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

[The_Rev]

Yeah, but Sheikh Mansour's consortium is worth £55,000,000,000. Manchester City's loss is roughly 0.3% of their wealth. Even if they never earned another penny they could sustain Man City for another 300+ years.

[PieFacE]

Yeah, but Sheikh Mansour's consortium is worth £55,000,000,000. Manchester City's loss is roughly 0.3% of their wealth. Even if they never earned another penny they could sustain Man City for another 300+ years.

It's scary that people have that much money. They could feed the whole of Africa for 300+ years with that! I don't know if they actually could or not

[BOF]

I heard a stat that the United starting team on Sunday cost more than Citys starting lineup is this true?

Any one know?

I think this related to the recent city v utd game, which was when fergie said city had bought the title - figures in the press were that city's 11 cost 161 mill and utd's cost 169 mill.

The above is not directed at either of you btw. It is directed at the notion that the transfer fees involved; and not the timescale they were spent over; are somehow the salient part of that stat. It's nearly 4 years since Man Utd spent £20m on a player (Berbatov). Their stand-out player this season was their 1992/93 breakout midfielder.

[Genie]

I heard a stat that the United starting team on Sunday cost more than Citys starting lineup is this true?

Any one know?

I think this related to the recent city v utd game, which was when fergie said city had bought the title - figures in the press were that city's 11 cost 161 mill and utd's cost 169 mill.

The above is not directed at either of you btw. It is directed at the notion that the transfer fees involved; and not the timescale they were spent over; are somehow the salient part of that stat. It's nearly 4 years since Man Utd spent £20m on a player (Berbatov). Their stand-out player this season was their 1992/93 breakout midfielder.

I thought he moved for closer to £20m (Berbatov)?

EDIT: Sorry, seems like my brain and my fingers were not working as a team, you said £20m but thought it was closer to £30m (as the_rev says).

[BOF]

I thought he moved for closer to £20m (Berbatov)?

It was around the £22m mark but that's not the point. United haven't spent £20m in years. City rarely spend less than £20m and (damn near) all their spending has happened over the past 5 years. Buying a title is what happens in a small period of time. The fact that United's squad, amassed over a decade or more, is more expensive, completely misses what the meaning of 'buying' the title means. I suspect those claiming it know fine well that they're missing the point but are hoping their point will stand. It doesn't.

[The_Rev]

Berbatov was £31m, wasnt he? He is definitely their club record signing. United spunk the cash too, their three summer signings last year (Jones, Young & De Gea) were £17m, £17m & £19m. As ever football just hates the noveau riche. City are getting close to the nucleus of a squad which will last them years soon, then they will be able to sustain their position with United style spending of bringing in one or two very good players every summer rather than needing to go on epic spending spees. The Citeh tax might drop eventually, and the public perception of them will just become what it is of Chelsea.

[BOF]

The Citeh tax might drop eventually, and the public perception of them will just become what it is of Chelsea.

It will no doubt drop to a point. I still harbour a hatred towards Chelsea because of what they did, but they never did it to Citeh's degree. I think Citeh's 'tax' will stay very high for a long long time. And United never had the concerted spending that Citeh have had. United's has been organic growth with a big signing here or there. They've done it the 'right' way over time.

[The_Rev]

What did City do that Chelsea didnt?

[BOF]

Stuck a few zeroes onto the scale of what they did. UEFA/FIFA didn't have to bring in rules because of Chelsea. What they did bent the game but didn't break it. Citeh just broke it. So it's not different, it's just a different extent.

[sharkyvilla]

The Citeh tax might drop eventually, and the public perception of them will just become what it is of Chelsea.

It will no doubt drop to a point. I still harbour a hatred towards Chelsea because of what they did, but they never did it to Citeh's degree. I think Citeh's 'tax' will stay very high for a long long time. And United never had the concerted spending that Citeh have had. United's has been organic growth with a big signing here or there. They've done it the 'right' way over time.

Utd were fortunate in that their domination started at the exact same time as the Premier League explosion, as well as the Champions League going from strength to strength. This allied to the fact that they could add 30,000+ seats to Old Trafford with an ease that the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and Chelsea have struggled meant their wealth outstrips everyone else's to such a degree that without the billionaire oil barons buying clubs, the Premier League would be so uncompetitive that it would be a joke. It would be even worse than Spain being a shootout between Barca and Real.

[villa4europe]

i always thought that chelsea bought in star players from teams lower than them for lots of money whereas city buy in players from either their direct rivals or teams above them using the lure of high wages to get them, yaya toure being the prime example, i know he didnt paly every week but he left the best team in the world for a team that wasnt even in the CL but happened to pay £250k a week

which i is something else i dont remember chelsea's spending doing, agents and red tops both worked together and used both clubs to get players bumper pay deals, did anyone ever seriously believe gerrard nearly joined chelsea or rooney was joining city? but damien duff was never on so much money that it distorted the entire leagues wage set up in the way that the likes of wayne bridge and craig bellamy were at city

will be interesting to see if city can pull off what chelsea failed to do and invest properly in youth rather than buy a load and see pretty much none of them get a breakthrough, which is why im surprised they royally **** up with the next gen series

[ml1dch]

The Citeh tax might drop eventually, and the public perception of them will just become what it is of Chelsea.

It will no doubt drop to a point. I still harbour a hatred towards Chelsea because of what they did, but they never did it to Citeh's degree. I think Citeh's 'tax' will stay very high for a long long time. And United never had the concerted spending that Citeh have had. United's has been organic growth with a big signing here or there. They've done it the 'right' way over time.

You're right, it's probably better for everyone that one team makes use of their accumulated wealth, wins the league each year and everyone else just doffs their cap to them and gets used to 2nd - 12th each year.

As soon as you start spending 20m+ on transfer fees, why does it matter if one team does it five times and one club does it ten times?

Also, if the issue is a club spending beyond their income I assume you had an issue with us buying the likes of Young, Milner and Downing when we weren't bringing in the income to substantiate it?

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Stuck a few zeroes onto the scale of what they did. UEFA/FIFA didn't have to bring in rules because of Chelsea. What they did bent the game but didn't break it. Citeh just broke it. So it's not different, it's just a different extent.

Rubbish. City only did what they had to do because Chelsea were the original game changers. Yes, many clubs have since been able to follow in Chelsea's footsteps, but they broke it mate good and proper. It won't be too long before there is a new City or three out there and then what? Who do we blame next?

City have played the game within the rules up till now. They've bought some fantastic players to the premier league and created one of the greatest moments in English football history in my opinion. Plus lets face it, as a Villa fan it's made little difference to our plight. Manchester City haven't contributed to our predicament in the slightest. You could argue taking Barry and Milner away didn't help, but we got good money and failed to replace them with it. At the same time Barry was a gonner anyway and Jimmy was and probably still is destined for the top of the tree.

I like Man City. Yes they're uber rich and it's annoying that we aren't, but jealousy gets you nowhere in life.

[The_Rev]

Agree almost entirely. Manchester City paid what they had to as a result of inflation created by Chelsea. Dunno about City having no effect on us though, I think their emergence throw a massive spanner in the works of Randys fabled five year plan.

[VILLAFC2000]

Any one know how they have faired financially this year.

How will they meet UEFAs Fair play rule?

[LondonLax]

The made a record loss and are not close to meeting the fairplay rules but if they are showing they are cutting back their spending now then I am sure no action will be taken.

UEFA will not want to actually ban one of the big teams from the comp.

[theunderstudy]

City's rise crippled us, as they took our two best players and with us being us we couldn't adequately replace them. The PL was the ganechanger, United exploited it huigely and it propelled them up, Chelsea broke it, and City are just copying Chelsea. The way football is. Clubs trying to do it the proper way like Everton are in danger of being close to a financial trapdoor.

Footballs ****, but City aren't purely to blame.

[MrDuck]

City's rise crippled us, as they took our two best players and with us being us we couldn't adequately replace them. The PL was the ganechanger, United exploited it huigely and it propelled them up, Chelsea broke it, and City are just copying Chelsea. The way football is. Clubs trying to do it the proper way like Everton are in danger of being close to a financial trapdoor.

Footballs ****, but City aren't purely to blame.

You can't really blame anyone at all. There are no rules to stop a Man City or a Chelsea doing what they've done. Rampant capitalism is what has broken football, just the same as it's broken most other things.

[Mantis]

City's rise crippled us, as they took our two best players and with us being us we couldn't adequately replace them. The PL was the ganechanger, United exploited it huigely and it propelled them up, Chelsea broke it, and City are just copying Chelsea. The way football is. Clubs trying to do it the proper way like Everton are in danger of being close to a financial trapdoor.

Footballs ****, but City aren't purely to blame.

You can't really blame anyone at all. There are no rules to stop a Man City or a Chelsea doing what they've done. Rampant capitalism is what has broken football, just the same as it's broken most other things.

I'm not so sure football can be compared to the real world in that respect. "Rampant capitalism" works in the real world because businesses are just that - businesses. With football clubs it's a little different as they are obviously more than just businesses hence why it doesn't really work in football.

[MrDuck]

City's rise crippled us, as they took our two best players and with us being us we couldn't adequately replace them. The PL was the ganechanger, United exploited it huigely and it propelled them up, Chelsea broke it, and City are just copying Chelsea. The way football is. Clubs trying to do it the proper way like Everton are in danger of being close to a financial trapdoor.

Footballs ****, but City aren't purely to blame.

You can't really blame anyone at all. There are no rules to stop a Man City or a Chelsea doing what they've done. Rampant capitalism is what has broken football, just the same as it's broken most other things.

I'm not so sure football can be compared to the real world in that respect. "Rampant capitalism" works in the real world because businesses are just that - businesses. With football clubs it's a little different as they are obviously more than just businesses hence why it doesn't really work in football.

I'm not sure football clubs are "obviously more than just businesses".. maybe once they were, but these days? I'd have to disagree. Football is big business first, sport second, fans and community a very distant last.

Capitalism works nowhere. It **** everything it touches. Although maybe that's unfair... you could equally say that people's greed for money above all other things **** everything... be it sport, music, food, the planet...

I blame the lizard people.