** Summer Transfer Window 2011/12 Season Rumours/Signings **

Status
Not open for further replies.
Weebull said:
Oh no, by itself it's not a big amount, but the point was that before Fernandes took over, Ecclestone and Briatore weren't letting poor Colin spend a single dime at QPR, and you can bet they probably wouldn't have funded Barton's signing. I'm not saying they're going to go out and spend £50m on someone, but I think you could expect to see a few players finally come in to the club now.
Click to expand...

I never quite "got" why they took over, nor why they sold the club? They are insanely rich, did they want to fund a team into the prem league and make them big, did they get bored, they were spending not heavily, but spending when they first took over, managers and quite a lot of signings IIRC, but lately they've been doing everything on the cheap.

Did they really just want to spend the minimum possible to get into the prem league then sell up instantly for a big profit, even then "big profit" on a smaller prem league team for guys who are billionaires seems, meh.

I get rich playboys buying a club and spending literally billions, I get rich people who want to run it as a business, or fans/people who want to own a club who happen to be rich but don't want to spend. Its just super rich people who buy a team, then sell up when they hit the big time?
 
drunkenmaster said:
I never quite "got" why they took over, nor why they sold the club? They are insanely rich, did they want to fund a team into the prem league and make them big, did they get bored, they were spending not heavily, but spending when they first took over, managers and quite a lot of signings IIRC, but lately they've been doing everything on the cheap.

Did they really just want to spend the minimum possible to get into the prem league then sell up instantly for a big profit, even then "big profit" on a smaller prem league team for guys who are billionaires seems, meh.

I get rich playboys buying a club and spending literally billions, I get rich people who want to run it as a business, or fans/people who want to own a club who happen to be rich but don't want to spend. Its just super rich people who buy a team, then sell up when they hit the big time?
Click to expand...

Yeah. That seems to be it, bizarre as it seems!!
 
placeholder said:
The likes of Rooney has really never been the problem as far as wages are concerned.

Premium players at the top clubs should earn the most. Its when lesser clubs pay unsustainable wages to lesser players that the problems start. As a Leeds fan you should know that, your chairmans goldfish has a bigger transfer fee than most PL players at one point. Seth Johnsons grandkids will be thanking Leeds in years to come when they have enough money not to have to work based on his wages!!
Click to expand...

Yes and no, Utd weren't exactly hugely profitable when Rooney was on closer to what, 130-150k a week before. Infact considering how much they made on getting to champs league finals and bonuses for winning the league they would have more often than not made a loss, but for 80mil Ronaldo sales and the like. Huge turnover but not highly profitable(though I'm sure a lot of that is to do with the debt). Thing is Rooney got essentially a 5mil a year raise, and at what point do vidic, Ferdy, Young, Nani want pay parity, even if you bumped all those guys to "only" 200k a week, Utd wouldn't be sustainable.

The flip side of a proper wage cap would be, clubs just making obscene profits. I'm actually very much FOR the players getting most of the profits from what is essentially them entertaining us, without them, people wouldn't watch. But if say Utd were put on a 100k a week wage cap, they'd suddenly make 30-40mil more a year. Unless it was either, linked in a way that clubs would be forced to lower ticket prices, which I can't see feasable or, I can't really think of a way for it to be fair. Maybe seeing the clubs making insane profits people would simply stop going as much unless the ticket prices were "fair" and it would hopefully bring prices down.

I don't see anything as particularly wrong with having the option to go to City at silly wages and choosing it, but it would be nice if players didn't have the option and the talent got spread around a bit more.

Thats where I think a not fixed wage limit but a fixed total wage budget would work best, teams can pay one/two players more, but would have to offer lower wages to everyone else to stay in the limit, that way big clubs can't afford a full team of stars, and small teams CAN afford one star, or two.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Yes and no, Utd weren't exactly hugely profitable when Rooney was on closer to what, 130-150k a week before. Infact considering how much they made on getting to champs league finals and bonuses for winning the league they would have more often than not made a loss, but for 80mil Ronaldo sales and the like. Huge turnover but not highly profitable(though I'm sure a lot of that is to do with the debt). Thing is Rooney got essentially a 5mil a year raise, and at what point do vidic, Ferdy, Young, Nani want pay parity, even if you bumped all those guys to "only" 200k a week, Utd wouldn't be sustainable.

The flip side of a proper wage cap would be, clubs just making obscene profits. I'm actually very much FOR the players getting most of the profits from what is essentially them entertaining us, without them, people wouldn't watch. But if say Utd were put on a 100k a week wage cap, they'd suddenly make 30-40mil more a year. Unless it was either, linked in a way that clubs would be forced to lower ticket prices, which I can't see feasable or, I can't really think of a way for it to be fair. Maybe seeing the clubs making insane profits people would simply stop going as much unless the ticket prices were "fair" and it would hopefully bring prices down.

I don't see anything as particularly wrong with having the option to go to City at silly wages and choosing it, but it would be nice if players didn't have the option and the talent got spread around a bit more.

Thats where I think a not fixed wage limit but a fixed total wage budget would work best, teams can pay one/two players more, but would have to offer lower wages to everyone else to stay in the limit, that way big clubs can't afford a full team of stars, and small teams CAN afford one star, or two.
Click to expand...

I fundamentally disagree with it.

I agree why the status quo is wrong and i find the Man City situation a little farcical but it is what it is.

Football clubs are a business.

On the most primitive level if i buy a business i resent someone telling me i cant put money into it to make it successful.
 
Moses said:
Then surely you'd support wage caps, as otherwise clubs have a spending war, to chase the top prizes, which works if they succeed, but fails if they don't. Clubs make profits is businesslike... clubs being artificially boosted/propped up by outside investment isn't businesslike. Clubs gamble, as it stands - people ask why Tottenham don't break their wage budget, to chase a top four spot... it's because if they fail they're screwed!

---

You say you want to be able to put money in to be successful, but why don't you take a look at the NFL... they all make a bunch of money, yet have a wage cap and revenue sharing...
Click to expand...

The NFL is confined to one country, within one governing body. It is so fundamentally different to football that its not even worth mentioning.

They also move franchises round the country.

Think about the implications of that.......
 
barcelona have poured a lot of cash into messi. they funded his medication as a youth and i believe that they took out a sponsorship deal with a company purely to fund his wages.
 
placeholder said:
I fundamentally disagree with it.

I agree why the status quo is wrong and i find the Man City situation a little farcical but it is what it is.

Football clubs are a business.

On the most primitive level if i buy a business i resent someone telling me i cant put money into it to make it successful.
Click to expand...

They are a business, but they can only operate as a business due to the sport of football, so really the sport has to come first. I'm not against better teams dominating to a degree, but what if City from this year, maybe next year, just pay the two best players in every position, half a mil a week, and win the EPL for the next 20 years........ will people still care about football if theres no competition in it at all?

We really have to draw a limit somewhere because, well, City aren't being run like a business, obscene profits is one thing, using the profits from a trillion dollar industry to write off the losses for another business gives a ludicrously unfair advantage. Even Chelsea haven't been "that" ridiculous. I mean Chelsea were the richest club in the world by some margin, and spent more than most(not insanely more than Real to be fair) yet I don' think Chelsea have had the highest paid players really at any stage in the past 7-8 years.
 
what i don't get about city is that i bet even the average city fan couldn't name the owner or point to where he came from on a map. the point i'm trying to make, is why is he doing it? is he just playing a little 'let's amuse myself amongst friends' game in the background as he doesn't really seem to get much publicity (some might say props to him for this) and it's almost embarassing how much money he is literally pouring down the drain if he doesn't want to make a public status about himself. atleast abramovich did it for the sanctuary from the people who wanted to kill him :p
 
placeholder said:
I fundamentally disagree with it.

I agree why the status quo is wrong and i find the Man City situation a little farcical but it is what it is.

Football clubs are a business.

On the most primitive level if i buy a business i resent someone telling me i cant put money into it to make it successful.
Click to expand...

But a proper business isn't successful if it's the leader in its field whilst making a huge loss. If Apple sold the iPad at a loss every time they wouldn't be a successful business despite being the market leader.

Football needs to decide what it is, a business or a sport, and regulate its clubs accordingly.
 
drunkenmaster said:
They are a business, but they can only operate as a business due to the sport of football, so really the sport has to come first. I'm not against better teams dominating to a degree, but what if City from this year, maybe next year, just pay the two best players in every position, half a mil a week, and win the EPL for the next 20 years........ will people still care about football if theres no competition in it at all?

We really have to draw a limit somewhere because, well, City aren't being run like a business, obscene profits is one thing, using the profits from a trillion dollar industry to write off the losses for another business gives a ludicrously unfair advantage. Even Chelsea haven't been "that" ridiculous. I mean Chelsea were the richest club in the world by some margin, and spent more than most(not insanely more than Real to be fair) yet I don' think Chelsea have had the highest paid players really at any stage in the past 7-8 years.
Click to expand...


Its been done before.

Blackburn, Chelsea etc.

Actually LOOK at what Chelsea spent to win a couple of League Titles.

Value for money?

You can buy the two best players every year for 6 years, that doesnt give you the best team.

Thats why Man Utd will win the league with Darren Fletcher playing and Man City will lose it with Craig Bellamy available on a free despite costing £13m and having £80k/wk wages.
 
One More Solo said:
But a proper business isn't successful if it's the leader in its field whilst making a huge loss. If Apple sold the iPad at a loss every time they wouldn't be a successful business despite being the market leader.

Football needs to decide what it is, a business or a sport, and regulate its clubs accordingly.
Click to expand...

The last sentence i agree with.

However that hasnt happened.
 
Moses said:
That's the great thing about American sports, which I've posted about countless times before - with revenue sharing and draft systems, they have leagues which are always going to be competitive, as lesser clubs always have the chance of being able to draft potentially amazing players and they all have the same wage budget.
Click to expand...

Its ONE league in america!

Its confined to one country.

If alarm bells arent ringing as to the issues with this as a global answer for football (or soccer(!)) them i really dont know.
 
Spawn said:
Smacks of desperation really, i like Sol but feel hes too old now but who knows, he came and played with us a couple of yrs ago and did pretty well.
Click to expand...

K1LLSW1TCH said:
I wouldn't mind him back for one more year and then maybe he can go into a coaching role, he's got the winning mentality that we desperately need.
Click to expand...

Read the article, it was more that he has been offered a coaching role for the youths/academy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom