Long wall of text.
I understand it's a way to balance it out. But it can't keep happening. Maybe spending around £100million on assembling a team that can start challenging for trophies, but then spend the rest of the money on marketing and getting new shops up around the globe or something. Not spending £50million to £150million each season on buying players that you don't really need and might flop.
This is entirely accurate except where you say its your own fault re: debt.
Not true, since the club didn't and don't have any say in the debt leveraged by the owners.
Did not aim it at the fans. Just said that the club have not been able to spend what they make on improving the team due to circumstances unfortunately created for them but that is no reasons for fans to be frustrated at teams like PSG when they spend big
But what of the other clubs who lose out when their youth talents are poached by a club for big money, being forced to accept the money in order to stay where they are in the league, nevermind about trying to improve themselves. What you say is a very valid point and one i agree with but the clubs who can't compete with chelseas and other top clubs clout lose out in the end in a worse way than Chelsea ever would by transfer market inflations and marketing hype that cost millions, they just can't keep up with.
Again which fans?
Also 35.5m is ridiculous money no matter how you spin it.
Not everyone can win. Manchester United used their considerable economic clout to spend and buy big players and stay on top of the EPL which no other club could compete with until Ambramovich came in and bought Chelsea and basically changed the face of the game forever. Do not forget that Manchester United have also contributed highly to transfer market inflation in the past by spending record sums buying players which no one else could keep up with during that period of time
Not everyone can win. Manchester United used their considerable economic clout to spend and buy big players and stay on top of the EPL which no other club could compete with until Ambramovich came in and bought Chelsea and basically changed the face of the game forever. Do not forget that Manchester United have also contributed highly to transfer market inflation in the past by spending record sums buying players which no one else could keep up with during that period of time
You have heard of a team called Arsenal right? You know that team that challenged us year in and out before Abramovich and also won several Cups and PL Titles. We werent just mopping up titles before Abramovich came, he isnt some white knight who came in to save the PL from extinction. I dont have a problem with his spending but there were teams that made United sweat before his billions were pumped into Chelsea.
No, not everyone can win, but the time I spent at school ( I went to a private school so the pupils were from different areas of the country) my friends and I together had a large amount of clubs that we would talk about and banter with each other when our own club won against theirs so I have a MASSIVE respect for all clubs and I don't like seeing others suffer by the amount of sugar daddy's investing in clubs. I don't condone the crazy fees spent on players, agents and wages but when clubs who have built the history and created their own secure future, for me at least, it's not as bad when they spend this money as it comes out of the work the club has done and seeing as only very few clubs in a decade can be succesful enough to reach the status to spend 30 million on a player, ok because as I said they worked for it and that's it. Let's not forget that if we look at Uniteds history under fergie for example, the history he built were from players he found and promoted from the youth academy's, Giggs, scholes, ****, Beckham, the Neville brothers, Scholes. These players were essentially free apart from wages and we signed players to fill in the gaps, and some were expensive over this time but they were few. But look at City, they will spend ridiculous money on a player who does not deserve such a large fee and by doing so many of these overpriced deals in a short amount of time destroys the economy of football. and lets not forget the flops some of these players have been, prime example is Robinho. Don't get me wrong I don't just have a beef with City (well i do but only because they are rivals) but dont like Anji or PSG or those kind of clubs. I just think the amount of money introduced in such a short time span has tainted football. But this is just my opinion and I may be wrong.
Well, when I said I don't like them I just meant I don't like the way their money has corrupted the market( and it's not the clubs fault it's the owners who demand success immediatlly and by doing so flood the market), and I dont think Chelsea is too bad seeing as they have been succesful as a club since the 50's and more so since the latter stages of the 90'sWell your letting you personal preferences cloud your judgement. You don't like clubs like Anzhi,PSG, Chelsea and City. That's completely fine but its not relevant to the argument at hand
No need for the sarcasm. If you had bothered to read my long post, you would know that I acknowledge Arsenal in it
Ok, I understand your point. And I don't care if someone spends 100m on a player or not. If they can, that's fine. Difference between United and Chelsea is that we made this money. You didn't ( as a club through fan base, merch etc etc). Still, I don't have problem with that. United created EPL history, European history, produced so much great player and bought even better players. We fought and fought with clubs like Real and AC Milan for fans, and we won. Now, some guy with bags of money buys a club and now they are in the same league as we are ( money wise). I don't see how's that fair ?Text
I did, but I wasnt responding to that, I was responding to the one I quoted. You cannot point to any of these sugar daddys as realistically bringing balance to the league system. Dont get me wrong I love the rivalry developed with Chelsea since Abramovich, but you made claims that basically said that United had a vice grip on the league title before the Russian bought Chelsea, how would you explain that period where you had your sugar daddy and we won it 4 times in 5 years?
What about France? With PSG's spending they're bound to be a real problem for competitiveness in France because no team has a vice grip there for several seasons now.
My final point is quite simple as well, Arsenal were a major power in English football as were Liverpool before City and Chelsea came along, now these two can often be found selling there players to "Bigger" clubs leaving them less able to compete. Now as I've said I dont have a problem Chelsea or City splurging, my point is that I believe that since Arsenal and Liverpool were massive threats before the oil billionaires came along, whose to say that would have changed by now? They always threatened (Especially the Gunners) and now they dont really because they have been replaced by Chelsea and now City as well. Locked in the long paragraph is the fact that the EPL didnt "Need" Abramovich like you claim or city by extension to stay competitive but when I say this I dont mean it negatively, new rivalries are nice also there is a little more money being pumped into European football as a result, just they werent needed like you suggest.
Ok, I understand your point. And I don't care if someone spends 100m on a player or not. If they can, that's fine. Difference between United and Chelsea is that we made this money. You didn't ( as a club through fan base, merch etc etc). Still, I don't have problem with that. United created EPL history, European history, produced so much great player and bought even better players. We fought and fought with clubs like Real and AC Milan for fans, and we won. Now, some guy with bags of money buys a club and now they are in the same league as we are ( money wise). I don't see how's that fair ?
Well, when I said I don't like them I just meant I don't like the way their money has corrupted the market( and it's not the clubs fault it's the owners who demand success immediatlly and by doing so flood the market), and I dont think Chelsea is too bad seeing as they have been succesful as a club since the 50's and more so since the latter stages of the 90's
Like I said. I really don't care if someone spends big or not. I'm just saying how fair it is considering that club didn't earn that money ?Stop taking the moral high ground. You have used your considerable economic clout enough times to enure that no other clubs barring a few could compete with you in the title race. Spending record sums on players in the last 80s and early 90s.
Its not like you fought with passion blah blah blah... Fact is that you have ruled the EPL for so long because no other club could compete with the sort of commercial revenues and sponsorships you and a few other clubs attracted and then used to improve the team. You did the same thing Chelsea/City are doing now except it was less evident then
So stop whining, your club would actually have enough money to spend if you did not have **** owners.
Like I said. I really don't care if someone spends big or not. I'm just saying how fair it is considering that club didn't earn that money ?
Aah but there you forgot something... Both Arsenal/Liverpool are clubs who enjoy a global fanbase and presence comparable to Manchester United. This means they do rake in comparable commercial and sponsorship revenues allowing them to compete.
Alcaraz said:No no.. You missed the point here. All I said was that in order for clubs like Chelsea/Manchester City to bridge the gap, we needed sugar daddies. My argument was never about whether European football needed sugar daddies in general
We have it because we are successful. Let's take Anzhi for example. They achieved nothing, they have ****** fanbase, but they can spend more then us.How is it fair that the sort of Brand Appeal Manchester United enjoy and the commercial revenues they bring in will never be achieved by other clubs no matter how hard they try?