4561 replies to this topic

[GZA]

Three years and close to one billion pounds later.

[Vidic15]

We now know the cost of the Premier League title...

[Hamit Altintop]

Saw on Twitter a lot of people saying 'United spent 30m on Rooney, Rio and Berba, 20m on Young, Valencia, Jones, De Gea, not like they didn't buy the title.' Not saying I'm a financial expert, but when you keep winning the majority of tournaments you enter, I think spending those kind of figures is justified. No comparison with City's massive spending.

[COYS]

busquets16, on 14 May 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

Saw on Twitter a lot of people saying 'United spent 30m on Rooney, Rio and Berba, 20m on Young, Valencia, Jones, De Gea, not like they didn't buy the title.' Not saying I'm a financial expert, but when you keep winning the majority of tournaments you enter, I think spending those kind of figures is justified. No comparison with City's massive spending.

That being the case, and only successful clubs are allowed to spend money, how are smaller clubs (like City, and Chelsea before them) expected to ever achieve success?

...or aren't they? Are City/Chelsea only supposed to exist to provide opposition for the likes of United, and to make up the numbers?

Listen, I doubt there's a United fan on this forum who dislikes City more than I dislike Chelsea. Of course I was gutted when they won the league, but logically it is the onlywhey they could have achieved it.

I don't expect United fans to congratulate City, I definitely don't expect them to be pleased for them, I just wish that they would admit that football isn't a fair game, hasn't been for years, and the City/Chelsea was is the only way nowadays.

Read this: http://www.tiki-tka....post__p__651258

Edited by COYS, 14 May 2012 - 11:44 AM.

[OldBoy]

Completely agree. If you're not a club blessed with a 60,000 seater stadium and happen to have worldwide appeal, you're just never going to have the revenue streams to be able to, say, win the premier league title. You need a sugar daddy. City were lucky enough that sweetest of all sugar daddies bought them, gave whoever is manager a truly blank cheque, offered outrageous wages and its no surprise to anybody that they've won the league and may just dominate for the next decade. Football isn't a fair game and the ONLY thing I agree with Platini on is that these kinds of excesses need to stop. If Manchester United take in £300m in revenues, then I think we're entitled to spend whatever we can afford too. But what chance do a Spurs, Arsenal or Liverpool have of winning the league if City can spend vasts amounts more than they receive in such a short period.

Lets see what effect the FFP rules have, my assumption is very little as FIFA/UEFA will bend over for the big clubs and allow loopholes to bypass the regulations, like City's impending £400m sponsorship deal.

[MancUnited]

In Germany everyone can win the league no matter how big the club actually is. Sure there are bigger and smaller ones like it's in the PL and Bayern benefits from TV rights and sponsorship deals but there can never be a club run by a sheik because of the 50+1 rule.

[COYS]

If City hadn't won the league this season then Spurs, Arsenal or Liverpool wouldn't have.

Take away City, and Chelsea recently (who will be back), and United would have won the league at a canter for the past few seasons. United fans aside, is that good for the game?

I'm not going to kid myself that if City were owned by Peter Swales again and finishing 13th then we'd be more successful - we wouldn't, nor would Liverpool, ArsenL seem content to want to finish 2nd or 3rd every year, and no disrespect to the rest, but are Villa & Everton likely to win the league?

Short of a massive overhaul in football, equal wealth distribution, etc then the City way is the only way.

Yeah the slow growth way is admirable, but it doesn't work.

[Not Twenty Forever]

COYS, on 14 May 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Yeah the slow growth way is admirable, but it doesn't work.

It does, it just takes longer.

[M.U.F.C OK]

COYS, on 14 May 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

That being the case, and only successful clubs are allowed to spend money, how are smaller clubs (like City, and Chelsea before them) expected to ever achieve success?

...or aren't they? Are City/Chelsea only supposed to exist to provide opposition for the likes of United, and to make up the numbers?

Listen, I doubt there's a United fan on this forum who dislikes City more than I dislike Chelsea. Of course I was gutted when they won the league, but logically it is the onlywhey they could have achieved it.

I don't expect United fans to congratulate City, I definitely don't expect them to be pleased for them, I just wish that they would admit that football isn't a fair game, hasn't been for years, and the City/Chelsea was is the only way nowadays.

Read this: http://www.tiki-tka....post__p__651258

Still doesn't change the fact they are a bunch of no-marks who won the lottery.

