930 Million Spent by Manchester City to win the Premier League!!!

[Mike.]

Did Man Utd not inflate the market buying Berbatov for 31m, Ferdinand for 29m, Veron 28m, Rooney 27m, Van Nistelrooy 20m, Anderson 20m, De Gea 19m, Carrick 18.9 m, Nani 17.3m, Hargreaves 17m, i could go on. And the money isn't United's either really, its mostly borrowed from banks by foreign American owners. You sound like a bitter United fan to me.

That isnt true, the money is very much Uniteds. What the Glazers used to leverage the club is borrowed from american banks, but everything that gets spent (including the vast waste on servicing interest on debt the club shouldnt even have) is entirely generated by the club. I'd argue none of those inflated the market, nor have City inflated it through fees. What could be argued is that City have had an effect on the inflation of wages, but even that was something that begun with Chelsea, and is something that all clubs are actually guilty of.

 

[Mike.]

Typical United fan, can't accept defeat gracefully.



TV money is shared evenly. Prize money isn't, obviously. You also receive a fee each time you are on TV, which is fair.

Also, I would love to see a salary cap in football, not because I think it should be paid on nurses, blah, blah, but because it would make the game much more exciting. Although, if they did do it (which they won't) the cap will be so high it won't make a difference anyway, like in NFL.

He isnt a typical United fan, so rather than generalise, pick him on his own points. Cheers

 

[Mike.]

But that is not only City's doing. It's been going on for long time.

Indeed, City at best have added to the problem, they certainly didnt make the problem.

 

[Mike.]

Clearly, there is a fascinating debate to be had on this, but if it cant be done without calling people bitter/deluded/living in the past/plastic etc etc, then I'll just close it. Keep it clean.

 

[Aannddyy]

He isnt a typical United fan, so rather than generalise, pick him on his own points. Cheers

I wasn't referring to the article.. It was aimed at most of the United fans posts in here.

 

[sunilvk7]

City did what they have to, to catch up with big boys. Now with FFP coming into play all they have to do is break even and plan a strategy rather than throwing money at everything.

I think we wont be seeing City spending ridiculous money again as they have done that part already. From now on it will be steady progress, selling few players and trying to add that to budget. And Mancini wont be having unlimited funds every season either.

Only problem is wages, they are paying too much that they are not able to sell players. This might come back to hurt them as they will lose revenue source (Selling players).

It is beyond joke to see people jumping on Sanket's back just because he is United fan and he started the thread. Typical behavior anyways. And it is even more joke that people are comparing this to what United did. There is lot of difference between steady progress and buying everything that moves at once and also difference between club spending what they earn and sugar daddy funding it.

 

[Mike.]

I wasn't referring to the article.. It was aimed at most of the United fans posts in here.

Yes, that was exactly my point.For he is the only united fan who has even taken that view in here.

Like i said before, if this cant be debated with people throwing pointless jibes in all directions ill just close it.

 

[Mike.]

City did what they have to, to catch up with big boys. Now with FFP coming into play all they have to do is break even and plan a strategy rather than throwing money at everything.

I think we wont be seeing City spending ridiculous money again as they have done that part already. From now on it will be steady progress, selling few players and trying to add that to budget. And Mancini wont be having unlimited funds every season either.

Only problem is wages, they are paying too much that they are not able to sell players. This might come back to hurt them as they will lose revenue source (Selling players).

It is beyond joke to see people jumping on Sanket's back just because he is United fan and he started the thread. Typical behavior anyways. And it is even more joke that people are comparing this to what United did. There is lot of difference between steady progress and buying everything that moves at once and also difference between club spending what they earn and sugar daddy funding it.

There is a difference, but their is nothing wrong with either approach. City made the most of closing the gap before FFPR. They were entitled to spend as they see fit.

 

[Subtle]

But that is not only City's doing. It's been going on for long time.

Oh totally, but GC asked why someone would inflate the market. I was responding to that.

 

[sunilvk7]

There is a difference, but their is nothing wrong with either approach. City made the most of closing the gap before FFPR. They were entitled to spend as they see fit.

Off course there is nothing wrong with what they did. Every team has their own strategies. I was just pointing out at few who were quick to play "United did that too" card as in 20 years Liverpool, Chelsea, ManCity have all spent more than us.

Once again, I haven't said City are not entitled, they can spend as much as they want I dont have any problem. Had we done our jobs properly we would have been celebrating league title by now.

