Sportswash! - Let’s oil stare at Manchester City!

[villa4europe]

I still see a difference is why people would join city, you can list as many utd signings as you want you'd have a hard time trying to convince me they didnt go for footballing reasons

And whilst i agree with most of the revs post, chelsea werent the same as city, they were established and well known through paying for older big names years before, iirc they werent signing star players from bigger clubs through better wages even if it was massive fees, they could also boast the area of chelsea as a way of bringing players in

Man city cant do either of those things

[The_Rev]

And whilst i agree with most of the revs post, chelsea werent the same as city, they were established and well known through paying for older big names years before, iirc they werent signing star players from bigger clubs through better wages even if it was massive fees, they could also boast the area of chelsea as a way of bringing players in

Man city cant do either of those things

So by that logic City will be okay in a year or two when they are established as a big spending club?

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

No. I agree with a poster earlier said about,

Chelsea bought players who would come to them, Parker, Duff, Bridge, Robben, Drogba.

If Chelsea only had the money for one of those players, every single one of them would join you feel. Chelsea bought a lot of good players but never one's that were only attracted because of the money Chelsea had.

City however went from having Vassell to Robinho. The guy wanted to join Chelsea and basically just left biggest club in the world, Real Madrid where he still featured regularly to Man City, a mid-table club because of money. Tevez, Toure, Adebayor. All unrealistic buys for me. Adebayor and Toure were players at a better team in England then City.

Chelsea didn't go and buy Ferdinand and Van Nistlerooy from United for example.

Chelsea's money made them just a larger version of what Lerner did here. We bought players who were realistic but just spent a lot because we could. If Lerner had spent an extra £20 million every season, I doubt it would of changed the quality of players too much, just bought a few more players and got our first choice targets more often.

For us and for Chelsea, it was a process, an easy one for Chelsea, they went from 4th-5th in the table to automatically top 2/3.

We went from 16th to 6th.

[villa4europe]

Yeah exactly, in a few years time when city have actually done something then i'll hold my hands up and say i can understand it

But for all their spending i wouldnt say chelsea were buying star players from better clubs, something you can aim at city and imo theres only one reason you'd do that - wages

[kurtsimonw]

You could probably argue Makelele was a player 'too good' for Chelsea at the time, but the rest were signed from lesser clubs, or clubs at a similar level (or our of favour players like Veron). It's more the quantity, rather than quality, that Chelsea bought when Roman took over. Man City, on their first day of new ownership, signed Robinho for a British record so I don't think they're the same, what City are doing is worse in my opinion.

[dudevillaisnice]

I'd still have a Lerner over a Sheikh, don't care what you people say.

[Rino8]

But for all their spending i wouldnt say chelsea were buying star players from better clubs, something you can aim at city and imo theres only one reason you'd do that - wages

That is true about star players, infact I think the first 'big name' they ever signed was Shevchenko who turned out to be possibly the most expensive flop in the world.

[leviramsey]

United's growth has only been part organic. Giggs and Scholes are fine and wonderful, but a quick look at their starting lineup tells us that they rely on money almost as much as anyone else these days:

Vidic- 7 million

Ferdinand- 30 million

Evra- 5.5 million

Valencia - 16 million

Nani - 14-17 million

Berbatov- 30.75 million

Rooney - 25.6 million

The backbone of their club are purchases and not home grown. Take those players away and what are United? Probably mid-table. The prices at City are inflated because of who are owner is, not because we're foolish with money. Okay, Hughes was pretty damn foolish with money, but Mancini has been far better. Nobody will sell to us except at extortionate prices. United could have bought identical players for 2/3 of the cost.

However, Giggs, Scholes, Beckham etc. have largely given Man Utd the ability to generate revenue (of course a lot of that ability is due to the pure dumb luck of having a golden generation that came good at exactly the moment that the ability to generate massive revenue from football became achievable) which has allowed them to spend money on players. It's not coming from a wealthy financial backer, be it a profiteer, prince, or potentate. I would suspect that United's net transfer spend over the past twenty years is rather small, especially in comparison to their revenue net of wages and direct operating costs.

