Sponsorships etc. have to be real market value, and non-affiliated with the owner.
930 Million Spent by Manchester City to win the Premier League!!!
- Thread starter sanketutd
- Start date
- Replies 122
- Views 12K
Sponsorships etc. have to be real market value, and non-affiliated with the owner.
With the new FFP ruling, or currently? If currently, they got around it.
With the FFP.
Ah. Thanks for clearing that up, should be interesting to see, since they spend 120% (ish) of all revenue on wages IIRC
Now to see if they can uphold that rule...
Chaz Sexington
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
You definitely seem to have a problem with it.
But why is it an ideal situation? As far as I'm concerned it's a horrible situation when you can implement price fixing - and a cap will make things worse. Many clubs make considerable amounts of their money from selling players expensively. The clubs generally don't run themselves into the ground as they are companies and thus accountable to their stockholders. Compared to bankruptcies in other sectors, football clubs must be considered quite well run.
Alot of us are not bitter United fans, we just prefer facts over the perception that we are like City.
With regards to spending, why do people keep bringing up our numbers from over a decade? Its always people quoting stuff like the Ferdinand or Veron deal + like Ronaldo, Anderson and Nani. People realize you are comparing City's spending in 3 seasons to United in 12 seasons, its ludicrous so stop doing it. Also we earnt alot of the money by being a world marketing giant, not a rich Arabs clubs.
Also the EPL has probably one of the fairest tv money schemes in European football, they all get the same and you get more prize money for finishing higher in the league. If you want to see unfair look at the tv money Barcelona and Madrid pull in compared to EPL clubs and its easy to see why they can spend so much.
Also if City have the money to spend let them spend it. Almost every club in the EPL has benefited from the money they have dropped into it.
With regards to spending, why do people keep bringing up our numbers from over a decade? Its always people quoting stuff like the Ferdinand or Veron deal + like Ronaldo, Anderson and Nani. People realize you are comparing City's spending in 3 seasons to United in 12 seasons, its ludicrous so stop doing it. Also we earnt alot of the money by being a world marketing giant, not a rich Arabs clubs.
Also the EPL has probably one of the fairest tv money schemes in European football, they all get the same and you get more prize money for finishing higher in the league. If you want to see unfair look at the tv money Barcelona and Madrid pull in compared to EPL clubs and its easy to see why they can spend so much.
Also if City have the money to spend let them spend it. Almost every club in the EPL has benefited from the money they have dropped into it.
One would think people would be appreciate how all this cash have raised EPL into dominating power it is today, with even mid-table clubs often having more ability to attract best players in the world, than best teams in the other leagues (save the very few top names).
Instead you're fighting each other who is more of a filthy capitalist. Dear god.
Instead you're fighting each other who is more of a filthy capitalist. Dear god.
Lot of good points there Jono. The 30 year one always gives me a chuckle - how's Terry Phelan doing for Manchester City at the moment? Dean Saunders here is still a 20 goal a season man....
Worth pointing out though that what gave you the muscle to get where you are now as a club was the stock market flotation which bailed out a bottom half of the table team and its manager with more cash to spend. Not throwing stones there (Liverpool supporters need to remember that our initial success was bankrolled by John Moores personal wealth), just highlighting a lot of clubs got initial success through heavy spending. Few turn it into something long term once the money stops flowing in though.
Don't see the fuss about Manchester City's owners spending money. You can question the level and scale of the spending as it has totally distorted the market, but then Roman did the same, and if you want to go even further back in time, Chapman at Arsenal was offering to double players's wages in the 1920s!
City won the lottery. They're attracting a ton of whoppers, as every club does when it has a bit of success, but there's lads there who followed them down the divisions and who I'm genuinely happy for. Deeply envious. But still pleased for them
apvmoreira
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 3,111
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
Just one thing:
Divide 930 M by your local town population and see how many people would get happy.
Spending so much in a game is like buying FM2012 for 500 €!!!
Like Chelsea, Man City can buy players and win championships, but they will never have a history to tell and that, my friends, its what makes a Club, nothing more.
Its like playing FM12 with Bolton and putting 500M € there! All of you would call me a cheater! But thats what Abram and the Sheik did
Divide 930 M by your local town population and see how many people would get happy.
Spending so much in a game is like buying FM2012 for 500 €!!!
Like Chelsea, Man City can buy players and win championships, but they will never have a history to tell and that, my friends, its what makes a Club, nothing more.
Its like playing FM12 with Bolton and putting 500M € there! All of you would call me a cheater! But thats what Abram and the Sheik did
Chelsea has a very bright history if we look what they have won in last decade.City have started building a history for me which would take ages to match of United's.
It's not really anything like that considering Chelsea were in the top 4 before Ambramovich came in, and you're comparing the team then to relegation candidates Bolton? Lol.
apvmoreira
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 3,111
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
Please tell me I'm not the only one that had to read this 3 or 4 times...
apvmoreira
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 3,111
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
If you show me what they earned before Mourinho i will personally drop my pants and go to the town square singing Kelly Family...
My point of view its simple: Money can give you a tittle and you can build a history with it (like Chelsea in the past years), but it will never be the same as working your **** to the top! You are just "buying" tittles.
History isnt the same as success. Learn that for a start. Chelsea have lots of history, but not much relative success, however they wre already an established top 4 club who had had title challenges beforehand, including a classic three way title challenge.
And what do you mean earned? Every club "buys" titles. Where do you players come from?
Although I disagree with apvmoreira's point, Chelsea definitely weren't an established top 4 club.. That 4th place, and the 3rd place [I think it was 3rd] they had a few years previous were their only league "successes", the rest of the time they had been top 6 at best.. So what he's saying is kind of true.
He compared them to Bolton from off the off. The big 4 were not as "settled" as recent years, but they were certainly a top end club, who got lucky as they were about to go into administration. From premier league inception they were midtable for 4 years, then never finished outside the top 6 from 97 onwards.
Last edited: