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

*sorry that table didnt really work out. Couldnt be arsed in making up a proper table. But my point still gets across
 
Steve* said:
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.
Click to expand...

How have we ruined the game of football? Prices were going up as it was and it was only a matter of time before football became a business. If Chelsea and Man City had not have been bought the Premier League and Champions League would have missed out on some sensational games and players.
 
There were rich chairman splurges long before Abramovich.
 
By simply pricing a player out of a move elsewhere if your interested. You went behind United's back to sign Robben and Mikel who had both pretty much signed for United. Mikel had actually signed a contract. You broke codes of conduct with Arsenal over the transfer of Ashley Cole and were shown to have tapped him up. With Liverpool I wont mention Torres, you were welcome to him. But you were also accused with trying to tap up Gerrard but he had sence.

You talked about United breaking transfer records etc. But by and large they were good players that they signed for large sums.
Look at some of your high profile blunders:
Damien Duff cost 17M...sold for 5M.....12M loss
JS Veron cost £15M....released......£15M loss
Adrian Mutu cost £16M...sacked....£16M loss
Hernan Crespo cost £17M...released....£17M loss
SW Phillips cost £21M...sold for £9m....£12M loss
Shevchenko cost £30M...released....£30M loss

Thats a £102M loss on just six big name players you had on your books.
Chelsea paid big money on average players and gave them big wages. Other clubs had to match your fees and wage costs just to stay competitive.
The answer to your question is simple. Chelsea started a downward trend of spending big which has crippled many clubs with debts. Thats how they have ruined the modern game...
 
pretty sure United bought Veron and Ferdinand for astronomical amounts pre Abramovich. I don't remember Chelsea spending more than that on a player until Torres which was 9 years later after Madrid signed Kaka and Ronaldo which inflated the market further.
 
Steve* said:
By simply pricing a player out of a move elsewhere if your interested. You went behind United's back to sign Robben and Mikel who had both pretty much signed for United. Mikel had actually signed a contract. You broke codes of conduct with Arsenal over the transfer of Ashley Cole and were shown to have tapped him up. With Liverpool I wont mention Torres, you were welcome to him. But you were also accused with trying to tap up Gerrard but he had sence.

You talked about United breaking transfer records etc. But by and large they were good players that they signed for large sums.
Look at some of your high profile blunders:
Damien Duff cost 17M...sold for 5M.....12M loss
JS Veron cost £15M....released......£15M loss
Adrian Mutu cost £16M...sacked....£16M loss
Hernan Crespo cost £17M...released....£17M loss
SW Phillips cost £21M...sold for £9m....£12M loss
Shevchenko cost £30M...released....£30M loss

Thats a £102M loss on just six big name players you had on your books.
Chelsea paid big money on average players and gave them big wages. Other clubs had to match your fees and wage costs just to stay competitive.
The answer to your question is simple. Chelsea started a downward trend of spending big which has crippled many clubs with debts. Thats how they have ruined the modern game...
Click to expand...

which clubs?
 
Steve* said:
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.
Click to expand...



Liverpool have good sponsorships for one and only reason because of their brand appeal. Because of their unparalled global fan base, sponsors are willing to pay Liverpool 32m per season simply because they are Liverpool football club. Thus they are prepared to overlook certain issues such as performance of the team whilst giving their financial backing.

The same cannot be said for the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City. Due to the fact that these two clubs are not as widely supported or are not as big as the likes of Manchester United and Liverpool, we only get sponsorships as long as we continue to perform on the pitch and bring in the resuts. Once that stops then sponsors will slowly pull out because we just do not command as large a brand appeal as Liverpool and hence have nothing else to offer them

Recently, Samsung's CEO even subtly put forth the point in a recent interview with Bloomberg when asked whether he would renew their current sponsorship of our team.. Link to Article is here

This means that if Chelsea or Manchester City have a bad season then they will be impacted more gravely than if Liverpool was to have a bad season. Evidence to prove that is the fact on how Liverpool can get a huge sponsorship despite underperforming for two consecutive seasons while Chelsea only get a fraction of Liverpool's sponsorship despite being being more successfull than them in the past 6-7 years

Again why is this happening... Liverpool just have a greater brand appeal than Chelsea. I cannot stress this enough. This major commercial advantage that Liverpool have allows them to obtain sponsors like Warrior Sports, however clubs like Chelsea will never possess the brand appeal that Liverpool have meaning that brands will more likely back Liverpool than Chelsea to tap into Liverpools unparalleled global fan base

So this means that not only does Chelsea/Manchester City face a huge commercial disadvantage as compared to Liverpool/Man Utd but the importance of being successfull on a consistent basis is far greater for them in a financial sense.