 

[Subtle]

TV money is shared evenly. [...] You also receive a fee each time you are on TV, which is fair.

See that's one of the issues that I have. You create a self sustaining cycal of success when the model is allowed to wor that way. If you win then you get popular, if you get popular then you get extra tv money, if you get extra money you have better resources and have a better chance at winning again. Obviously this applies for prize money too so it becomes a bit tricky.

I'm not asking for some communist football state where everyone has exactly the same amount of money, but I do think that certain things should be restricted. It's hard to make it work practically, but I guess you could enforce a spending cap on everything so that even if your club is rich, you can't just ***** 350 million in a year just on transfers and contracts. Even then, if it was capped to say £20m a year, you'd still have clubs that could barely afford to spend half of that every 3 seasons, whilst the rich clubs will always be eager to spend it all and so would end up overpaying or with bloated squads. :-/

 

[sanketutd]

I just started this thread! It is good to see though how many people love to see United fall.Why does any thing I said is on behalf of every United fan? This is my opinion! I don't care what city do or don't do but I do care what we can do and I am not just speaking on United's case; the way every economy is right now it is impossible for any club to compete with City. What is FFP going to do? It is not going to ban them from playing in england is it? I don't have a problem with city spending money on players but it is the amount of wages they are paying, 150k on barry for heaven's sake! Why should I be bitter City have deserved to win the title overall with their performance.I was talking as overall state of football. I am not worriedd about United because I trust in Fergie and I also trust in our youth policy which I hope will pay dividends.

 

[Subtle]

You have actually got a point tbf. It's not fair to act in that way. I can't agree with what Mike said earlier

there is nothing wrong with either approach. [...] They were entitled to spend as they see fit.

I mean, on a purely technical level I can because there was no strict rule that said they couldn't, but it's a bit like when a lot of MPS refused to apologise for robbing the public for ****** biscuits because technically they could. As Michael Martin said at the time, the world is better when people act within "the spirit of what is right", rather than within the bare bones of the law.

That said, nothing will change and it's been going on for ever in some form or another. Just like I ended up saying to Andy, it's a nightmare because its almost impossible to keep people even and keep things fair. Should a Sheik be allowed to pump you full of money because he thinks he can build your global brand and eventually make you into a profitable organisation? If not, why not? If football's being corrupted by money why is it fair that United can use their considerable brand to generate revenues that other clubs can only dream of?

Ultimately, money will always be a factor in the game. There is almost no way to get around that. Is it unfair? Yes, but it's also inevitable.

SO EVERYONE IS RIGHT! ^^

 

[Ecstasy]

Would be fun and sad somehow at the same time seeing Manchester City ending up like Blackburn, in a few years.

 

[JP Woody]

Would be fun and sad somehow at the same time seeing Manchester City ending up like Blackburn, in a few years.

I wouldn't wish that on any club.


Except Newcastle.

 

[Chaz Sexington]

See that's one of the issues that I have. You create a self sustaining cycal of success when the model is allowed to wor that way. If you win then you get popular, if you get popular then you get extra tv money, if you get extra money you have better resources and have a better chance at winning again. Obviously this applies for prize money too so it becomes a bit tricky.

Winning shouldn't be awarded? What sort of nonsensical concept is that? That one team would monopolise winning is also unheard of. Granted, you get a few teams that are always in the running, but they are in general from larger cities with bigger fanbases (both local and worldwide). Not saying what you are saying isn't true with regards to success breeding success, but having teams open to investors would do more to mix things up than any one person deciding how you can spend your money. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to buy their club's merchandise if they've already made enough money?

I'm not asking for some communist football state where everyone has exactly the same amount of money, but I do think that certain things should be restricted. It's hard to make it work practically, but I guess you could enforce a spending cap on everything so that even if your club is rich, you can't just ***** 350 million in a year just on transfers and contracts. Even then, if it was capped to say £20m a year, you'd still have clubs that could barely afford to spend half of that every 3 seasons, whilst the rich clubs will always be eager to spend it all and so would end up overpaying or with bloated squads. :-/

This is completely ridiculous. Hasn't e.g. Everton benefited from City's spending spree? Joleon Lescott for a silly amount and indirectly making Arsenal buy Arteta. City's spending spree has pumped money into the whole system. A company should spend its own money as it sees. Capping a player's value would have so many consequences it isn't even funny. A club wouldn't need to accept it (and probably wouldn't) unless the player wanted to leave (forcing them to accept) and would have to offer silly contracts instead to keep the player around. Furthermore, it would generally limit the top clubs to a single player a year with the current market. Additionally what would stop other leagues from offering more money?

