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

[Aannddyy]

He compared them to Bolton from off the off. The big 4 were not as "settled" as recent years, but they were certainly top end clubs.

Of course, I would say there was almost definitely a "top 3", Liverpool were rather inconsistent, though. Chelsea were around the same level as Newcastle, Villa, & Leeds.. Without the funding it was highly unlikely they would be making any serious challenge for the title in the near future.

Also, Bolton shouldn't be in the position they find themselves in, used to be a top 10 club. Oh well.

Anyway, the point is if you spend x amount of money then sure, you can "buy" yourself a title.. But, does it breed success? Who knows.

 

[apvmoreira]

I must agree that history is not the same as success. Clubs with more than 100 years like City and Chelsea have a big history, ofc, but success... i doubt it.

And what do you mean earned? Every club "buys" titles. Where do you players come from?

Ofc, but not from scratch. Look at Barça, Man Utd in the previous decade, Porto 2003/2004, Ajax in the 90's. very good prospect staff, working hard to get the most of the players and building success with work, not with money (at least the gigantic load of it that the blues and the citizens have at their disposal).

Im a huge fan of Benfica, and i dont imagine a team like Maritimo (middle Portuguese team) getting a new owner at start winning the Portuguese league just because he puts 300 M € in the club. Whats the point of building teams if someone just comes and gives the other money to do it?

We should stop looking at money as a god, or as "the one" rule in life! Hard work and sacrifice are essential to give you THE taste of life for achieving things.

Its like parents now days: Just buy a PS3 to your sun and you will "buy" the love he as for you. Nothing more wrong...

In wich team would you like to play: one that gives you money or one that gives you glory?

 

[Mike.]

Of course, I would say there was almost definitely a "top 3", Liverpool were rather inconsistent, though. Chelsea were around the same level as Newcastle, Villa, & Leeds.. Without the funding it was highly unlikely they would be making any serious challenge for the title in the near future.

Also, Bolton shouldn't be in the position they find themselves in, used to be a top 10 club. Oh well.

Anyway, the point is if you spend x amount of money then sure, you can "buy" yourself a title.. But, does it breed success? Who knows.

Chelsea didnt finish outside the top 6 since 97. Without the funding they were going in administration.

 

[Subtle]

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.

Er no, it was more the fact that tittle looks a lot like a different word on my low res phone monitor

 

[Mike.]

I must agree that history is not the same as success. Clubs with more than 100 years like City and Chelsea have a big history, ofc, but success... i doubt it.



Ofc, but not from scratch. Look at Barça, Man Utd in the previous decade, Porto 2003/2004, Ajax in the 90's. very good prospect staff, working hard to get the most of the players and building success with work, not with money (at least the gigantic load of it that the blues and the citizens have at their disposal).

Im a huge fan of Benfica, and i dont imagine a team like Maritimo (middle Portuguese team) getting a new owner at start winning the Portuguese league just because he puts 300 M € in the club. Whats the point of building teams if someone just comes and gives the other money to do it?

We should stop looking at money as a god, or as "the one" rule in life! Hard work and sacrifice are essential to give you THE taste of life for achieving things.

Its like parents now days: Just buy a PS3 to your sun and you will "buy" the love he as for you. Nothing more wrong...

In wich team would you like to play: one that gives you money or one that gives you glory?

Again Chelsea were not a middle of the road club. They were a top club who were about to go into adminstration, and got lucky that the man who saved them happened to be a billionaire. Do you expect him not to help his club succeed?

 

[apvmoreira]

Again Chelsea were not a middle of the road club. They were a top club who were about to go into adminstration, and got lucky that the man who saved them happened to be a billionaire. Do you expect him not to help his club succeed?

No, he should help, and if im a chelsea fan (who im not) i would be very happy with it. But again, that does not make them great (the clubs).

After seeing the table of transfers posted above, i stand even harder for this!

