Bluemoon goes into Meltdown

newtonheathdave said:
Someone is always going to have an advantage. Yes it is City at the moment and because it us and no longer you, you are upset about it.
Click to expand...

Don't you think we at least earned our advantage by expanding having been patient, stuck by our manager and been rewarded with consistent success under Ferguson at the beginning of the Premier League era. From there we made OT the stadium it is today and Ferguson was able to continue rebuilding sides with the money brought in from United's success.

This advantage is slightly more well deserved than the advantage that came about when Sheikh Mansour decided on a whim he would put some of his billions into City, no?
 
londonredmaniac said:
It's not quite as simple as that though. I think you know that.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day City's owners are not going away. You can either sit there complaining and going on about your istreee like scousers or you can evolve to compete. It is survival of the fittest.
At the end of the day if the Glazers were not bleeding your club dry then you would have more that enough cash to compete. Its not City's fault all your cash is going elsewhere
 
NewDawnFades said:
Don't you think we at least earned our advantage by expanding having been patient, stuck by our manager and been rewarded with consistent success under Ferguson at the beginning of the Premier League era. From there we made OT the stadium it is today and Ferguson was able to continue rebuilding sides with the money brought in from United's success.

This advantage is slightly more well deserved than the advantage that came about when Sheikh Mansour decided on a whim he would put some of his billions into City, no?
Click to expand...

Again I will ask a rational question. Show me one other way that City could have gone about things that would have worked??
 
newtonheathdave said:
Who benefited most from central not being allowed to join and who was most at risk from them being admitted?

The point I am trying to make is that United have took advantage of every bit of luck that has come their way and fair play to them. That is not to say they have not worked hard, had a good manager, good strategies etc as they have. United had the model that every club should follow. The point is why should City not be allowed to take advantage of the extra huge bit of fortune we have been given??
Click to expand...

I edited my post before you replied, but City were threatened by Central as they were founded because City moved west and left a lot of football fans behind in east Manchester. Lots of ex-City staff were involved and the initials MCFC were chosen deliberately. They wanted to take the place of Wigan Borough - if they had done so, they would have been playing on the same day as City (unlike United).
 
newtonheathdave said:
At the end of the day City's owners are not going away. You can either sit there complaining and going on about your istreee like scousers or you can evolve to compete. It is survival of the fittest.
At the end of the day if the Glazers were not bleeding your club dry then you would have more that enough cash to compete. Its not City's fault all your cash is going elsewhere
Click to expand...

You're correct. I was merely pointing out it wasn't quite that simple. This really isn't about The Glazers tbf.

I was saying I'm not a fan of this new football model. It's not a problem I have with City...as I said I'll not begrudge any City fan happines at their club winning honours. They have had nowt for so long. I don't like your lot winning as much as a throw in, but it's happened (and will continue to happen).
 
newtonheathdave said:
Again I will ask a rational question. Show me one other way that City could have gone about things that would have worked??
Click to expand...

For your club, this was the easiest way.

But it has not improved the situation that you have a problem with. Now the gap between other clubs and us is now greater, not smaller. You and Chelsea have made it harder for small teams to reach the top 4, not easier.
 
Is it a good move for football? No, not really.

Is it a good move for City? Of course. Short term, and if it's managed correctly long term as well.

I would doubt City fans care how their name gets on the trophy...as long as it is there. That goes for anyone really. I know City fans here at work who reckon they 'bought it'. Did they enjoy is any less? Did they feck.

They also reckon the big spending in the short term will allow them to develop youngsters who want to stay at the club. I agree.
 
newtonheathdave said:
At last some sense. I would have loved for city to produce 11 world class players and we grew that way and go on to win the league. The reality is though if we had produced top players, they would have been poached from us by the rich clubs before we had any chance to succeed.

There was no other way for City to go about things.
Click to expand...

Its sad but for me, true.

It always amazes me the amount of bitterness from United fans over City's success, throwing allegations regarding money spent, and what its doing to the game.

It may not be healthy in the long run, football seems to be spiralling out of control, but I don't see how that's relevant to this debate.

