"Citah have bought the title..." And your team wouldn't?
Discussion
Right, first up. In no way am I a Citah fan. I don't support any team in the Premiership but I'm baffled by this statement which seems to be flying around many forums this evening.
Can any fan of any team seriously suggest for a minute that if another gentleman from the Middle East rocked up at their ground and said "Here's half a billion quid, go and buy who you want & get a superstar manager. And while your about it here's another half a billion for a new stadium,"
I'm willing to bet that a great many people on these various forums who have been saying that "Citah have bought the Premiership, EPL coming, the end of football in the UK as we know it," would be eating their words very quickly.
"Well we deserve it, many years of struggle, we've always been a massive club, now we can take on the big boys, we're the only true club in Manchester/London/Birmingham/Devon/Wales/The South Coast anyway"
If some cash rich saviour wandered down to Exeter (my club due it being the place of my birth) we'd snap his arm off. Can any fan honestly say that they would want their club to say?
"No thanks, its okay. We'll just crack on with our crappy ground and our cast offs from the Championship. And anyway we've got a couple of promising young footballers coming up through our ranks if we can keep them away from the gangstas. So we'll take the high ground."
Do me a favour.
Can any fan of any team seriously suggest for a minute that if another gentleman from the Middle East rocked up at their ground and said "Here's half a billion quid, go and buy who you want & get a superstar manager. And while your about it here's another half a billion for a new stadium,"
I'm willing to bet that a great many people on these various forums who have been saying that "Citah have bought the Premiership, EPL coming, the end of football in the UK as we know it," would be eating their words very quickly.
"Well we deserve it, many years of struggle, we've always been a massive club, now we can take on the big boys, we're the only true club in Manchester/London/Birmingham/Devon/Wales/The South Coast anyway"
If some cash rich saviour wandered down to Exeter (my club due it being the place of my birth) we'd snap his arm off. Can any fan honestly say that they would want their club to say?
"No thanks, its okay. We'll just crack on with our crappy ground and our cast offs from the Championship. And anyway we've got a couple of promising young footballers coming up through our ranks if we can keep them away from the gangstas. So we'll take the high ground."
Do me a favour.
To be honest, I don't think it is any different to having a new owner come in, and wipe out your debts, and inject money for transfers. People talk about clubs earning their money,MIT that simply tends to mean PR, merchandise, and all that stuff. My manager has spent 10 million nett since 2003, (Moyes at Everton), and it would be nice to be able to splash the cash that the other clubs can. Spending 20-50 million on a single player is just so out of bounds for us. I for one would have no qualms about bringing in a sugar daddy, as long as they weren't complete imbeciles. The risk is overspending, building up debt that they place on the club, then jumping with a parachute. It has to be done right.
Unfortunately, it takes money to get into the all important CL spots where you can get that extra cash to buy players, as well as being able to attract those extra special players. It is a knife edge.
Unfortunately, it takes money to get into the all important CL spots where you can get that extra cash to buy players, as well as being able to attract those extra special players. It is a knife edge.
Not the first time (and no doubt not the last) that this one has been said - Chelsea and even Blackburn a few years ago.
What money may not buy is a deep rooted heritage and culture to develop the club, sticking by managers, and this is why I have to admire Man Utd despite everyone loving the fact that they lost out today. Chelsea are a classic case of money doesn't always talk and perhaps City may go through this in a few years time? Remember that they have already showed their fickle side and sacked managers. Perhaps if they have 2-3 bad games next year and don't come up with the goods in the CL, Mancini could become yet another victim? It is sad though when other clubs suffer as a result of excessive money ruling as they can't compete on transfers and perhaps don't get signings based on their passion and ambition because they can't pay players at the inflated rate.
What money may not buy is a deep rooted heritage and culture to develop the club, sticking by managers, and this is why I have to admire Man Utd despite everyone loving the fact that they lost out today. Chelsea are a classic case of money doesn't always talk and perhaps City may go through this in a few years time? Remember that they have already showed their fickle side and sacked managers. Perhaps if they have 2-3 bad games next year and don't come up with the goods in the CL, Mancini could become yet another victim? It is sad though when other clubs suffer as a result of excessive money ruling as they can't compete on transfers and perhaps don't get signings based on their passion and ambition because they can't pay players at the inflated rate.
It has been going on for a century and not just in the English league (Real Madrid, Inter, AC, Juventus etc) and it goes on in other sports as well. Just happens that the City lot have rather a lot of money, although the Sheikh hasn't even spent all of his Barclays profit yet, let alone the oil money.
The numbers get bigger, possibly absolutely as well as nominally, but most other things are the same.
The numbers get bigger, possibly absolutely as well as nominally, but most other things are the same.
phil-sti said:
Cost of players on the pitch today:
Man Utd - £169m
Man City - £165m
Doesn't even come close to telling the whole story. Many clubs have a fairly expensively assembled team of 'first choice' players - but some clubs have assembled substitute and reserve players costing similar amounts. That gives incredible strength in depth, which is what often makes the difference between winning the title and finishing around the top 4-6 places.Man Utd - £169m
Man City - £165m
It also doesn't tell the story of the wage bill, either - if the sheik pulled the plug tomorrow, City would be bankrupt within a week due to the wage bill - their income doesn't even cover the playing staff wages, let alone the rest of the costs associated with running the club.
There will always be a 'local businessman' who'll want to throw money at his local club (see: Jack Walker) - but he didn't leave the club in an unsustainable position - he bought players and infrastructure - but when he stopped spending, the club was still able to run as a going concern.
HeatonNorris said:
It also doesn't tell the story of the wage bill, either - if the sheik pulled the plug tomorrow, City would be bankrupt within a week due to the wage bill - their income doesn't even cover the playing staff wages, let alone the rest of the costs associated with running the club.
Given City were bought for promotion/image more than anything else, do you really think they'd up sticks overnight and leave them to go bankrupt? Not going to happen.I'm pretty certain funds would be made available to cover current contracts if the exit was sharp, or there would be a gradual wind-down.
HeatonNorris said:
There will always be a 'local businessman' who'll want to throw money at his local club (see: Jack Walker) - but he didn't leave the club in an unsustainable position - he bought players and infrastructure - but when he stopped spending, the club was still able to run as a going concern.
Not really, look at what has happened to Blackburn in the last couple of years. The Walker trust couldn't keep it going at any worthwhile level - they wouldn't have sold to the chicken chasers otherwise.DukeDickson said:
HeatonNorris said:
It also doesn't tell the story of the wage bill, either - if the sheik pulled the plug tomorrow, City would be bankrupt within a week due to the wage bill - their income doesn't even cover the playing staff wages, let alone the rest of the costs associated with running the club.
Given City were bought for promotion/image more than anything else, do you really think they'd up sticks overnight and leave them to go bankrupt? Not going to happen.I'm pretty certain funds would be made available to cover current contracts if the exit was sharp, or there would be a gradual wind-down.
HeatonNorris said:
There will always be a 'local businessman' who'll want to throw money at his local club (see: Jack Walker) - but he didn't leave the club in an unsustainable position - he bought players and infrastructure - but when he stopped spending, the club was still able to run as a going concern.
DukeDickson said:
Not really, look at what has happened to Blackburn in the last couple of years. The Walker trust couldn't keep it going at any worthwhile level - they wouldn't have sold to the chicken chasers otherwise.
HeatonNorris said:
DukeDickson said:
HeatonNorris said:
It also doesn't tell the story of the wage bill, either - if the sheik pulled the plug tomorrow, City would be bankrupt within a week due to the wage bill - their income doesn't even cover the playing staff wages, let alone the rest of the costs associated with running the club.
Given City were bought for promotion/image more than anything else, do you really think they'd up sticks overnight and leave them to go bankrupt? Not going to happen.I'm pretty certain funds would be made available to cover current contracts if the exit was sharp, or there would be a gradual wind-down.
HeatonNorris said:
There will always be a 'local businessman' who'll want to throw money at his local club (see: Jack Walker) - but he didn't leave the club in an unsustainable position - he bought players and infrastructure - but when he stopped spending, the club was still able to run as a going concern.
DukeDickson said:
Not really, look at what has happened to Blackburn in the last couple of years. The Walker trust couldn't keep it going at any worthwhile level - they wouldn't have sold to the chicken chasers otherwise.
City sheikh is a man that made a billion or more on one single deal - do you honestly think he didn't know exactly what he was letting himself in for?
The debt thing is usually a red herring (group tax relief, earned interest/profit from other investments etc), and/or you get to a point where it is some form of vanity purchase or long-term thing.
As for Blackburn, I would disagree. While not quite as bad as Wigan, they don't (and most likely never will) get great crowds, were given what seemed at the time to be a sustainable chunk of cash, but later found that it wasn't enough. I can't be parsed to go hunting, but do remember a degree of money friction when Sparky was manager, plus they were obviously reasonably keen to sell. Wisely (in some senses) Jack didn't wee to much of his fortune down the football black hole, as someone like Dave Whelan isn't doing with my lot. Don't blame them either - large fortune, small fortune etc.
DukeDickson said:
HeatonNorris said:
It also doesn't tell the story of the wage bill, either - if the sheik pulled the plug tomorrow, City would be bankrupt within a week due to the wage bill - their income doesn't even cover the playing staff wages, let alone the rest of the costs associated with running the club.
Given City were bought for promotion/image more than anything else, do you really think they'd up sticks overnight and leave them to go bankrupt? Not going to happen.I'm pretty certain funds would be made available to cover current contracts if the exit was sharp, or there would be a gradual wind-down.
CraigMST said:
It's banter and bitterness. One clubs fan will call at another fans club if they've won something by buying it or cheating, even tho if the shoe was on the other foot it would be a different matter.
It's what football is about and what it consists of.
Well, not everywhere. Nobody has injected huge amounts of cash into United, arguably quite the reverse. Most of the German clubs (including I think Bayern Munich)stand on their own two feet and look where they are. It's what football is about and what it consists of.
I don't think there are too many United supporters who would trade City's position/structure for what there is at OT either.
No qualms about Citeh and their money, anyone would do similar. One thing the EPL has to do though to try and keep things competitive for us less fortunate is to stop the stupid loan system current place. I don't believe any Premiership club should be allowed to loan players to another Premiership club. There's no way Adebayor should've been on loan at Spurs, or Bendtner to Sunderland. You have to stop Citeh and Chelsea in particular buying players just to stop them going to any potential rivals, then loaning them out to whoever they see fit. If a club has some young players that need first team experience, then there's the Championship and League 1 for that .
TheHeretic said:
Why not?
well, because that means the lendee gets to dictate who plays against them. In the case of Adebayor, he can play against all Citeh's rivals, but not Citeh, and they're probably paying a good chunk of his wages too. I'm pretty sure it wasn't always the case that a loan player could play against his parent club, not sure why that was changed. It might also make a player think before joining a cash rich club, I'm sure £200k a week playing in League 1 would appeal to some, but not all.Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff