Seriously though, do City not have a youth setup?
They bought a pretend one right? Haven't they got the most expensive one in the league now (in terms of facilities)? I don't think it actually produces anything though.
Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [10th - 15th April 2015]
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
They bought a pretend one right? Haven't they got the most expensive one in the league now (in terms of facilities)? I don't think it actually produces anything though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,875
City could actually be in some trouble due to FFP, as they were just discussing on the Sky Sports coverage. They don't have the revenue that some of the other big teams have, and I doubt they'll get that much for any of the players they are looking to sell. I guess they could just ignore FFP but who knows what the repercussions of that might be.
Yep, it cost £150-200 mill according to this article:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...r-news/man-citys-new-training-complex-8246593
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...r-news/man-citys-new-training-complex-8246593
I could do his job if the pay was right.
They just sign another suspect sponsorship deal and that will sort that out easily
Hopefully. The whole things a joke designed to maintain the status quo. Boring. I do think they will start to struggle under it as players age and income is no where near big enough. The whole scam should be focused around debt and spending not for clubs that can fund it. Of course I can understand why fans with of clubs with the best incomes would think opposite.
The thing that annoys me about FFP is it basically prevents a 'sugar daddy' coming into a club and putting millions into it without having an immediate impact. Could Man City or Chelsea get away with Abramovich or the Arabs coming in and throwing millions at the club now? I'm not sure but without the sponsorship and success they'd likely fall foul of it which isn't really fair. Seems like it's designed to keep the rich clubs rich and the poor clubs poor through lack of investment opportunities.
Danny hit the nail on the head. FFP's single biggest purpose was to protect the top clubs from another Chelsea, City or PSG turning up and making it more expensive to compete.
Financial controls were first talked about following the Glazers takeover of Utd, Hicks and Gillett at Liverpool and the mess that Portsmouth got into, and the initial talk was all about controlling and preventing huge debts. UEFA couldn't sell that idea to the clubs though. Instead a watered down compromise was reached that suited the big clubs. I don't think anybody can claim that the Glazers, Hicks & Gillett and Portsmouth's various owners have been better for football than either RA or City's owners yet FFP won't prevent another Portsmouth but will prevent somebody taking over a smaller club and making them Champions.
If UEFA's FFP wasn't bad enough, what annoys me more is the PL's version or more specifically the PL club owners that have condemned 80% of the league to mediocrity. The majority of PL clubs are run as business's now and FFP has given all these businessmen and investors an excuse not to spend for the 2, 3, 4 or 5 years they might be around but by signing up to FFP they've condemned the club for the decades after they've left.
Financial controls were first talked about following the Glazers takeover of Utd, Hicks and Gillett at Liverpool and the mess that Portsmouth got into, and the initial talk was all about controlling and preventing huge debts. UEFA couldn't sell that idea to the clubs though. Instead a watered down compromise was reached that suited the big clubs. I don't think anybody can claim that the Glazers, Hicks & Gillett and Portsmouth's various owners have been better for football than either RA or City's owners yet FFP won't prevent another Portsmouth but will prevent somebody taking over a smaller club and making them Champions.
If UEFA's FFP wasn't bad enough, what annoys me more is the PL's version or more specifically the PL club owners that have condemned 80% of the league to mediocrity. The majority of PL clubs are run as business's now and FFP has given all these businessmen and investors an excuse not to spend for the 2, 3, 4 or 5 years they might be around but by signing up to FFP they've condemned the club for the decades after they've left.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Great result. Turned down a free ticket too, gutted ah well! Being on automatic CL qualification!
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,875
I've got to agree with Baz and Danny on the FFP situation. Of all the clubs in the PL, it certainly suits United the most. We have a huge fan base, and therefore the biggest revenue by quite some way, so it means that we can sign enormous sponsorship deals and if anything the FFP rules are going to give us a real helping hand in the transfer market. Where teams like City and Chelsea are largely going to have to rely on selling players to fund new purchases, United can go out and spend loads without any real fear of sanctions, despite the fact that we have less money and more debt than the two clubs mentioned above.