To me City, and what's happened there are a symptom and not the cause. Ironically United were at the forefront of developing the game as a business and opeoning new revenue streams around the world, effectively the falgship club for the worlds most popular league. I think to criticise Oligarch's and fame hungry billionaires who want to invest is hypocritical.

To talk about the health of the game is one thing, but every club, United included needs to get onside with that project if its ever going to happen. After all, United still pay ridiculous sums to players just like any other club - I don't see the difference between paying a player £100k or £200k a week, its all madness anyway.
 
RedRover said:
Its sad but for me, true.

It always amazes me the amount of bitterness from United fans over City's success, throwing allegations regarding money spent, and what its doing to the game.

It may not be healthy in the long run, football seems to be spiralling out of control, but I don't see how that's relevant to this debate.

To me City, and what's happened there are a symptom and not the cause. Ironically United were at the forefront of developing the game as a business and opeoning new revenue streams around the world, effectively the falgship club for the worlds most popular league. I think to criticise Oligarch's and fame hungry billionaires who want to invest is hypocritical.

To talk about the health of the game is one thing, but every club, United included needs to get onside with that project if its ever going to happen. After all, United still pay ridiculous sums to players just like any other club - I don't see the difference between paying a player £100k or £200k a week, its all madness anyway.
Click to expand...

And who started this wage madness? The sugar daddies in Italy.
 
thegregster said:
And who started this wage madness? The sugar daddies in Italy.
Click to expand...

...and yet it's only now, when the top British clubs have money to burn, that UEFA & co become concerned about the malign influence of big money on football. Go figure.
 
Our unparalleled success in the 90s ensured that we would be the top dogs, financially, for decades and most likely centuries. I don't think this is much fairer than City having to catch up by splurging an oil baron's millions, as I tried to explain in the newbies (with little success). We now buy our dominance too in transfers and wages, no matter how many people don't think we spend much. We have capitalism to thank for it, yet it amuses me when fellow fans (who are usually socialists) end up defending the model of how we "earnt" it.
 
thegregster said:
And who started this wage madness? The sugar daddies in Italy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps at the beginning - but it didn't kick in over here until a lot later, hence why players left to go to Italy - the likes of David Platt, Des Walker and before that Liam Brady and Greame Souness.

In the UK the PL kicked it off. Players (and their agents) realised that the bigger football got around the world the more money their was to be made flogging shirts and TV rights etc so players want a piece of the action. For me you can't criticise the players for that - if my employer was making millions off my back I'd want a cut.

The point I was making is that in a world where you're driving the development of a product for profit and gain, as United were in developing the business side of the game, if and when that becomes succesful and you benefit as much (if not more than others) you can't whinge when other people are attracted to the game.

Put simply - Football has turned into a monster and United did as much as any club to bring that about. How the game sgoes on is anybodies guess.

For me its simple - United fans liked it when they were top dogs and able to buy the best and brightest from their rivals when it suited. Now there are other competitors out there everyone cries "foul", especially as we're no longer as well off as we once were.

For me that's the nuts and bolts of it for a lot of United fans.
 
newtonheathdave said:
To be fair mate, there are shitloads of local United fans that would walk round in town today and not recognize Antonio Valencia. There were a few of us walking to Selfridges from the Arndale and he was walking over the bridge. It was me that seen him and I was with 4 reds.
Click to expand...

That I agree with wholeheartedly. Some of the lads I have local bants with here can be picked an absolute MILE off for being daft 'glory hunters' and 'faux fans'.

It's pretty hard when you're halfway through talking to them and you realise none of what you've been discussing has sunken in because they don't have a clue. It's actually interesting because I come here and the knowledge that some display is relieving. The amount of times i've heard my mates say "United always get the easiest draw in the Champions League" when I've explained for 4 seasons running that it's cause our co-efficient is high and we get drawn from Pot 1. It's infuriating.
 
NewDawnFades said:
For your club, this was the easiest way.

But it has not improved the situation that you have a problem with. Now the gap between other clubs and us is now greater, not smaller. You and Chelsea have made it harder for small teams to reach the top 4, not easier.
Click to expand...

It was the only way. For Chelsea, City or any other club for that matter. There's no realistic option for a club to make it big, apart from the huge investment from outside. Maybe in the past it wasn't the case, but not anymore.
 
antihenry said:
It was the only way. For Chelsea, City or any other club for that matter. There's no realistic option for a club to make it big, apart from the huge investment from outside. Maybe in the past it wasn't the case, but not anymore.
Click to expand...
Pre-Abramovich it was not the only way. It was difficult because of how dominant United and Arsenal had been (like other teams in decades past) but certain clubs, like Liverpool, Villa, Tottenham, Chelsea had the infrastructure of a big club in place to build upon.

Now that City and Chelsea join us with cash injections it really is near impossible to break through. Liverpool are the second biggest team in the country and they haven't had a look in for years now. Arsenal are remaining stable but failing to compete. United are in debt. It clearly is much, much harder for a small team to reach the top 4 and build from there now than it was back then.
 
antihenry said:
It was the only way. For Chelsea, City or any other club for that matter. There's no realistic option for a club to make it big, apart from the huge investment from outside. Maybe in the past it wasn't the case, but not anymore.
Click to expand...

I am, as ever, deeply amused by Chelsea and City fans making this claim. There's "no realistic option" because you cnuts have bought yourself permanent pre-eminence. You only have to look at this past season for the perfect example. Newcastle and Spurs, without any financial doping, made their sides better than yours. You lot are responding to this by spending an absolute shedload of cash on new players, money which has been gifted to you by your sugar daddy. If Chelsea and City disappeared tomorrow then Newcastle and Spurs could look to build on their success and perhaps even compete for the title in the near future. Instead, because of the limitless funding available to the two of you, those other two clubs will be kicked back down the ladder.

Chelsea put the boot into competition in English football, and then City came along and put a bullet in its head.
 
NewDawnFades said:
Pre-Abramovich it was not the only way. It was difficult because of how dominant United and Arsenal had been (like other teams in decades past) but certain clubs, like Liverpool, Villa, Tottenham, Chelsea had the infrastructure of a big club in place to build upon.
Click to expand...
In 1991 Man Utd hadn't won the league for donkey's years and Spurs, Everton Liverpool and Arsenal were all on about the same level. Arsenal missed a trick not responding to the influx of PL money but recovered about 5 years later due to Wenger. The playing field was pretty level and Man Utd's big windfall was Giggs, Beckham, Scholes and Neville.
 
peterstorey said:
In 1991 Man Utd hadn't won the league for donkey's years and Spurs, Everton Liverpool and Arsenal were all on about the same level. Arsenal missed a trick not responding to the influx of PL money but recovered about 5 years later due to Wenger. The playing field was pretty level and Man Utd's big windfall was Giggs, Beckham, Scholes and Neville.
Click to expand...

And marketing. No team marketed itself abroad like Manchester United did. They've done a brilliant job in that department.
They're also very good at getting sponsors.
 
Chabon said:
I am, as ever, deeply amused by Chelsea and City fans making this claim. There's "no realistic option" because you cnuts have bought yourself permanent pre-eminence. You only have to look at this past season for the perfect example. Newcastle and Spurs, without any financial doping, made their sides better than yours. You lot are responding to this by spending an absolute shedload of cash on new players, money which has been gifted to you by your sugar daddy. If Chelsea and City disappeared tomorrow then Newcastle and Spurs could look to build on their success and perhaps even compete for the title in the near future. Instead, because of the limitless funding available to the two of you, those other two clubs will be kicked back down the ladder.

Chelsea put the boot into competition in English football, and then City came along and put a bullet in its head.
Click to expand...

First of all, if it wasn't for AVB's mismanagement, we'd have finished in the top four comfortably.Plus, Newcastle and Spurs didn't have to battle it out in the CL against the Europe's best and could concentrate on the domestic campaign. Also, neither of those teams would have a shot in hell of winning the CL, which makes a "better side" argument pointless.

In any case, that's irrelevant. Finishing fourth isn't what I'm talking about. Spurs and Geordies aren't contenders, they never were, and unless they receive a huge investment, never will be. Everton finished fourth once and came close on a couple of occasions too, and yet that didn't change a thing for them.
 