 

[FM Nutter]

At the end of the day, it would have been easy for a team like Man City to buy Messi, Ronaldo, Gotze, Hazard etc...but they haven't, they may have spent alot on players but it where in the rules of the PL does it say a team can't spent £30m or £40m on players. United fans and the rest of the PL who don't like the money City have spent need to except that City have not only spent money on players but they have have slowly assembled a championship winning sqaud which speaks volumes in itself. If the moneys there to be spent then so be it.

Every transfer window, City have spent less and less and less. The FFP rules wont effect City because really, I can't see them spending £50m on a player in the near future, they dont need to.

People need to ask themselves a question, If an owner of your Football club had the resources that Man City have, would you care how much your team spent? or would you care if that money can get you success? So what If City have spent ££££. I'd much rather see City win the league than the usual United or Chelsea. They have also gone from a Championship side in 2001 to a potential Premier League winning team in 2012 with or without the resources, that is some achievment.

 

[Tyton]

Eh, Barca used to throw hundreds of milions on players as well, lets stop pretending all the stars they had in last 20 years grew on trees. Its just current generation that is so largely based on youth.

 

[Alcaraz]

But what do you expect a Team like Chelsea or Manchester City to do if they want to close the gap on the likes of Manchester United and Arsenal. They certainly do not possess the brand appeal of these 2 clubs which means that right from the start, the playing field is not level. The only way they can close this gap is by going on an initial spending spree by offering exobirant wages and huge transfer fees to secure players who otherwise will not come to the club.

Once they start to be successfull consistently then the need to adopt such a drastic transfer strategy will slowly evaporate because then more and more players who for example: Choose City over other top clubs due to their success.

My point is that it is truly unfair for other fans to gripe about City's spendings, their is no other way for them to become legitimate PL contenders unless they adopt this strategy and how can we blame a club for showing ambition

 

[Mike.]

But what do you expect a Team like Chelsea or Manchester City to do if they want to close the gap on the likes of Manchester United and Arsenal. They certainly do not possess the brand appeal of these 2 clubs which means that right from the start, the playing field is not level. The only way they can close this gap is by going on an initial spending spree by offering exobirant wages and huge transfer fees to secure players who otherwise will not come to the club.

Once they start to be successfull consistently then the need to adopt such a drastic transfer strategy will slowly evaporate because then more and more players who for example: Choose City over other top clubs due to their success.

My point is that it is truly unfair for other fans to gripe about City's spendings, their is no other way for them to become legitimate PL contenders unless they adopt this strategy and how can we blame a club for showing ambition

Well said, it could well easily be argued that what United have in the commercial market gives them a massively unfair advantage, just in a different way. And that's before we even talk about the Spanish two.

 

[Alcaraz]

Eh, Barca used to throw hundreds of milions on players as well, lets stop pretending all the stars they had in last 20 years grew on trees. Its just current generation that is so largely based on youth.

Exactly... Thats why i get really frustrated when people gripe about how City bought the title. Level the playing field for everyone and then you might have a legitimate claim on your hands.

To a certain extent the FA has tried to do that with the TV Rights etc. but obviously the merchandise sales, match revenue, Brand Appeal etc. of different clubs cannot be standardized which means that their is really no other way for clubs like Chelsea or Manchester City to become PLM contenders unless they spend.

So is it unfair? No definitely not. People need to look at the larger picture other than always looking at the transfer fee's

 

[Alcaraz]

Well said, it could well easily be argued that what United have in the commercial market gives them a massively unfair advantage, just in a different way. And that's before we even talk about the Spanish two.

Yes. It is not United's fault that they posses a major commercial advantage over other teams and while continue to do so until both of us die. Its just the way things are. Both City and Chelsea however are able to minimize this disadvantage by their spending prowess.

So in a way the balance of power between the top clubs is as nicely divided as it will ever be. Unless Manchester United get a Sheik Mansour type fellow which combined with their brand appeal will surely take them to another level

 

[Mike.]

Yes. It is not United's fault that they posses a major commercial advantage over other teams and while continue to do so until both of us die. Its just the way things are. Both City and Chelsea however are able to minimize this disadvantage by their spending prowess.

So in a way the balance of power between the top clubs is as nicely divided as it will ever be. Unless Manchester United get a Sheik Mansour type fellow which combined with their brand appeal will surely take them to another level

Dont even need that, just need the debt lifted. Combine that with FFPR (if well regulated), and even City would have trouble with financial firepower.

 

[Alcaraz]

Dont even need that, just need the debt lifted. Combine that with FFPR (if well regulated), and even City would have trouble with financial firepower.

I agree with you mate. I just get really frustrated when I hear people say how 'Chelsea and Manchester City bought the title'... I find it a very naive and unfair statement to make

 

[Aannddyy]

Eh, Barca used to throw hundreds of milions on players as well, lets stop pretending all the stars they had in last 20 years grew on trees. Its just current generation that is so largely based on youth.

Yup. Spanish teams are probably worse for this than the English!

I also worry about their influence when it comes to FFP.. Barcelona make huge losses each year, which are usually only offset by prize money [last year £50m of their £68m loss was made back by them winning the CL & La Liga]..

Also, we've all heard of Man City selling rights for this, that, and everything to their owner's brothers, cousins, dads, nephews, uncles company, but nobody says anything about Real Madrid "selling" their training ground to the city of Madrid for a modest €500m?... Hmm.

 

[Tyton]

Exactly... Thats why i get really frustrated when people gripe about how City bought the title. Level the playing field for everyone and then you might have a legitimate claim on your hands.

Even if sheikhs wanted to use current Barca approach, build for the future and longterm success by investing heavily in the youth, City would never be able to attract young talents with worldwide marketing giant like MU in the region.

How do you compete for young talent who often had spend half of his childhoold wearing Rooney's T-shirt? You cant.

They'd still first have to spend couple of hundred milions to build their brand.

 

[Alcaraz]

Even if sheikhs wanted to use current Barca approach, build for the future and longterm success by investing heavily in the youth, City would never be able to attract young talents with worldwide marketing giant like MU in the region.

How do you compete for young talent who often had spend half of his childhoold wearing Rooney's T-shirt? You cant.

They'd still first have to spend couple of hundred milions to build their brand.

No matter how much they spend though, their brand will never be as big as Manchester United's because of United's unparalled fan base so they only have one option which is to invest heavily on the football pitch which is what they are doing

 

[jgehunter]

Yup. Spanish teams are probably worse for this than the English!

I also worry about their influence when it comes to FFP.. Barcelona make huge losses each year, which are usually only offset by prize money [last year £50m of their £68m loss was made back by them winning the CL & La Liga]..

Also, we've all heard of Man City selling rights for this, that, and everything to their owner's brothers, cousins, dads, nephews, uncles company, but nobody says anything about Real Madrid "selling" their training ground to the city of Madrid for a modest €500m?... Hmm.

Get your fact straight before you talk, Real are a club, that although does spend a lot of money (less and less each year) always generates positive income, and they didn't sell their "training ground" they sold extense terrains which where constructed upon + it was all investigated by Brusels and everything came out clear.

 

[Quasit]

Get your fact straight before you talk, Real are a club, that although does spend a lot of money (less and less each year) always generates positive income, and they didn't sell their "training ground" they sold extense terrains which where constructed upon + it was all investigated by Brusels and everything came out clear.

Although Real have very succesfully lowered their Net Debt in recent years they still generate much of their income from unfair TV deals in La Liga. If the TV money would be even for all clubs their position would be much weaker.

 

[juventus1980]

Get your fact straight before you talk, Real are a club, that although does spend a lot of money (less and less each year) always generates positive income, and they didn't sell their "training ground" they sold extense terrains which where constructed upon + it was all investigated by Brusels and everything came out clear.

Glad someone pointed out he was wrong.