Yawn

In short, yes they've ruined football. But Liverpool will be bringing football back when they win the league.

(Yes, Liverpool comment will follow in part 2)

Yet even the Old Trafford club have had to stoop to marketing their club, raising awareness across Asia, and doing what it can to boost shirt sales.
...............

Indeed, like they would never have considered such drastic marketing strategies prior to the big bad money men took over at Chelsea and City

I find it all rather sanctimonious. In the same breath people are saying it's the most entertaining PL season possibly ever. That's not ruining football.

'Business is no respecter of origins or passion, but is merely a means to an end'

Are you talking specifically about football with this statement or in general?

In short whichever business model a club adopts, they will be required to sustain revenues through larger commercial deals and to a lesser extent match day incomes.

The days of billionaires pumping hundreds of millions into clubs to sustain an untenable cash flow are now gone.

10 years ago the title was a two horse race involving Man United and Arsenal and had been so for nearly 10 years, in recent seasons the title race has been more open, this season more than any, to such a degree that it is looking likely none of the recent so called big 4 are going to win it.

The Premier League ruined football, Chelsea and Man City have helped mend it.

Liverpool and Manchester United generated cash through success

City and Chelsea generated success through cash

That is the quick answer and I say it with no malice. City and Chelsea have still done well to win silverware but they wouldn't have achieved it without the huge financial backing.

comment by Metro. (U6770)
posted 1 minute ago
Liverpool and Manchester United generated cash through success

City and Chelsea generated success through cash

That is the quick answer and I say it with no malice. City and Chelsea have still done well to win silverware but they wouldn't have achieved it without the huge financial backing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I will not even begin to challenge the view for fear of going off topic or down a rat hole but seriously what has that got to do with the premise that Chelsea and City have ruined football

Money will always be a factor, it is the nature of the world in which we live, but clubs with little or no history or heritage should not be suddenly thrust onto the heavyweight map on the basis that they have been picked at random by the rich, who could just have easily have elected another club.
...........................

OP please can you give me your definition of history in this context as I am honestly baffled. City have been in existence since 1887, I don't know about Chelsea but I'm sure they have been around a while..... or is history defined by how much silverware a club can boast???

I take your point, Blarmy. This could do with a re-wording.

Metro, I do not disagree, and Liverpool's unexpected rise has upset the status quo somewhat, fuelling one of the most exciting seasons so far.

However, the difference (pointed out in Part 2) between your examples is that Chelsea and City are funded by extraneous sources. The owner is buying the players himself, rather than using funds generated by the club.

This is what causes the distortion. Every club has used money, without doubt. Unless you want a league which requires all players to be local lads, and banning trading, that will always be the case.

But the question is, where does that money come from?

Sky changed football more than Roman


there i said it

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

This is a non article.

Liverpool bought many titles back in the 60s and 70s on the Moores pools fortune.

The Moores family poored money into the club and they went on to buy all the top players at the time.

People on here are very young or have very selective memories.

"OP please can you give me your definition of history in this context as I am honestly baffled. City have been in existence since 1887, I don't know about Chelsea but I'm sure they have been around a while..... or is history defined by how much silverware a club can boast???"

Yes that is a valid point. It is more a case of tradition and heritage.

Teams have fought for years to get into Europe, and there are some great clubs that have featured in the European Cup. Somewhere along the line, those clubs will have had to start from somewhere, and build up a fan base, based on passion and locality.

However, the party is somewhat gatecrashed by teams with no European heritage, suddenly fighting for the prize through little enterprise of their own.

Grow up, Sizz.

IMO while the millions lavished on City and Chelsea have helped other teams (by way of transfer fees) the amount each club has been able to outlay on wages has undoubtedly inflated the market.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

This and part 2 are wums articles out on the Chelsea and city boards to try and get a rise out of the supporters .

All thats wrong with forums to be honest.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

"OP please can you give me your definition of history in this context as I am honestly baffled. City have been in existence since 1887, I don't know about Chelsea but I'm sure they have been around a while..... or is history defined by how much silverware a club can boast???"

Yes that is a valid point. It is more a case of tradition and heritage.

Teams have fought for years to get into Europe, and there are some great clubs that have featured in the European Cup. Somewhere along the line, those clubs will have had to start from somewhere, and build up a fan base, based on passion and locality.

However, the party is somewhat gatecrashed by teams with no European heritage, suddenly fighting for the prize through little enterprise of their own.
............

so if someone ploughs billions into Notts Forest and they win the CL, that's okay as they have already won the Europen cup twice and therefore have heritage?

"Liverpool bought many titles back in the 60s and 70s on the Moores pools fortune.

The Moores family poored money into the club and they went on to buy all the top players at the time."

Another valid point, one which I do not know enough about to comment. But I imagine the money was still run through the club, rather than buying players themselves.

if that is not the case, it is interesting that landscape of the game was not affected by the Moores.

This will obviously attract 1/2 stars from the supporters of the club, but am not sure which other board it would be appropriate on.

Anyone with impartiality may be slightly more charitable.

"so if someone ploughs billions into Notts Forest and they win the CL, that's okay as they have already won the Europen cup twice and therefore have heritage"

It would be impossible to put billions into the club, and it still retain its stature. They were an unfancied side from the midlands who upset the odds (and greater teams) to win it twice. Its like a fairytale.

You pump millions into that, and they win it again, it will be a distortion of their legacy.

"comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 4 minutes ago
This and part 2 are wums articles out on the Chelsea and city boards to try and get a rise out of the supporters .

All thats wrong with forums to be honest."

Which board should I place an article pertinent to Chelsea on?

If anything, I would put it elsewhere, so as not to attract the one-stars.