So now we must ask ourself is that how can these two clubs achieve that success when they know that players will more likely move to Man Utd/Liverpool rather than to them. Well the only way is to provide them with financial incentives to move by offering their huge wages because if Chelsea/Manchester City were to offer 'normal' wages then surely players will move to the Man Utd/Liverpool

Now obviously since Chelsea have achieved quite a bit of success in the recent years the need for us to offer such exobirant wages has decreased and players are more likely to move to us even when we offer 'normal' wages. Good evidence of that is someone like Juan Mata who is only on 80k p/w.

However Manchester City have just started out so as to speak have to adopt the 'Roman' blueprint and offer immense wages to attract players to the club. Now that they have won the EPL the need for them to do so will reduce and Al-Mubarak has said as much that they will look to obtain players in a more sustainable way

Ultimately what I am trying to say is that clubs like Liverpool will always be bigger than Chelsea/Man City and thus the only way for Chelsea/Man City to remain competitive is by inflating the market and going for players no one else can hope to buy.
 
The bottom line is this Arsenal Liverpool & United may well spend large sums on players who may be a hit or a miss but at the end of the day it is money generated by the club.
City & Chelsea spend money that is not generated by the club but comes from the chairmans personal fortune.
 
Jack Fulham said:
which clubs?
Click to expand...

How about every club in the PL. Club debt is at an all time high. All clubs are exceeding their spending ability purely to keep up with the pack. If there was no "new money" floating around there would be considerably less pressure on the smaller clubs to spend big and risk going to the wall. Sure you cant blame Chelsea and City directly but you cant say they havnt had an impact.
 
I've being quoted several times, the majority with comments about the clubs successes. Mostly from Chelsea and Man City fans.

Above there's a Chelsea fan that says something about Liverpool and the next post a Liverpool fan says something to contradict the previous post and so on with this "know things before posting", bla bla bla bla.

I have to say that you would never going to have a honest opinion if you dont take the fan shirt off! I am myself a fan of Benfica, witch as a far more rich history than Chelsea and Man City combined, BUT if someone says that Porto is much more of a team than Benfica and can't say no! Its obvious!

So, dont come here and try to say that Chelsea or Man City owners didnt put the clubs in the spotlight because of money, dont say that the clubs where huge as they are now, in terms of financial power and dont say that they where big before! thats rubish! Just because Liverpool dont win nothing in the past decades (just a ECL, witch i dont see Man City, or Chelsea with that in the trophy room :) ), does not mean that Man City its bigger, because its not! try to see things with more than 5/7 years!

Mourinho won the 1st Chelsea league in 509 years, Mancini did the same. Common with both? Inter and money
 
Steve* said:
By simply pricing a player out of a move elsewhere if your interested. You went behind United's back to sign Robben and Mikel who had both pretty much signed for United. Mikel had actually signed a contract. You broke codes of conduct with Arsenal over the transfer of Ashley Cole and were shown to have tapped him up. With Liverpool I wont mention Torres, you were welcome to him. But you were also accused with trying to tap up Gerrard but he had sence.

You talked about United breaking transfer records etc. But by and large they were good players that they signed for large sums.
Look at some of your high profile blunders:
Damien Duff cost 17M...sold for 5M.....12M loss
JS Veron cost £15M....released......£15M loss
Adrian Mutu cost £16M...sacked....£16M loss
Hernan Crespo cost £17M...released....£17M loss
SW Phillips cost £21M...sold for £9m....£12M loss
Shevchenko cost £30M...released....£30M loss

Thats a £102M loss on just six big name players you had on your books.
Chelsea paid big money on average players and gave them big wages. Other clubs had to match your fees and wage costs just to stay competitive.
The answer to your question is simple. Chelsea started a downward trend of spending big which has crippled many clubs with debts. Thats how they have ruined the modern game...
Click to expand...

Very very lame to blame Chelsea for other clubs failing to control finances. Spend within your means and you will be fine, its easy. Did Chelsea make Pompey spent stupid amounts for players on wages they couldn't afford?? As for the signings you listed we did not steal them from anyone but because of our money we have to pay more if we want the player because the seller requests more. Duff we got a great service out of and only let him go because of injuries and Mutu done coke so we applied the right course of action and sacked him. Is that our fault, did we make him take coke???

