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

[HanoiVillan]

6 hours ago, bobzy said:

But why would they?  They're expected to be elite and win everything.  Why would they deliberately play youth players who aren't good enough?

The whole youth thing is just a ridiculous argument.

Who said anything about deliberately playing players who aren't good enough?

[bobzy]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

Who said anything about deliberately playing players who aren't good enough?

"They have such an enormous advantage...I'm sure they could play younger players a bit more than they do".

It's pretty much implied that they should play younger players just because - which is ridiculous, because they're at the very top end of the sport.  Why should they just play younger players?  It makes no sense.

The more logical thing to happen with 'bigger' clubs is that they have less youth production and more purchasing of the very best players, no?  So it feels like an easy stick to beat these clubs with - which is presumably why the whole "has Guardiola ever managed to bring a 'youth' player into a side?" question came about.  But he has, and currently has more of them in his squad than we do at Villa.  In fact, Man City, Liverpool and Chelsea (arguably the 3 biggest clubs in the country) are seemingly doing more for their youth players than the other clubs in the league.

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, bobzy said:

"They have such an enormous advantage...I'm sure they could play younger players a bit more than they do".

It's pretty much implied that they should play younger players just because - which is ridiculous, because they're at the very top end of the sport.  Why should they just play younger players?  It makes no sense.

The more logical thing to happen with 'bigger' clubs is that they have less youth production and more purchasing of the very best players, no?  So it feels like an easy stick to beat these clubs with - which is presumably why the whole "has Guardiola ever managed to bring a 'youth' player into a side?" question came about.  But he has, and currently has more of them in his squad than we do at Villa.  In fact, Man City, Liverpool and Chelsea (arguably the 3 biggest clubs in the country) are seemingly doing more for their youth players than the other clubs in the league.

That wasn't implied at all! I'm not a complete **** div, obviously I'm not saying they should deliberately set out to sabotage themselves or something. 

Let's take a step back. They have an academy. There must be a reason why they have one, rather than just not bothering and saving money. The reason is likely to be something like 'The academy will produce players that we can sell for good profits, and this helps with the accounts. Also, occasionally they will turn up a prospect like Foden who is so promising it's worth putting the time into them. Also also, fans tend to like it when they get 'one of their own' so it's a good way to build rapport.' So, my question to them would be: could you win the same amount of trophies, while increasing the sell-on value of academy products and increasing your chances of getting another Foden, by giving (some) more minutes to academy players? And my judgement is that probably the answer for City is 'yes'. I might be wrong, but that's my guess, and I don't think it's an absurd one. Having players who are so much better than the rest of the league like De Bruyne and Haaland would provide space for more regular appearances from their best young players, if they wanted to. In practice they win most PL games at an absolute canter. However, they don't do that, and they instead prioritise giving more minutes to squad players like Mahrez or Ake. And fine, that's their decision, but it's not the only possible decision, and I know it isn't the only possible decision because Liverpool run them all the way while giving more minutes to youth products than City do. 

[bobzy]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

That wasn't implied at all! I'm not a complete **** div, obviously I'm not saying they should deliberately set out to sabotage themselves or something. 

Let's take a step back. They have an academy. There must be a reason why they have one, rather than just not bothering and saving money. The reason is likely to be something like 'The academy will produce players that we can sell for good profits, and this helps with the accounts. Also, occasionally they will turn up a prospect like Foden who is so promising it's worth putting the time into them. Also also, fans tend to like it when they get 'one of their own' so it's a good way to build rapport.' So, my question to them would be: could you win the same amount of trophies, while increasing the sell-on value of academy products and increasing your chances of getting another Foden, by giving (some) more minutes to academy players? And my judgement is that probably the answer for City is 'yes'. I might be wrong, but that's my guess, and I don't think it's an absurd one. Having players who are so much better than the rest of the league like De Bruyne and Haaland would provide space for more regular appearances from their best young players, if they wanted to. In practice they win most PL games at an absolute canter. However, they don't do that, and they instead prioritise giving more minutes to squad players like Mahrez or Ake. And fine, that's their decision, but it's not the only possible decision, and I know it isn't the only possible decision because Liverpool run them all the way while giving more minutes to youth products than City do. 