Snow said:
And marketing. No team marketed itself abroad like Manchester United did. They've done a brilliant job in that department.
They're also very good at getting sponsors.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we'd just won the league in 89 and 91 but didn't realise what the PL meant in terms of opportunity. You did the commercial bit better but the class of 95 gave you a massive boost.
 
Football is what it is at present. Does anyone have any realistic ideas of how it could ne improved?
Would setting a limit on the amount of money each club spent on wages and transfer fees each season help? Say for exampl the most each club could spend each season was 60 million on transfers and your wage bill could be no more than 100 million. How you generated that mo.ey was your problem but no one could exceed them set limits. Would that level the playing field?
 
newtonheathdave said:
Football is what it is at present. Does anyone have any realistic ideas of how it could ne improved?
Would setting a limit on the amount of money each club spent on wages and transfer fees each season help? Say for exampl the most each club could spend each season was 60 million on transfers and your wage bill could be no more than 100 million. How you generated that mo.ey was your problem but no one could exceed them set limits. Would that level the playing field?
Click to expand...

Salary cap system implemented in NBA is the most fair deal I could think of but it's virtually impossible to create in football.
 
newtonheathdave said:
Football is what it is at present. Does anyone have any realistic ideas of how it could ne improved?
Would setting a limit on the amount of money each club spent on wages and transfer fees each season help? Say for exampl the most each club could spend each season was 60 million on transfers and your wage bill could be no more than 100 million. How you generated that mo.ey was your problem but no one could exceed them set limits. Would that level the playing field?
Click to expand...
A salary cap is the simple answer - no player can be paid more than £100K. PL and CL rules.
 
peterstorey said:
A salary cap is the simple answer - no player can be paid more than £100K. PL and CL rules.
Click to expand...

Then tax becomes an even bigger player. Spain might keep their rates very low to attract the best.

Also it could lead to the best players South Ameicans staying at home. Man city players would all head to China.
 
peterstorey said:
Yeah, we'd just won the league in 89 and 91 but didn't realise what the PL meant in terms of opportunity. You did the commercial bit better but the class of 95 gave you a massive boost.
Click to expand...

tbf Liverpool also had a pretty good youth at that time. Gerrard, Carragher, Owen, Fowler, Redknapp all pretty talented guys, we struck gold with SAF's management thoguh.
 
Some better means of distributing wealth within football is needed. I don't like the idea of a salary cap personally, and would rather a system whereby if a club exceeds £Xm a year in wages, then it is 'taxed' the equivalent amount that it overspent.

So, for example, if the wage threshold is £100m and City pay £150m per annum in wages, then they have to pay £50m into the 'wage tax' pot. (You'd probably also need to account for signing-on fees and golden handshakes, so clubs couldn't circumvent it that way.)

Distribute the money in the pot annually amongst the club's who stay below the threshold. (Or maybe instead of a hard threshold, it's done as a % of turnover?)
 
thegregster said:
Then tax becomes an even bigger player. Spain might keep their rates very low to attract the best.

Also it could lead to the best players South Ameicans staying at home. Man city players would all head to China.
Click to expand...
OK we have to live with it but long term the quality of the competition gets better, see Germany.
 
Chabon said:
I am, as ever, deeply amused by Chelsea and City fans making this claim. There's "no realistic option" because you cnuts have bought yourself permanent pre-eminence. You only have to look at this past season for the perfect example. Newcastle and Spurs, without any financial doping, made their sides better than yours. You lot are responding to this by spending an absolute shedload of cash on new players, money which has been gifted to you by your sugar daddy. If Chelsea and City disappeared tomorrow then Newcastle and Spurs could look to build on their success and perhaps even compete for the title in the near future. Instead, because of the limitless funding available to the two of you, those other two clubs will be kicked back down the ladder.

Chelsea put the boot into competition in English football, and then City came along and put a bullet in its head.
Click to expand...

This is a top post. There really is really no legitimate defence for City and Chelsea's actions. Aside from the enduring superficiality of their achievements the negative effects on football have been seismic
 
thegregster said:
City/Chelsea will be their till the sugar daddy gets bored.
Click to expand...

People have been saying this about Abramovich for ages now. And the City owners are building something for the future - I keep hearing lots of Scousers and United supporters saying this but it all seems a bit desperate.

City are here to stay - people need to get used to the idea. Whether you agree with how they are winning trophies doesn't really matter, they are doing it and will continue to do it.

I personally love the rivalry - it's made the league so much more interesting.
 
Crustanoid said:
This is a top post. There really is really no legitimate defence for City and Chelsea's actions. Aside from the enduring superficiality of their achievements the negative effects on football have been seismic
Click to expand...

If Real Madrid had been bought out by Sheikh Mansour, not one eyebrow would have been raised. UEFA would not be going round changing their rules to protect the few established clubs at the top. They would have welcomed the investment and said how it was great for the whole of football in tough financial times and great how football was bucking trend.
Lets me honest here, the problem is that it is ickle little Manchester City who got the investment. The established clubs don't like it. The attitude of a lot of United fans is that we are a small club, how dare we challenge and make life difficult for the established clubs, we should know our place and any achievement we have it tainted as we don't deserve it. Well that attitude is the reason most football fans in England at least wanted City to win on that last day and why most has a smile on their faces when Aguero scored.
 
newtonheathdave said:
If Real Madrid had been bought out by Sheikh Mansour, not one eyebrow would have been raised. UEFA would not be going round changing their rules to protect the few established clubs at the top. They would have welcomed the investment and said how it was great for the whole of football in tough financial times and great how football was bucking trend.
Lets me honest here, the problem is that it is ickle little Manchester City who got the investment. The established clubs don't like it. The attitude of a lot of United fans is that we are a small club, how dare we challenge and make life difficult for the established clubs, we should know our place and any achievement we have it tainted as we don't deserve it. Well that attitude is the reason most football fans in England at least wanted City to win on that last day and why most has a smile on their faces when Aguero scored.
Click to expand...


city have never been considered small, a shit club?, yes, but never small.
 
newtonheathdave said:
If Real Madrid had been bought out by Sheikh Mansour, not one eyebrow would have been raised. UEFA would not be going round changing their rules to protect the few established clubs at the top. They would have welcomed the investment and said how it was great for the whole of football in tough financial times and great how football was bucking trend.
Lets me honest here, the problem is that it is ickle little Manchester City who got the investment. The established clubs don't like it. The attitude of a lot of United fans is that we are a small club, how dare we challenge and make life difficult for the established clubs, we should know our place and any achievement we have it tainted as we don't deserve it. Well that attitude is the reason most football fans in England at least wanted City to win on that last day and why most has a smile on their faces when Aguero scored.
Click to expand...

The FFP was proposed before mansour came along. Not everything is about city.
 
newtonheathdave said:
Football is what it is at present. Does anyone have any realistic ideas of how it could ne improved?
Would setting a limit on the amount of money each club spent on wages and transfer fees each season help? Say for exampl the most each club could spend each season was 60 million on transfers and your wage bill could be no more than 100 million. How you generated that mo.ey was your problem but no one could exceed them set limits. Would that level the playing field?
Click to expand...

The obvious simple solution is live within your means. Don't spend more than you bring in. Sounds simple but probably almost impossible to properly implement. I'm very interested to fee how well FFP is implemented.

That said the system seems to work well in Germany so it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility.
 
For every man city their is a leeds,Rangers,Portsmouth etc. FFP is need to stop owners destroying clubs more than owners buying success.
 
It really isn't about City being a 'small' club. It's about the way they have gone about achieving success.

Would anyone be bothered about Spurs winning the league? I don't think there would be any backlash as they haven't warped the economic climate of football to do so. The level of financial doping enacted by City is hideous and really does take away from what they have achieved.

This is not a reflection of 'smaller' clubs getting some investment and improving - its about financial sustainability. The scale of City's actions is the key focus under question here. In a list of league champions there will always be a metaphorical asterisk next to the years when City and Chelsea win
 
You must log in or register to reply here.