This is not to say that the Financial Fair Play rules as UEFA has codified them are a good idea: those will tend to reinforce a fairly rigid hierarchy of clubs with changes in that hierarchy resulting from extreme events. Unless and until the revenue structure of football is reformed, I would suggest that the only reasonable way UEFA (or possibly FIFA) can address the issue is through a luxury tax system (which has generally worked (with some perhaps unintended consequences) in Major League Baseball, which has a revenue structure not unlike Spanish football's).

[CitizenBlue]

I'd still have a Lerner over a Sheikh, don't care what you people say.

Not sure why people say this.

He has been the most generous man to us. He bought us Robinho as an introduction gift. God only knows how many jobs he has brought to a part of Manchester that really needed it. Not to mention his redevelopment project for that area.

Our fans couldn't love him more. If he left tomorrow, we would still sing his name for what he's done for us.

[ChrisVillan]

I'd still have a Lerner over a Sheikh, don't care what you people say.

Not sure why people say this.

He has been the most generous man to us.

Yes, hasn't he just. And that's what's important of course.

[villa4europe]

I'd still have a Lerner over a Sheikh, don't care what you people say.

Not sure why people say this.

He has been the most generous man to us. He bought us Robinho as an introduction gift. God only knows how many jobs he has brought to a part of Manchester that really needed it. Not to mention his redevelopment project for that area.

Our fans couldn't love him more. If he left tomorrow, we would still sing his name for what he's done for us.

Seeing as if he left tomorrow you'd be down the pan i very much doubt that

As much as i disagree with what he's doing i dont think he's a bad owner in terms of you fans, he's no lerner but he's certainly no hicks either

[PauloBarnesi]

Just released annual report. Posted a loss of £121 million, which means nothing for someone with such deep pockets.

[BOF]

Might mean something when UEFA deny them entry to the CL. My only worry is that I might actually die from the ensuing laughter.

[Wainy316]

They spent more on wages than their entire turnover. Surely there should be rules against this kind of thing.

[BOF]

They spent more on wages than their entire turnover. Surely there should be rules against this kind of thing.

There's no rule forbidding it. There are obviously 'good practice' recommendations against it. But there is soon to be a rule precluding you from European competition if you are spending like that. Basically it is UEFA's way of saying 'spend what you want, but if you do, you won't be playing in Yurp'.

[ryanvilla_1994]

But you can also probably say Uefa will bottle it when the time comes

[BOF]

But you can also probably say Uefa will bottle it when the time comes

I fully expect this to be the case. They've yet to add the caveat that "in order to be expelled you must be from a minor Eastern European league".

[kurtsimonw]

Might mean something when UEFA deny them entry to the CL. My only worry is that I might actually die from the ensuing laughter.

That made me laugh.

Going back (and OT a bit) onto the 'buying success' thing, how much did United buy their early 90s team for? We all know they bought some great players through, but how much did the likes of Schmeichel, Irwin, Bruce, Pallister, Keane, Cole, Cantona, etc. all cost? Of course they won't have been paying what Citeh/Chelsea are paying now, but it's all relative, so if United were spending more than other teams, they're just doing what Chelsea did on a smaller scale (with no competition).

[BOF]

We're really going over old ground here but basically, at the risk of over-simplifying it, United in the 90's were still one of the very biggest clubs in England and had arrived at that position through 100 years of effort. They worked for their position by winning trophies, amassing a huge fanbase and being a proper club that grew naturally. They were able to spend as one of the big clubs and they didn't arrive there artificially. Basically they were not nouveau riche. That was; and will always be; the difference between United and Chelsea.

[Shillzz]

But you can also probably say Uefa will bottle it when the time comes

I fully expect this to be the case. They've yet to add the caveat that "in order to be expelled you must be from a minor Eastern European league".

Agree, they'll find some way around it.

If the owner was to purchase a replica signed shirt from the club for £200m, that would sort things out fairly quickly.