|
Whilst City had a huge loss based on buying ALL the players and wage increase surely for next year that should be down a whole lot? I can't see them buying many more players to be honest. Well not to the level of what they just did and the Champions league money is going to start kicking in. As well as the fact you'll probably start getting the bandwagon money coming in.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Fists Up posted:Whilst City had a huge loss based on buying ALL the players and wage increase surely for next year that should be down a whole lot? They still haven't spent enough to beat barca/Madrid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
Modus Trollens posted:They still haven't spent enough to beat Napoli. fixed this for you
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Whilst City had a huge loss based on buying ALL the players and wage increase surely for next year that should be down a whole lot? Buying players is expensive, paying players is more expensive. Just because they won't be bringing in players (And they probably will bring players in, even if it's just someone to replace Tevez, but imagine if they don't meet/exceed expectations), doesn't mean their wage bill is decreasing. If anything, it'll increase, especially if the team performs well. Their spending more than £20mil on wages than their bringing in total. That number will change because they might go deeper in some competitions or place better in the league, but not enough to decrease that amount by any significant margin (Differences between 5th and 1st in Pissflap's table from 09/10 = ~£3mil). It's too bad FIFA/UEFA's too much of a clusterfuck to implement a wage cap. It's about the only way to keep big clubs in check.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
I still don't see what alternative there is for competing with the established big earners, other than the City model of massive external investment (other than perhaps the Leeds model and we all know how well that ended). Spending power = success = further spending power and on and on down the eons till the sun goes out and the earth grows cold. The whole argument for FFP is a textbook case of "gently caress you, got mine" and it's incredibly disingenuous to pretend otherwise. ^^^ Agreed. A salary cap would go a lot further to bringing greater competition back into the game. e: which is probably why it'll never happen
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
Vinestalk posted:Their spending more than £20mil on wages than their bringing in total. That number will change because they might go deeper in some competitions or place better in the league, but not enough to decrease that amount by any significant margin Or they might have qualified for the champions league, which brings in tens of millions every year. And they did do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
Citing the breaking of transfer records is sensationalist strawman nonsense. Newcastle have broken it too, what the gently caress have they won? Jack Walker gave Blackburn a blank chequebook and got precisely one trophy from it and they wouldn't even have got that if Cantona hadn't decided to add "being a violent steward" to his CV. The most successful periods in United history, including the dominance of the 90s has been on the back of the youth academy and a sound talisman or two to build the team around, not buying All The Players. To compare Fergie's transfer policy post 94 with anything remotely resembling Chelsea or City is loving ludicrous. Pre 94 United were looking to challenge for the league title while also rebuilding the youth academy from the ground up. Claiming United bought the trophies they got is utter crap. There's also a world of loving difference between making money via football and football merchandising and happening to be the club some bored rich oval office picked. Ninpo fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Nov 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:What's the difference? I think it's fairly obvious that money a football club raises in the process of being a football club is somewhat removed from money that a football club raises in the process of being bourgeois amusements for the despotic leaders of barren slave-states. Reminder that Manchester United have never air-conditioned a beach, built a 1,000ft tower full of nothing, nor paid Emmanuel Adebayor a wage high enough to literally deter Real Madrid from attempting to sign him permanently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:I think it's fairly obvious that money a football club raises in the process of being a football club is somewhat removed from money that a football club raises in the process of being bourgeois amusements for the despotic leaders of barren slave-states. thank god that the process of being a football club includes being handed wads of money by sky execs, that's totally different from being handed wads of money by arabs
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:thank god that the process of being a football club includes being handed wads of money by sky execs, that's totally different from being handed wads of money by arabs For televised FOOTBALL. Are you brain damaged? Were you this indignant about the televised football money West Ham got from Sky? You've only been without it for five minutes. Where do you think your parachute payments came from, the moon?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
Me, I'd rather receive 800m than the pitiful sums Sky vomits into my books p.a.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:I think it's fairly obvious that money a football club raises in the process of being a football club is somewhat removed from money that a football club raises in the process of being bourgeois amusements for the despotic leaders of barren slave-states. Football clubs getting money from their owners has always been a part of being a football club. Although, I admit, your club's owners have put an interesting new twist on this cashflow arrangement. Funny you should bring up the middle classes, with the rising profile of the game, directly linked to the Sky money that the club you support helped bring in, has taken it from being a working class game directly into the purview of those bourgeois that apparently aren't a good thing anymore? There is no difference between what Manchester United has done for the last 20 years, and what Manchester City is doing now. Deal with it. Everyone else has had to. Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Nov 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:There is no difference between what Manchester United have done for the last 20 years, and what Manchester City are doing now. Flaps this is utterly ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:For televised FOOTBALL. Are you brain damaged? Were you this indignant about the televised football money West Ham got from Sky? not really, but also you thought it was even, and you even thought that people in general thought it was even, so once again you've proved dramatically incorrect about football. Being handed more money than other clubs for the exact same rights is a financial advantage that perpetuates the status quo, do you honestly not see this
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:Flaps this is utterly ridiculous. It's absolutely not. You're blinkered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
Your ninja edits are always funny but lol are you saying I should be grateful for the fact that my club is paid a pitiful sum by sky to attempt to stave off the insolvency problem that is a direct result of their interference in football because this is a new level of stupid
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's absolutely not. You're blinkered. It is and given your usual opinions on all things football, you know it is. You're trotting out ridiculous ABU rhetoric at this point. Making the most out of your own marketing potential and running your club as a sound business is worlds apart from random bored rich bottomless pockets oil boya buying an expensive toy to play with. Spangly A posted:Your ninja edits are always funny but lol are you saying I should be grateful for the fact that my club is paid a pitiful sum by sky to attempt to stave off the insolvency problem that is a direct result of their interference in football because this is a new level of stupid Wait, Sky are why clubs have money problems now? Yet you're calling me stupid? A second ago Sky give away far too much money. However if you think 20m is what would have turned dead last into championship contenders...
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
A reminder that the owners of Manchester United once spent money on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Under any scheme of financial fair play, United should be given a £30m headstart to counter the fact they're clearly run by utter buffoons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:It is and given your usual opinions on all things football, you know it is. You're trotting out ridiculous ABU rhetoric at this point. Making the most out of your own marketing potential and running your club as a sound business is worlds apart from random bored rich bottomless pockets oil boya buying an expensive toy to play with. A business made sound only by the top-loaded sources of TV revenue they helped implement and marketing potential only realised from this same process. I do not see the difference between a club attracting a single investor from the middle east, and another a million investors from the far east.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:
do you understand anything about how inflation works? Seriously asking here. The very first bought sky-era championship featured people outraged at the fact that Chris Sutton was earning half a million A YEAR. Sky give away too much money to THE TOP CLUBS. It creates a financial imbalance that keeps those up top, up top. In the exact same way Man City's money will. In the same way FFP will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Football clubs getting money from their owners has always been a part of being a football club. Although, I admit, your club's owners have put an interesting new twist on this cashflow arrangement. Well, yes, there is historical precedent for this sort of thing. Specifically, General Franco. And, well, people got uppity about that one, too. Other than that, people who styled themselves as kings generally avoided such pursuits. At some point, however, yes, all football club owners will generally break down into "bad" owners (who take money out of the club) and "good" owners (who shunt money in). This is admittedly not a great state of affairs. It's also why I'm reluctant to see financial constraints brought in prior to fans gaining ownership of their own clubs, because it then simply becomes a charter to steal from fans, as it is in the US. However, most owners make actual investments. With their own money. When John Henry puts money into Liverpool, and they piss it away on a Geordie spiteweasel, that's his own money he's losing. Sheikh Mansour doesn't spend his own money. He spends other people's money on useless trinkets to cure his own boredom. Frenchmen took oaths on tennis courts for less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
Oh I get it. It's about ethics. I do hope the sweatshops that churn out United tat treat their underage labour well. Or the jewellery shop that Glazer inherited only sold ethical diamonds, or in fact that the 'food processing, marine supplies, health care, real estate, energy exploration, and broadcasting' businesses he is involved with all pass similar scrutiny. As you can see, I am a Wikipedia expert. Word your next reply carefully.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:do you understand anything about how inflation works? Seriously asking here. The very first bought sky-era championship featured people outraged at the fact that Chris Sutton was earning half a million A YEAR. No, he's right. West Ham's financial problems are probably more to do with being firstly owned by a loving Icelandic bank before being sold to a pair of gladhanding dildo merchants who spent the entire season badmouthing the players in the national press, or the fact that they were required to pay £25m+ in compensation for illegally registering two players and then deliberately obfuscating that fact, or indeed the fact that your owners bitched about player wages for six months and then announced that they were trying to sign Ruud van Nistelrooy to a £100,000-a-week contract. It's not going to be because there's a £15m difference in prize money between winning the league and coming loving last.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Oh I get it. It's about ethics. You appear to be constructing an argument here predicated largely on the popularity of the Glazer family with the United supporter base, and their desire to see them continue in this role. Perhaps, instead, a football club should be owned by fans of said football club.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:47
|
|
|
No my argument is still that Manchester City are doing nothing that plenty of other clubs havent done, including Manchester United. They're just doing it on a grander scale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:No, he's right. West Ham's financial problems are probably more to do with being firstly owned by a loving Icelandic bank before being sold to a pair of gladhanding dildo merchants who spent the entire season badmouthing the players in the national press, or the fact that they were required to pay £25m+ in compensation for illegally registering two players and then deliberately obfuscating that fact, or indeed the fact that your owners bitched about player wages for six months and then announced that they were trying to sign Ruud van Nistelrooy to a £100,000-a-week contract. its completely irrelevant. I've not brought West Ham up once, Ninpo's just a paranoid lunatic. Our management and team weren't good enough and fair play wouldn't really have helped there, although arguably we'd have kept Cole, Carrick and Johnson for long enough to establish ourselves midtable. Our financial situation is entirely down to the icelandics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Really you have to blame Blackburn's title winning season for all of this. Proviing that a title could be easily bought under the correct management.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Or they might have qualified for the champions league, which brings in tens of millions every year. Vinestalk posted:If anything, [the wage bill will] increase, especially if the team performs well. Welcome to the world of incentive based wages, sir.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 01:14
|
|
|
"The game dun' changed!" - HBO's The Wire. Except not really. The metagame of football now comes down to owner investment outside of club profit. All City have done is play the metagame correctly and abused the fact that there isn't any real rule against spending £200m in a financial year, yet. By the time the rule comes into play they will already be in a strong position and will be an attractive prospect for All The Players. These are the rules of the sport we follow and City haven't done anything wrong. They've just taken what's there. What are they meant to do? Not use all of their available resources because of some misguided sense of honour? Y'know, I almost respect what City have done. It's the most outrageous and honest buying of the league in history and rules will only come into place when someone takes it to such an extreme. At least Chelsea were already in the Champions League when they got bought by Roman. City were hovering around 9th-10th and suddenly found themselves buying Robinho. I think that really says a lot about the sport. Football has always favoured whoever has the most money regardless of were it comes from. Success only generates more potential success and we can't pick and choose what perks are acceptable until the rules of the sport indicate otherwise. These are the same rules which have enabled the "top" clubs to stay comfortable for decades. Who complained when they got more money because they happen to be successful or when they snap up other clubs best/youth players? How can a club build anything when all your best prospects are made offers that they can't refuse? Football has an inherently flawed model for a supposedly "fair" game and City are using it to their advantage like many other clubs do. The problem isn't sugardaddys wanting to throw money into clubs. The problem is that there isn't anything in place to prevent it or promote a more even playing field in the sport. Do you think City fans give a poo poo about the integrity of how they got to the top of the table after suffering two decades of one way traffic mocking from Utd fans, many of whom have never known anything else? This is the game of football, as it is, 2011. It's a funny old game and will remain so until the rules change. In summary, football is not dead. It was never alive and it will only ever be "born" when every club is restricted to £30m in the transfer window.  Hala sheiki, ha lini falla Mili ha lan shi inni mala We getting Arab money We getting Arab money - Busta Rhymes
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
I just couldn't take satisfaction in winning anything when the owners of my club spent the kind of sums Chelsea and now City are spending.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
Ewar Woowar posted:I just couldn't take satisfaction in winning anything when the owners of my club spent the kind of sums Chelsea and now City are spending. I really couldn't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
TyChan posted:I really couldn't give a gently caress. Would you have liked Liverpool to have been in City's position?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 07:07
|
|
|
Ewar Woowar posted:Would you have liked Liverpool to have been in City's position? I want Liverpool to kill football and keep choking its lifeless corpse until all the witless proletarian masses who said they loved the game robotically move on to their natural fates of drowning themselves in pits of corn syrup and processed baby food.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 07:10
|
|
|
Ewar Woowar posted:Would you have liked Liverpool to have been in City's position? Its not like Liverpool are paupers, according to that dodgy transfer league site Liverpool have been the 3rd highest spenders in the Premier League era. There is no real difference between Man Utd or Liverpool spunking 100m on players, Chelsea 200m, and Man City a billion or however much. They all represent numbers so far away from anything the vast majority of clubs can afford that they are basically the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 08:02
|
|
|
Ewar Woowar posted:I just couldn't take satisfaction in winning anything when the owners of my club spent the kind of sums Chelsea and now City are spending. Still supports a team that spent 75m pounds on Jordan Henderson, Stuart Downing and Andy Carroll. lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 08:13
|
|
|
Byolante posted:Still supports a team that spent 75m pounds on Jordan Henderson, Stuart Downing and Andy Carroll. lol. It's disgusting that we spent that much. I don't defend it at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 09:11
|
|
|
Semprini posted:A reminder that the owners of Manchester United once spent money on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Reminder that the salary of the Buccaneers was so low a while back that to even reach the NFL's wage floor they signed kickers and linemen with million-dollar incentives in their contracts for things like 20 completed touchdown passes in a season because incentives counted toward the salary floor instead of actually signing another loving $5 million in players. I forget if this was before or after they bought Manchester United. For people who don't know anything about American football, it's basically like putting a £1m bonus for scoring 10 goals in a season into a keeper's contract. Luigi Thirty fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Nov 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 09:14
|
|
|
Ewar Woowar posted:It's disgusting that we spent that much. I don't defend it at all. you wouldn't be arsed if you'd bought some decent players with it and were top of the league.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 09:15
|
|
|
8raz posted:In summary, football is not dead. It was never alive and it will only ever be "born" when every club is restricted to £30m in the transfer window. Restricting transfer fees doesn't solve the big problem. If anything, you're just hurting smaller clubs dependent on selling the players they nurture/create. The big clubs would absolutely love it if they were almost always guaranteed to be able to sign whoever they wanted for £30mil. The Fabregas saga in particular would have had a slightly more hilarious/depressing outcome had there been a cap on spending per window.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 09:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Vinestalk posted:Restricting transfer fees doesn't solve the big problem. If anything, you're just hurting smaller clubs dependent on selling the players they nurture/create. Don't think that's correct, mate mila kunis fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Nov 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2011 09:31
|
|
