930 Million Spent by Manchester City to win the Premier League!!!
- Thread starter sanketutd
- Start date
- Replies 122
- Views 12K
Jack Fulham
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
and that is why financial fair play is bad.
Indeed, it's terrible that UEFA would make teams sustainably finance themselves by their own means rather than the unsustainable funding of an owner. **** them!
its so stupid of themJack Fulham
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
it makes competition ****, can't wait to see the same teams at the top over and over because they will have the financial muscle to out spend and out pay everyone else. if an owner is willing to throw money which they have at a cause, then let them.
They still are allowed to throw money at a club, in the right way. Infrastructure investments are exempt from calculations, it encourages clubs to improve their training grounds, their youth facilities so that they can produce players for themselves. To invest in marketing, stadium expansions etc. so that the club can generate its own revenues which it can in turn spend on players as it sees fit. Any business worth its salt is going to operate in the same way, why would you want to be inherently reliant on the uncertainty of an outside benefactor than being in control of your own finances? Stop looking at the successful cases where foreign owners have increased competition and consider the numerous cases where a rich owner has come in promising the world, and driven the club to financial oblivion.
Jack Fulham
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
yes but any investment say for example my club makes into infrastructure is a good thing but that can only take you so far. My club could improve it revenues but we will always hit a ceiling, there is only so far you can go as you're competing against big brands like United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. Teams can produce player for themselves but you will only lose them to these bigger brands because quite simply, financial fair play will allow them to pay them more than you can. For me, it will create an oligarchy at the top and that is something I don't want to see. I do believe clubs should stand on there own two feet but for a team to become more competitive through infrastructure improvements is just going to take far too long. Obviously you will have the anomalies where a club will punch above there weight during the season but that will most likely lead to them being gutted for there players.
Two points
1: If Sheik or Roman suddenly lost the company/ died/ lost interest or were infolved in a scandel of some sort Man city or Chelsea would vanish due to costs of wages etc
2: swansea, Norwich, Monchen gladbach, Dortmund have all risen up and broken top teams eg Man city, Liverpool, Bayern, Chelsea and all with players that cost <5m. Another example is newcastle.
1: If Sheik or Roman suddenly lost the company/ died/ lost interest or were infolved in a scandel of some sort Man city or Chelsea would vanish due to costs of wages etc
2: swansea, Norwich, Monchen gladbach, Dortmund have all risen up and broken top teams eg Man city, Liverpool, Bayern, Chelsea and all with players that cost <5m. Another example is newcastle.
Jack Fulham
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
To continue my point, if you have a genuine owner who has the money and is willing to put the money into there team then I don't see why they should be denied this. Financial fair play will lead to teams being desperate to increase there revenue streams. Now there are only do many avenues they can take to increase this and I think it could lead to increase in prices for tickets, merchandise and things such as food and drink inside the ground which will hit the fan in the pocket. I don't think financial FairPlay is a bad thing but I don't agree with all of it. Making yourself more competitive via infrastructure will take a long long time especially when you consider external restrictions there is a limit to how big your ground can be and that is causing Liverpool and Chelsea problems at the moment.
Jack Fulham
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
1. If they die, the money doesn't disappear. On top of that, whoever inherits is likely to continue what they started, for example at Fulham Al Fayed has 2 of his sons on th board of directors. Obviously this is not always the case see Jack Walker and Blackburn but you can't just assume they will lose interest in the club. Another example is Liebherr at Southampton, since his death, they!ve just won promotion to the premier league. If the the money did magically vanish, these clubs will most liekly have been successful enough attract a new rich benefactor or a number of benefactors see Rangers football club right now.
2. I agree they're all well ran clubs and have beaten those teams but could Swansea or Norwich ever reach the heights of Manchester united or Liverpool through infrastructure, can't see it myself, they would need a rich benefactor. I'd argue Dortmund do have the infrastructure in place to compete with the likes of Bayern although they're not as rich, they're still a huge club. When you consider the size of a club like Newcastle it is not surprising that they're in a position that they're in. I'm saying these clubs can't compete without a rich benefactor but a lot of clubs wouldn't be able to compete over an entire season with the top top clubs without a rich benefactor.
I agree with this completely. Yes Norwich and Swansea have done well but the only way they will ever be able to compete with the likes of Manchester United and Liverpool is by getting taken over by a rich benefactor. The simple reason for that is because they simply not do not have a global brand appeal which severely limits what they can or cannot do
Dortmund on the other hand are a very big club despite not having a rich benefactor. They have a huge fan base and their infrastructure is huge. This means that they make enough revenue from merchandise sales, match days etc. allowing them to develop their scouting network and youth academy so as to stay on par with Bayern Munich.
This is not the case for Norwich or Swansea who simply do not make enough revenue to actually allow them to develop the club's infrastructure. Thus if they want to be bigger they need a Sheik Mansour type fellow who can come in and attract players with obscene amounts of money so as to make the club better
Same goes for Newcastle. Excellent infrastructure. A decently rich owner. Huge fan base
heres one for you guys slating city "buying" the premier league.
[TABLE="class: tablebg, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: row1, bgcolor: #EFEFEF"]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]The following is a list of British transfer records set by English Clubs and clearly highlights which Club is predominently to blame when it comes to perpetuating the spiraling transfer fees, not just over the past 25 years but for very, very much longer:
March 1951 : Jackie Sewell : Notts County : Sheffield Wednesday : £34,500
July 1962 : Denis Law : Torino : Manchester United : £115,000
Manchester United caused the record to rise by more than 33%, more than tripling the previous record any English Club had paid, no other English Club paid more than £34,500 in the period between the transfers listed above.
October 1981 : Bryan Robson : West Bromwich Albion : Manchester United : £1,500,000
January 1995 : Andy Cole : Newcastle United : Manchester United : £7,000,000
Manchester United caused the record to rise by more than 450%, more than quadrupeling the previous record any English Club had paid, no other English Club paid more than £34,500 in the period between the transfers listed above.
June 1995 : Stan Collymore : Nottingham Forest : Liverpool : £8,500,000
July 1996 : Alan Shearer : Blackburn Rovers : Newcastle United : £15,000,000
Most fans were amzed by the size of the fee Newcastle paid for someone who clearly was the best centre forward in World footbal at the time, though due to the huge hike in fees directly due to Manchester Uniteds deal for Andy Cole, Newcasltle were facilitated in being able to afford a deal which raised the previous record set by Liverpool by around 40%.
July 2001 : Juan Sebastián Verón : Lazio : Manchester United : £28,100,000
July 2002 : Rio Ferdinand : Leeds United : Manchester United : £29,100,000
However just to top it off Manchester United then raised the bar to astronomic levels again when in the space of 12 months they spent an incredible combined £57,200,000, which in essence increased the amount paid out by any English Club by over 375%, an increase which no other Club in England and probably Globally could even have dreamt of.
In the 61 years covered above, Manchester City have broken the British transfer record twice, once in 1979 when they paid £1,450,000 for Steve Daley, an increase of between 20% and 30%, but which lasted for less than a Month before being beaten by Wolves. On the second and only other occasion was in 2008 some 30 years later when they paid £32,500,000 for Robhino, again raising the bar but again in City's case by a meagre in comparison 15%.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
this is forgetting aguero, robinho, rooney, carrick nani, anderson etc...
united have raised the transfers fee's, city have just had to adapt.
[TABLE="class: tablebg, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: row1, bgcolor: #EFEFEF"]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]The following is a list of British transfer records set by English Clubs and clearly highlights which Club is predominently to blame when it comes to perpetuating the spiraling transfer fees, not just over the past 25 years but for very, very much longer:
March 1951 : Jackie Sewell : Notts County : Sheffield Wednesday : £34,500
July 1962 : Denis Law : Torino : Manchester United : £115,000
Manchester United caused the record to rise by more than 33%, more than tripling the previous record any English Club had paid, no other English Club paid more than £34,500 in the period between the transfers listed above.
October 1981 : Bryan Robson : West Bromwich Albion : Manchester United : £1,500,000
January 1995 : Andy Cole : Newcastle United : Manchester United : £7,000,000
Manchester United caused the record to rise by more than 450%, more than quadrupeling the previous record any English Club had paid, no other English Club paid more than £34,500 in the period between the transfers listed above.
