the 70s and 80s and this organic growth model you keep pointing out has no chance of working as we've seen with kenny and his chequebook, we'd have a lot more respect for you but as you keep belittling our achievements, the little petty fueds on here will carry on
posted on 3/8/11
feuds
posted on 3/8/11
We do not know yet if Kenny`s strategy is going to work, at the moment because of lack of champions league football we cannot attract the real top draw players we might need to win the prem so we buy what kenny sees as players below that level, but good enough to challenge for 4th and a chance of a champions league spot. Which is what i think most reasonable Liverpool supporters would hope for.
As for belittlling chelsea`s achievements that is something i would never do and would hope that no liverpool supporter would do, if anything i envy what your club has done over the last few years.
posted on 3/8/11
The fact that people on this thread can't see the difference in Liverpools success and what Chelsea have been doing under Roman is quite frankly embarrassing and an insult to football in general.
City have only won an FA cup yes, but why all of a sudden are people talking about them being challengers for the title....
Money !
posted on 3/8/11
Errr ok Metro
http://rlv.zcache.com/thanks_for_stating_the_obvious_tshirt-p235090716804056382trlf_400.jpg
posted on 3/8/11
comment by mr chelsea (U3579)
-----------------
Thank you for admitting that you've bought your success
posted on 3/8/11
City have only won an FA cup yes, but why all of a sudden are people talking about them being challengers for the title....
Money !
-----------------
Good work Sherlock
posted on 3/8/11
Thank you for admitting that you've bought your success
posted on 3/8/11
Chelsea and City have only done what every club with the sort of money they have had would do.
Page 2 of 3