The fact is football transfers/wages were getting higher and higher anyway, to blame Chelsea for 'ruining' the game is just lame. If Chelsea hadn't been invested in then Utd would have dominated even more than they have and that is only good for one set of fans.
 
apvmoreira said:
I've being quoted several times, the majority with comments about the clubs successes. Mostly from Chelsea and Man City fans.

Above there's a Chelsea fan that says something about Liverpool and the next post a Liverpool fan says something to contradict the previous post and so on with this "know things before posting", bla bla bla bla.

I have to say that you would never going to have a honest opinion if you dont take the fan shirt off! I am myself a fan of Benfica, witch as a far more rich history than Chelsea and Man City combined, BUT if someone says that Porto is much more of a team than Benfica and can't say no! Its obvious!

So, dont come here and try to say that Chelsea or Man City owners didnt put the clubs in the spotlight because of money, dont say that the clubs where huge as they are now, in terms of financial power and dont say that they where big before! thats rubish! Just because Liverpool dont win nothing in the past decades (just a ECL, witch i dont see Man City, or Chelsea with that in the trophy room :) ), does not mean that Man City its bigger, because its not! try to see things with more than 5/7 years!

Mourinho won the 1st Chelsea league in 509 years, Mancini did the same. Common with both? Inter and money
Click to expand...

Where are people saying Chelsea and City are bigger than Liverpool?? I never said it and have not read it from anyone else either! My point being a Chelsea fan was simply we were not a poor side in the first place, we had just finished 4th and started to win trophies on a regular basis from 1997 onwards.
 
apvmoreira said:
I've being quoted several times, the majority with comments about the clubs successes. Mostly from Chelsea and Man City fans.

Above there's a Chelsea fan that says something about Liverpool and the next post a Liverpool fan says something to contradict the previous post and so on with this "know things before posting", bla bla bla bla.

I have to say that you would never going to have a honest opinion if you dont take the fan shirt off! I am myself a fan of Benfica, witch as a far more rich history than Chelsea and Man City combined, BUT if someone says that Porto is much more of a team than Benfica and can't say no! Its obvious!

So, dont come here and try to say that Chelsea or Man City owners didnt put the clubs in the spotlight because of money, dont say that the clubs where huge as they are now, in terms of financial power and dont say that they where big before! thats rubish! Just because Liverpool dont win nothing in the past decades (just a ECL, witch i dont see Man City, or Chelsea with that in the trophy room :) ), does not mean that Man City its bigger, because its not! try to see things with more than 5/7 years!

Mourinho won the 1st Chelsea league in 509 years, Mancini did the same. Common with both? Inter and money
Click to expand...

Actually, only one Chelsea fan has quoted you. That was Cjacko.

Leagues are always won with money behind it.

The rest doesnt make sense, since no one argued that they didnt put the club in the spotlight more.

In fact your entire post kinda smacks of being bitter of the two clubs.
 
Quasit said:
Couldnt resist this :) 509 years? WOW talk about dry spell ;)
Click to expand...

I assumed he made a mistake and hit the 9 by accident as it is placed next to the 0, that or he was trying to be funny in which case..... he failed.
 
CJACKO11 said:
Where are people saying Chelsea and City are bigger than Liverpool?? I never said it and have not read it from anyone else either! My point being a Chelsea fan was simply we were not a poor side in the first place, we had just finished 4th and started to win trophies on a regular basis from 1997 onwards.
Click to expand...

I wasn't writing just for you. Btw, you cannot use the words Chelsea and poor in the same sentence :D
 
Mike. said:
Actually, only one Chelsea fan has quoted you. That was Cjacko.

Leagues are always won with money behind it.

The rest doesnt make sense, since no one argued that they didnt put the club in the spotlight more.

In fact your entire post kinda smacks of being bitter of the two clubs.
Click to expand...

In not bitter, lol. Im all sweet and chubby :D

Just dont like to read things that are wrong, in my opinion.
 
This is what happened on Sunday.... It was a great day for football, it was truly spectacular (I am a Utd fan) please note my latest update....

View attachment 246285
 
Last edited:
apvmoreira said:
In not bitter, lol. Im all sweet and chubby :D

Just dont like to read things that are wrong, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Manchester United created a commercial empire due to Sky that is unrivalled in the premiership, and also pretty much uncatchable in that sense. There are two ways to close the gap, find the worlds greatest youth spotter (Wenger, who is the massive exception) or spend hard to close the gap. Chelsea, City, Blackburn all had to spend huge amounts. Because United when needed were spending huge amounts. City won on merit, as did Chelsea, and Blackburn. If you use the argument that they bought the league, then so has every major team out there. It may be your opinion, but it has plenty of holes in the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Top