June 1995 : Stan Collymore : Nottingham Forest : Liverpool : £8,500,000
July 1996 : Alan Shearer : Blackburn Rovers : Newcastle United : £15,000,000
Most fans were amzed by the size of the fee Newcastle paid for someone who clearly was the best centre forward in World footbal at the time, though due to the huge hike in fees directly due to Manchester Uniteds deal for Andy Cole, Newcasltle were facilitated in being able to afford a deal which raised the previous record set by Liverpool by around 40%.
July 2001 : Juan Sebastián Verón : Lazio : Manchester United : £28,100,000
July 2002 : Rio Ferdinand : Leeds United : Manchester United : £29,100,000
However just to top it off Manchester United then raised the bar to astronomic levels again when in the space of 12 months they spent an incredible combined £57,200,000, which in essence increased the amount paid out by any English Club by over 375%, an increase which no other Club in England and probably Globally could even have dreamt of.
In the 61 years covered above, Manchester City have broken the British transfer record twice, once in 1979 when they paid £1,450,000 for Steve Daley, an increase of between 20% and 30%, but which lasted for less than a Month before being beaten by Wolves. On the second and only other occasion was in 2008 some 30 years later when they paid £32,500,000 for Robhino, again raising the bar but again in City's case by a meagre in comparison 15%.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
this is forgetting aguero, robinho, rooney, carrick nani, anderson etc...
united have raised the transfers fee's, city have just had to adapt.
californiagooner
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Teams like Liverpool and Arsenal have had to adapt. City is raising the stakes and daring someone to pay more than them.
Seriously, i cant even begin to describe how surreal is the entire concept of City "purposely" inflating the market. They're rich. But they're not endlessly rich. If you bring extra money into the pool, there will always be inflation, that's it.
Liverpool are only here today because they are being bankrolled by a new owner, that has nothing to do with their history at all.
1 League Title, 3 FA Cups, 2 League Cups, 2 Full Members Cups, 2 Community Shields, 2 Uefa Cup Winners Cups and Super Cup (which we beat Real Madrid 1-0). World known players such as Gianfranco Zola, Gianluca Vialli, Ruud Gullit, Glen Hoddle, Brian Laudrup, George Weah, Frank Lampard, John Terry Eidur Gudjohnsen, Jimmy Floyed Hasselbaink, Albert Ferrer, Didier Deschamps, Jimmy Greaves, and Marcel Desailly. Domestic well known players such as Terry Venables, Peter Bonetti, William 'fatty' Foulke, Kerry Dixon and Dennis Wise. Highest aggregate score in European Competition (21-0), joint first team to wear numbers on our shirts, first club to travel by aeroplane to a domestic away match, first 1st division side to play on a sunday and first British side to field a completely foreign 11 and i could go on and on about attendances too but i won't. Guess what, all before Roman bought Chelsea. #KnowYourStuffBeforePosting
Season 1998/1999 Chelsea were joint top come Xmas time but suffered huge injury to Gus Poyet and a few over key members hindered our league form as we were fighting on 3 fronts (FA Cup which we won and the Champions League).
Now I bet people were wondering when I would pop up and have my say, laptop was broke is the answer to that. Now, I have always said money does not guarentee success. Chelsea spent far more than anyone else back in 03/04, won nothing. Liverpool spent 150 million, yes they won the Carling Cup but it was still a very poor season by their standards. PSG have spent **** loads and won nothing, Malaga and Anzhi the same. Money can be a huge help if used in the correct way but it has no designed right to beat a side which have a great understanding together. Blackburn spent millions in 95, won 1 titles but all in all was no match for Utd's side who mostly were all bought through the youth academy. Madrid have spent millions but until recently were no match for Barca's lads who have come through the youth academy together. Utd lost the title for me this year so that has nothing to do with how much City have spent. Also if there is any 'bitter' Utd fans on here just remember back in 1909 someone pumped 60,000 into Utd which then was 60x the world record transfer fee, put that in today's terms it would be like giving a club 4.8billion just to spend on players.
And for all the other teams supporters who may be bitter about Chelsea and City's spending it could very well be your club one day. Both of us would never have believed we would ever be in a position like this, and if you are one day you will ******* enjoy it.
Not quite sorry. Total investment in new players by current owners above what club generates itself = £30m (actually £26m because last owners took £4m out of the club for their little debts but meh, what's £4m between friends?). What's happened is that purchase debt from previous owners has been removed from the club. Worst case scenario before they took over was administration until a new buyer was found. It has absolutely nothing to do with player purchases but how the club was purchased. Unlike Chelsea and Manchester City.
Well Chelsea were days away from administration and possible liquidation. So you could say Roman buying the club was needed other wise there would not be a Chelsea F.C today.
Agree with what Jacko says, people need to stop complaining. Rich owners come and go, its part and parcel of the game. A few years ago people were complaining about the big 4 ruining the league, well you can thank City and Spurs for breaking it up and making the league far more exciting. Now Spurs dont have a billionaire running them, but City do and thankfully we have more then just 4 clubs competing for top spots. I dont like city for winning because they are a rival club, not because they spent almost a billion pounds on players.
Lets just celebrate the new competitiveness rather then condemn them, because quite frankly if they werent around, it would be that same crying about a big 4 which would make no better then La Liga.
Lets just celebrate the new competitiveness rather then condemn them, because quite frankly if they werent around, it would be that same crying about a big 4 which would make no better then La Liga.
Steve*
Y.N.W.A.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,697
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 38
Typical response. I would hardly call Liverpool being bankrolled... The owners bought the club and with that liquidised most or our debt. Which may I add was factored into the price of the sale. We have relied on our excellent connections to get good sponsorships. Standard Chartered and Warrior are paying us a fortune for sponsorship. Apart from the purchase of the club the owners have stumped up about £20m of their own cash into the club. That figure is hardly astronomical in todays terms. I cant be bothered by quoting you again but you said Liverpool spent £150M... Liverpool have spent £130M in the past 2 seasons. Sounds like a lot doesnt it? Well out of that 130m we have recouped £105M in player sales. We really spent £25m in a 2 year period. We also paid out 50m to scrap silly stadium plans from the previous owners. Without that expenditure Liverpool as a business would actually be in pre tax profit.
But yeah your obviously right....Our owner is bankrolling us. Dont post anything unless you have some credability.
A stat for anybody interested. Spending of the big clubs since the Premier League began in 1992:
Team: Money Spent: Money Recieved: Net Total: Average cost per season:
Arsenal £341.09M £319.48M £21.62M £1.31M
Chelsea £744.44M £228.47M £515.96M £25.80M
Liverpool £552.20M £325.97M £226.23M £11.31M
Man City £649.18M £175.55M £473.63M £23.68M
Man Utd £483.15M £305.83M £177.31M £8.86M
On average over the 20 seasons Chelsea and Man City have made a net transfer loss more than Liverpool, Arsenal and Man Utd combined. Such simple stats and its laid out in black and white. Chelsea and City are pumping money into transfers at an unsustainable rate. They buy players for large sums which will never have resale value. Their sprees in the transfer markets have been funded out of their Chairmans pockets. This is unfair competition and it is their antics that have forced other clubs to spend big and now face crippling debts.
Effectively Chelsea and City have ruined the modern game of football. I am Liverpool through and through. But over the past few seasons I show more respect to Man Utd and Arsenal fans purely for their heritage and traditions. Were not some billionaires plaything who pumps endless amounts of money into. If Liverpool, Arsenal and Man Uniteds owners packed up and left in the morning all 3 clubs would survive. We have the sustainability in place to continue. City and Chelsea on the other hand would face administration if such an event occured. Both clubs are spending way beyond their means. Greed in football was the catalyst of Roman Abramovich and his Russian Roubles. After he threw the money around it was socially acceptable for Chairmen to put their clubs futures in the balance.
So now all the points have been outlined how can Chelsea and City fans shake off the "plastic" price tag? It has been shown how they have overspent more than 3 of their competitors combined over a long period of time. Fact is this table is flattering. If the table had started in 2003 when Chelsea were taken over the results would have been even more astonishing.