Having said that, the transfer policy and youth development at City have been dreadful. City have bought really poorly and acquired too many players of a similar age. In my opinion it's no coincidence that the team have the highest average age of any PL squad and are massively underperforming. Fergie always used to be so good at mixing youth and experience, and it seems to be something that Mourinho understands at Chelsea at the moment. City purchased loads of players of a similar age who helped them contend for the PL title for the past 3-4 seasons, but who are all now starting to get the wrong side of 30. I think it's admirable that they've built a huge and very impressive training facility for youth development, but it's probably going to be 5-10 years before you see any really top players benefit from that setup.
Having said that, the transfer policy and youth development at City have been dreadful. City have bought really poorly and acquired too many players of a similar age. In my opinion it's no coincidence that the team have the highest average age of any PL squad and are massively underperforming. Fergie always used to be so good at mixing youth and experience, and it seems to be something that Mourinho understands at Chelsea at the moment. City purchased loads of players of a similar age who helped them contend for the PL title for the past 3-4 seasons, but who are all now starting to get the wrong side of 30. I think it's admirable that they've built a huge and very impressive training facility for youth development, but it's probably going to be 5-10 years before you see any really top players benefit from that setup.
Yet another good result for us. We've limped through the season until the last few weeks where LVG has found a good balance with a starting 11 that actually works well. It's a good blend of power and technique and despite looking a bit weak in some areas, can easily mix it up and create chances while remaining solid. LVG has taken his sweet time but I was hopeful we'd get there in the end (not that the job is done yet, far from it).
I do think Herrera is great, and of course it's great to see Mata playing like the Chelsea Mata again, excellent player.
I do think Herrera is great, and of course it's great to see Mata playing like the Chelsea Mata again, excellent player.
You mean like Chelsea being nearly £1BN in debt to their owner
Still doesnt excuse Fifa / Uefa allowing the state to sponsor City well out of whack for their pretty terrible consistancy ( both times they won the league they failed dismally the next season)
Just because the owner has abyss like pockets shouldnt allow that club a free reign otherwise what happens to the league when the owner gets bored and want to walk away?
At least Utd are paying off the debt heaped on thrm by their owners from their own earnings every year, rather than being massively in debt to a holding/ parent company or getting suspect ( to say the least) levels of sponsorship.
Of courae ( for the better of the league) I would like someone to take over a smaller club and over time let them challange the big boys, that would be fantastic - but it HAS to happen organically rather than artificially. I seriously hope that the likes of Southampton etc can grow into pushing the likes of Spurs for Europa places consistantly and year by year growing naturally rather than a new owner pumping in £100m a season into the team from his own pocket and getting bored after a few years and wanting to leave and the club being put in jeapordy
Last edited:
The arguments for FFP are sound.
A club CAN build a competitive squad, and CAN generate it's own money and CAN win trophies without a sugar daddy.
The finances of the club are as much a part of the competition as the players on the pitch, being given unlimited funds that you have not earned is cheating just as much as pumping your players full of performance enhancing drugs would be.
A club CAN build a competitive squad, and CAN generate it's own money and CAN win trophies without a sugar daddy.
The finances of the club are as much a part of the competition as the players on the pitch, being given unlimited funds that you have not earned is cheating just as much as pumping your players full of performance enhancing drugs would be.
Southampton are doing very well after selling 1/4 of their starters last season (admittedly its only a one off season so far)
With the increase in the tv deal and a few more astute summer buys they could jostle with a stagnant Spurs for the next few seasons and build from there
Depending on hiw their summer recruitment goes it could even get more painful for City next season - just because big wages are available ( Falcao amd Di Maria, or even Mangala, for example) doesnt mean any new player will adapt, and also doesnt mean the hunger the epl requires will be there. Even given the above majority of that sqaud needs rebuilding ( even if the spine is decent) so it will take a few transfer windows....with the right manager.... before they are out of reach of Liverpool/ Spurs/ etc
Are City really that different from Blackburn in 96/97? In relative terms the money spent was similar ( although I know Blackburn only won the title once) - it certainly seemed that way at the time.
I dont think its fair that the likes of Stoke, Everton, AV and all the other well established epl teams struggle with sponsorship / recruitment etc ( comparitively) while the likes of Chelsea spend VASTLY over their earning resources because the owner can write it off without blinking.
Just for the record I would be against any other club being bought with the "help" of a levereged buyout like the Glazers managed with Utd. It was risky enough at the level Utd were at when it happened, I think it would be a nightmare for even a midtable team now ( even with the massive tv deals running/ coming up)
Edit - also how far do you go to make things fair......limit the value of every commercial deal.......limit stadium capacity.....even then a team is likely to appear on tv more often than a direct competitor ( extended cup run etc)... How do you "normalise" for that eventuality?
Last edited:
Southampton are doing well after selling half their side and they're still only going to finish a couple of places above where they finished the season before and outside the CL spots. And as you said, it's only a one off season so far and it'll only be a one off season because if it's not the big clubs will pick off their best players again.
The idea that a smaller club can build organically to consistently challenge at the top of the table is fairy tail BS. Take Spurs for example. They're the most carefully run club in the PL and have built their side organically - they had a couple of seasons where they challenged for the top 4 spots when 2 or more of the 5 bigger clubs than them were a mess but it didn't last. Even when they qualified for the CL there were still 5 clubs richer than them, 5 clubs that under FFP could massively outspend them and as a result they've not been able to maintain their challenge. For Spurs to have been able to get in a position where they could consistently and realistically challenge at the top of the table they'd have needed 4,5 or 6 years CL qualification almost back to back.
If a club is extremely well run then maybe they can go from finishing 10th to finishing 6th or 7th. It'll take a minor miracle for them to do better than that in a one off season and it's all but impossible for them to ever establish themselves in the top 4 places. The gap in revenues between the top 5 and the rest is just too big. Even Liverpool, the club with the lowest revenue in the top 5 and Spurs, the richest of the rest - last season Liverpool turned over 42% more than Spurs and that was with Liverpool out of the CL, and crucially that gap is getting bigger and bigger each year (still discounting CL qualification).
FFP is BS. Not even the most hardened Utd fan could argue that City's owners haven't been good for football and Manchester as a City. Equally not even the most hardened Utd fan could argue that the Glazer's haven't been bad for Utd. FFP would have stopped the City takeover happening (as they wouldn't have done it if they couldn't compete) but the Glazers would have still walked into Utd.
The idea that a smaller club can build organically to consistently challenge at the top of the table is fairy tail BS. Take Spurs for example. They're the most carefully run club in the PL and have built their side organically - they had a couple of seasons where they challenged for the top 4 spots when 2 or more of the 5 bigger clubs than them were a mess but it didn't last. Even when they qualified for the CL there were still 5 clubs richer than them, 5 clubs that under FFP could massively outspend them and as a result they've not been able to maintain their challenge. For Spurs to have been able to get in a position where they could consistently and realistically challenge at the top of the table they'd have needed 4,5 or 6 years CL qualification almost back to back.
If a club is extremely well run then maybe they can go from finishing 10th to finishing 6th or 7th. It'll take a minor miracle for them to do better than that in a one off season and it's all but impossible for them to ever establish themselves in the top 4 places. The gap in revenues between the top 5 and the rest is just too big. Even Liverpool, the club with the lowest revenue in the top 5 and Spurs, the richest of the rest - last season Liverpool turned over 42% more than Spurs and that was with Liverpool out of the CL, and crucially that gap is getting bigger and bigger each year (still discounting CL qualification).
FFP is BS. Not even the most hardened Utd fan could argue that City's owners haven't been good for football and Manchester as a City. Equally not even the most hardened Utd fan could argue that the Glazer's haven't been bad for Utd. FFP would have stopped the City takeover happening (as they wouldn't have done it if they couldn't compete) but the Glazers would have still walked into Utd.
Last edited:
Was that a no? No one is going to compete regularly like manu/chelsea/mancity(edit maybe arsenal, any time they look on the verge of doing something they don't though). In the near future looking more like yourselves and Chelsea with City returning I'm sure.
You don't, football is long past that and can't have a system close to the NFL where bar having a cheap arse owner you have every chance to be competitive based on people's abilities in the roles they are doing from top to bottom in the organisation and throwing money around won't save you. Money will win in football, it sucks but each taking it game by game can be enjoyable.