It's not an absurd guess, but there's no reason for them to just play youth players for the sake of playing youth players.  They have players such as Mahrez or Ake because they're very good players and can cover the better very good players if they get injured or whatever.  To keep these players match fit and happy (presumably, aside from dolla) they get minutes over, lets say, youth players who aren't at the same level.  Because they need to/want to be the very best team.

And I'm not sure on the Liverpool claim - I can think of two players (Alexander-Arnold and Jones) who are youth products that play for them and both are over 21 (I think).  Similar levels, I guess.

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, bobzy said:

It's not an absurd guess, but there's no reason for them to just play youth players for the sake of playing youth players.  They have players such as Mahrez or Ake because they're very good players and can cover the better very good players if they get injured or whatever.  To keep these players match fit and happy (presumably, aside from dolla) they get minutes over, lets say, youth players who aren't at the same level.  Because they need to/want to be the very best team.

And I'm not sure on the Liverpool claim - I can think of two players (Alexander-Arnold and Jones) who are youth products that play for them and both are over 21 (I think).  Similar levels, I guess.

Liverpool do but not out of choice, last season they usually had a very young looking bench due to injuries, they've bought a few of them though rather than being from their academy, this season for example they have Jones, elliot, carvalho plus then Phillips and a couple of really young players making up the numbers, they don't have the depth city have 

The argument should be how city are managing to have £60m £200k a week international footballers as their 3rd / 4th choice players, why are said players leaving star roles for mid table PL clubs to do it, they're killing football with it, not just Liverpool I don't think any team has had this kind of depth 

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, villa4europe said:

Liverpool do but not out of choice, last season they usually had a very young looking bench due to injuries, they've bought a few of them though rather than being from their academy, this season for example they have Jones, elliot, carvalho plus then Phillips and a couple of really young players making up the numbers, they don't have the depth city have 

The argument should be how city are managing to have £60m £200k a week international footballers as their 3rd / 4th choice players, why are said players leaving star roles for mid table PL clubs to do it, they're killing football with it, not just Liverpool I don't think any team has had this kind of depth 

OK, sure, but it's come from someone asking if Guardiola ever does anything with youth players (rather than just buying players, I assume).  Everything you've said here is about a team just buying the best talent - albeit particularly young talent.  

[Tommo_b]

It really grinds my gears we have to say Man City are one of the biggest teams in the World.

I grew up knowing them as the inferior Manchester team that would float between divisions and have really naff players.

Is there not a way we can get the oil barons out of football? 

[VillaJ100]

56 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

It really grinds my gears we have to say Man City are one of the biggest teams in the World.

I grew up knowing them as the inferior Manchester team that would float between divisions and have really naff players.

Is there not a way we can get the oil barons out of football? 

Wigan with a credit card really was the best description I saw

[villa89]

4 hours ago, Tommo_b said:

It really grinds my gears we have to say Man City are one of the biggest teams in the World.

I grew up knowing them as the inferior Manchester team that would float between divisions and have really naff players.

Is there not a way we can get the oil barons out of football? 

What's the alternative? Bayern, Juventus, man utd., liverpool, real and Barca just dominate top level football for ever? No thanks. 

[villa4europe]

1 hour ago, villa89 said:

What's the alternative? Bayern, Juventus, man utd., liverpool, real and Barca just dominate top level football for ever? No thanks. 

100% this 

The liklihood of an oil baron buying villa and piling a billion in to us is higher than us naturally growing to a position commercially where we can compete with the top 6, we will never compete with utds sponsorship deals 

[Tommo_b]

9 hours ago, villa89 said:

What's the alternative? Bayern, Juventus, man utd., liverpool, real and Barca just dominate top level football for ever? No thanks. 

Not entirely sure, but my thought is there should be a wage cap and a transfer cap, limited to spending £100m a season on transfers.

Wages can be supplemented by bonuses. 

In my naive thinking I’d like to think this could even the playing field but that would be to assume their would be no cash exchanging hands in a car park late on a Sunday night… 

[villa4europe]

UEFAs solution is a cap based on turnover 

Guess which clubs have the highest turnover... 