Might guess i'm still hurting.

[COYS]

Football Juice, on 14 May 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

It does, it just takes longer.

Not in modern football it doesn't.

Any mid-table club who improve gradually to finish 5th, challenge for 4th, will be stripped bare of their best players over night.

We'll see what happens to both Spurs & Newcastle in the next two years. Still more chance of those clubs being relegated within a decade than winning the league.

M.U.F.C OK, on 14 May 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Still doesn't change the fact they are a bunch of no-marks who won the lottery.

Might guess i'm still hurting.

Yes, they have won the lottery, nobody is disputing that. Same with Chelsea, but until somebody offers an alternative, it is the only way nowadays. It's not 1978 anymore.

[GZA]

I think there's other ways besides spending City amounts of cash. Look at Tottenham they're on the verge of doing just that. Even if spending is the purported only way that still doesn't mean you need to spend in excess of a billion pounds. That's something no one can compete with.

[francis]

COYS, on 14 May 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

That being the case, and only successful clubs are allowed to spend money, how are smaller clubs (like City, and Chelsea before them) expected to ever achieve success?

...or aren't they? Are City/Chelsea only supposed to exist to provide opposition for the likes of United, and to make up the numbers?

Listen, I doubt there's a United fan on this forum who dislikes City more than I dislike Chelsea. Of course I was gutted when they won the league, but logically it is the onlywhey they could have achieved it.

I don't expect United fans to congratulate City, I definitely don't expect them to be pleased for them, I just wish that they would admit that football isn't a fair game, hasn't been for years, and the City/Chelsea was is the only way nowadays.

Read this: http://www.tiki-tka....post__p__651258

Dude... just not in this thread... youve made your opinions clear in SO many threads on this forum. Does it have to make its way here ONE day after we lose the title in the most dramatic fashion. Were Utd fans, we cant help it. Do you want us to to give MORE than our fair share of tv money to the rest of the league. Should we divide our revenue made from gate revenue and merchandising as well? Its not our fault the league isnt up to our standard. We've done things the right, and we DONT want to approve of the quick lottery way. Its quite simple. Sorry that were richer than the rest. If you think thats unfair,  either some measures to equalise the league are voted in in a democratica manner or the other teams need to expand by expanding their stadiums and merchandising revenue. Thats it. Its not as if we spend crazy sums of money anyways.

[Krakie]

I don't see how anyone can argue United's spending to be similar to cities and Chelsea's as claims to have bought the title. The players listed are mostly youngsters with potential, and yes they are expensive but I'm sure they aren't on outrageous wages.
United hardly go the route of ready made stats. That's the difference.
Real Madrid, Chelsea and City fall into that category.
I also don't begrudge city their title.
It made for one hell of a season, with a very bitter end, but realistically, all hate aside city deserve. Head to head games decided it at the end. While United took more points from the rest of the teams. I'm hindsight United did well to push them, Vidic was out for the season, look how city struggled without Kompany. There are lots of factors that could have suited United better but at the end whoever wins it over 38 games deserves to.
This was the most exciting end to a league I have witnessed I'm my lifetime, it's a real pity United couldn't be celebrating at the end but this makes me want next season to come even sooner. United now have a taste of how Bayern must have felt, even worse because it's a loss to bitter rivals!
It's been such a dramatic season, some serious withdrawal will kick in very soon.
GGMU!

[M.U.F.C OK]

Edited by M.U.F.C OK, 14 May 2012 - 11:45 PM.

[Hotshot]

By this logic that's being thrown around by United fans that City have bought themselves an EPL title, you can argue that before the Chelsea spending spree, United have bought all their titles too. United have always spent a lot more than the majority of other teams in the league and it's a MAJOR factor in the success they live in today. You can argue that they spend what they're earning but let's be honest here, which club can manage to win the league doing that when their revenues are are a small percentage of what United are making? Even if they tried building a squad over time, that process will keep getting disrupted by the likes of United snatching up their best players! United have grown into a massive club, they are on a totally different level economic wise than all the other teams had there not been any foreign investments, if things stayed the way they were, United would be winning the league every single year and growing bigger and bigger while other clubs suffer.

I find it funny that of all the teams that could be whining about this, it's United when they are the least effected. It's obvious that the lesser teams are the ones suffering the most from this situation.