Price fixing players will also result in clubs rather than spending ticket and TV proceedings on players will go out of the club to the shareholders through dividends.

Additionally, price fixing is illegal under British law (Not USSR law).

 

[Joel`]

See that's one of the issues that I have. You create a self sustaining cycal of success when the model is allowed to wor that way. If you win then you get popular, if you get popular then you get extra tv money, if you get extra money you have better resources and have a better chance at winning again. Obviously this applies for prize money too so it becomes a bit tricky.

I'm not asking for some communist football state where everyone has exactly the same amount of money, but I do think that certain things should be restricted. It's hard to make it work practically, but I guess you could enforce a spending cap on everything so that even if your club is rich, you can't just ***** 350 million in a year just on transfers and contracts. Even then, if it was capped to say £20m a year, you'd still have clubs that could barely afford to spend half of that every 3 seasons, whilst the rich clubs will always be eager to spend it all and so would end up overpaying or with bloated squads. :-/

How do you enforce a spending cap? A salary cap? What's to prevent say, Russia, deciding they won't cap their clubs' spending making their league much more competitive than ours? If you cap transfers and salaries then what does a club like United do with its surpluses each year? Let them fester away in the bank? Pay shareholders? Surely that money being injected into the league is better than it being siphoned off by private owners? How is it fair to clubs if their currency takes a dive in the exchange market? Do you constantly link the cap to the exchange rate? What do you do if the market becomes volatile? Is it fair that a club can completely lose its ability to bring in foreign players between transfer windows because of external economic factors? Far, far, far too messy and complicated to implicate with any meaningful effect. FFPR is the closest and fairest implementation we'll get. Money allows you to invest in facilities, allowing better and better talent to come through, stadiums so more fans can see live games, better playing surfaces, sports science research etc. All of these improve football for the better and are exempt from FFP calculations, promoting a more sustainable growth to clubs, without creating massive market disequilibriums by setting arbitrary caps.

Clubs 'buying' success isn't 'unfair'. Define fairness, it's subjective. I find it unfair to strip clubs like United, Arsenal, Liverpool of their spending power that they have earned through being successful in footballing terms in a vain attempt to promote competition.

 

[Subtle]

Winning shouldn't be awarded? What sort of nonsensical concept is that?[...]

What? I think you may have misread my post as I was saying what I wanted then admitting that it could never happen because it would probably lead to a state where winning isn't rewarded.

Capping a player's value would have so many consequences it isn't even funny. A club wouldn't need to accept it (and probably wouldn't) unless the player wanted to leave (forcing them to accept) and would have to offer silly contracts instead to keep the player around. Furthermore, it would generally limit the top clubs to a single player a year with the current market. Additionally what would stop other leagues from offering more money?

Price fixing players will also result in clubs rather than spending ticket and TV proceedings on players will go out of the club to the shareholders through dividends.

Again, as you can see in my later post, I admit that it would be virtually impossible to implement. You would need a cross league consensus to make it happen and that's never going to happen because the top clubs that spend all the money have the threat of their own super league if they ever need to stomp all over the relevant FAs.

But again I was talking about an ideal situation, what is right rather than what's actually going to happen.

Additionally, price fixing is illegal under British law (Not USSR law).

[video=youtube;GUexHghywbk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUexHghywbk[/video]

 

[Subtle]

Clubs 'buying' success isn't 'unfair'. Define fairness, it's subjective. I find it unfair to strip clubs like United, Arsenal, Liverpool of their spending power that they have earned through being successful in footballing terms in a vain attempt to promote competition.

The first bit is something I've already responded to. Maybe it wasn't clear that I was talking in ideal terms. The second bit is something I already recognised in the very post that you quoted. It would be very hard to make a system that rewards clubs, yet still keep balance.

To be honest though, I don't think I'd mind taking away financial incentives for winning because I really understand why they're good for the game.

 

[I7IDanny]

I think the problem with FFP in regards to City is that their owners can pump 400m into the club and call it "sponsorship", even though it's from the same pocket - for example, the naming rights of Eastlands. Etihad Airways, also owned by (Or from the same company/family) Sheihk Mansour.

Who's to say that when FFP comes in, City won't just announce a deal for £500m with "United Arab Biscuits" to sponsor their half-time snacks? That is an advantage that they have over other clubs, save possibly Madrid and Barca.