[Mic09]

48 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

UEFAs solution is a cap based on turnover 

Guess which clubs have the highest turnover... 

I don't think any solution will make it 'fair'. The big boys are too far ahead.

I wouldn't mind seeing a free for all. Villa would be able to buy players for £50-60m and give them £150k in wages. So would West Ham etc. 

I don't see an instance (yet!) where Man City spend a billion on transfers each season and they will not offer £1m a week to half the team. That would not make commercial sense, and as deep as their pockets are, it still costs the owners money. 

But I might be very wrong, it might be a bad idea. 

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Tommo_b said:

Not entirely sure, but my thought is there should be a wage cap and a transfer cap, limited to spending £100m a season on transfers.

Wages can be supplemented by bonuses. 

In my naive thinking I’d like to think this could even the playing field but that would be to assume their would be no cash exchanging hands in a car park late on a Sunday night… 

That will literally never happen. Unfortunately

[Mr_Dogg]

2 hours ago, Tommo_b said:

Not entirely sure, but my thought is there should be a wage cap and a transfer cap, limited to spending £100m a season on transfers.

Wages can be supplemented by bonuses. 

In my naive thinking I’d like to think this could even the playing field but that would be to assume their would be no cash exchanging hands in a car park late on a Sunday night… 

If that was to come in, then money world be taken out of football, some people would make a lot if money.

[villa4europe]

52 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I don't think any solution will make it 'fair'. The big boys are too far ahead.

I wouldn't mind seeing a free for all. Villa would be able to buy players for £50-60m and give them £150k in wages. So would West Ham etc. 

I don't see an instance (yet!) where Man City spend a billion on transfers each season and they will not offer £1m a week to half the team. That would not make commercial sense, and as deep as their pockets are, it still costs the owners money. 

But I might be very wrong, it might be a bad idea. 

Yeah I get the danger for future of clubs would depend on rich dickhead who don't care

But in terms of fairness a free for all is the only answer 

[VillaJ100]

7 hours ago, Tommo_b said:

Not entirely sure, but my thought is there should be a wage cap and a transfer cap, limited to spending £100m a season on transfers.

Wages can be supplemented by bonuses. 

In my naive thinking I’d like to think this could even the playing field but that would be to assume their would be no cash exchanging hands in a car park late on a Sunday night… 

Yeah it's always been bent even when there was a salary cap. 100 years ago when we were the most successful team in history we used to buy players a pub to get around the wage limits etc

[Zatman]

1 hour ago, VillaJ100 said:

Yeah it's always been bent even when there was a salary cap. 100 years ago when we were the most successful team in history we used to buy players a pub to get around the wage limits etc

We probably should have bought McCormack one instead of paying his wages

[turnbull]

On 22/09/2022 at 06:58, Tommo_b said:

Not entirely sure, but my thought is there should be a wage cap and a transfer cap, limited to spending £100m a season on transfers.

Wages can be supplemented by bonuses. 

In my naive thinking I’d like to think this could even the playing field but that would be to assume their would be no cash exchanging hands in a car park late on a Sunday night… 

A cap kinda works in rugby union, but Saracens found a way around it with the sort of tactics Ci£eh would more than likely use, like giving players plots of land or businesses in South Africa, where the club's owner was from, or putting some of the stadium food and drink outlets in players' names. Even starting up spurious businesses and paying players for services rendered. 

Took a few seasons for them to be found out too. 

[Jonesy7211]

There's a really simple rule that could be implemented that would allow a level playing field and also reduce risk against the clubs. Stop letting owners leverage debts against the clubs. If an owner or owners want to have a crack at challenging the Sky 6 and Europe, then let them spend their own money when the club reaches the limits of what they can realistically spend. The financial risk is purely against the owner and not the club then. If the owner decides they can't afford it any more, they're going to sell as quickly as possible instead of floating around for years like Lerner or Ashley whilst the club remains risk free. By the same token, they could then be allowed higher bonuses should a club achieve success, so long as the club retains a significant percentage to cover running costs.

Won't happen though, as the big teams would never allow it.

Wouldn't matter who owned the club. Any team could grow quickly to challenge. We'd see more teams fighting over the trophies instead of the usual cartel.