Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [30th Dec 2011 - 4th Jan 2012]
- Thread starter red11
- Start date
What i mean is that i don't think they are deliberately bias but they to me do sound like they are always praising the opposition team etc. I havent explained it well
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,050
- Location
- Manchester
Yes it is. City are breaking the whole damn thing. Players like Adebayeor and Tevez aren't even fit for City's reserves and they're paying them £200k a week!!
Spurs (pretty much identical in stature if not bigger) are one of their closest rivals and can't even dream of paying anywhwere near that without wrecking the future of the club. Man Utd are one of, if not the richest club in the world and can't compete. It's a total farce.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
You still paying more than the rest of the other 14 clubs in the epl. I think that theres a bigger difference between what a top 6 six club can pay in wages than that of spurs,liverpool etc in relation to city. Not having a dig at you but i do find it a bit rich, excuse the pun, when top 4 or even 6 moan about what city can pay.
Tevez has gone AWOL so how can be in our reserves? and anyway before he went AWOL he was our best player and one of the best in Europe and he was worth the 200k, Adebayor has never been on 200k also.
Bigger in stature? lol
You cant pay that because you don't want to. Levy/Joe Lewis? could easily pay a player 200k but what player will go to Spurs that will command that wage anyway?
Cant compete? apart from the 250k they are supposedly paying Rooney? and their other big players like Nani arent struggling on 30k are they, they are on circa 100k i imagine.
We have a select few players on over 100k a week;
Yaya, Tevez, Aguero, Nasri and Silva. Hard to argue that none of them deserve to be on over 100k.
Last edited:
Again, we're just moving to greater extremes. Chelsea were and still are paying players that weren't even close to making their first team, sums of money that Spurs or even Liverpool & Arsenal couldn't dream of paying.
Chelsea took it to a new level with RA, City have taken it a step further and it's very possible that somebody else will do it in the not too distant future too.
I don't think it's ok that they're paying these sums of money but it's no more wrong the Chelsea or even Utd doing the same in previous years. Although I don't think it can be enforced, I'd like to see a wage-cap.
But then when we played Chelsea he creamed himself over Torres with 'THIS IS THE MOMENT' or 'THIS IS THE CHANCE', can't quite remember.
Then was basically like, '********, meireles has scored'
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,050
- Location
- Manchester
Don't put Spurs in the same bracket as Liverpool and Arsenal just because it suits you. My point still stands.
City are breaking the whole thing, where does anyone go after being paid such ridiculous amounts of money? City pay £200k+ to average players, Spurs are basically their closest rivals and pay their superstars £70k, Bale isn't even on that and Modric was only on about £45k until the Chelski butted in
Go home child
You compared Spurs to City in regards to the size of club. Spurs are equally as big as Chelsea as they are to City. I've then said Liverpool and Arsenal because they're bigger clubs than Chelsea. I'm not putting Spurs in the same bracket as Liverpool and Arsenal, you're a smaller club than both :/
In terms of size, you were Chelsea's closest rivals pre-RA too and they started paying players that couldn't make their team more than you were playing your best players too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,050
- Location
- Manchester
Spurs are paying what they pay within their means and still turn a profit... what is your point?
Breaking what thing?
The monopoly that was the "Top 4"?
Isn't a positive of our takeover that we now have increased investment all over the league pretty much apart from Everton
. Before it was just same old every year with sometimes someone apart from utd finishing 1st.Again, we dont pay 200k to average players. 3/4 of the squad are on less than 100k. Stop reading the papers and believing everything Daily Mail prints.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
My point is that to rest of the epl clubs the difference between city and the other top 6 clubs is the same, they can't compete with them in the transfer market.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,050
- Location
- Manchester
Are the top 6 all in the same league and playing by the same rules?
Who can rival an open cheque book with no rules?
It's a bit like loading FIFA12 up on PS3, typing in a cheat that allows you to do what you want and then claiming you're the greatest when you win no??
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
Were would we stop? Ban teams for floating in the stock market. The game you say is being broken, broke a few years ago and it wasn't city that did the breaking.
I think that in relation to clubs spending X on wages it all boils down to sustainability. Obviously 'big' clubs can pay more out on wages as they make more profit.
Chelsea and City have in a sense broken that, neither are sustainable without the input of an owner to balance the books.
Chelsea and City have in a sense broken that, neither are sustainable without the input of an owner to balance the books.
Does where the money comes from effect how fair it is to clubs that can't pay £x per week?
There's a lot of good in FFP for instance but it's not fair. FFP (if enforced firmly) will only protect the biggest clubs and put them in a stronger position. The biggest clubs make the most money, therefore can spend the most on buying the best players, which only makes them stronger. What hope is there for a 'small' club breaking the monopoly of the bigger clubs under FFP? There isn't any hope and I don't think that's fair.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It will be fairer simply because while it doesn't give lesser teams an advantage, it DOES remove an unfair advantage rich teams have. THe richer you are the more you can cope with debt to a degree, Real madrid are so big and famous that they have had literally 100mil's of debt wiped out. Had this not happened several times Real could have been in serious trouble, or more likely had to sell several key star players and reduce their wage bill drastically. That would have meant other teams could pick up players, probably on the cheap and with Real less capable of paying stupid wages, the wage demands of players would drop a bit as well.
IE if lets say Ronaldo can get 250k a week at Real, then if another team wanted to buy him if they couldn't match that offer they'd have almost no chance. If Real were in debt and could only afford 100k a week, many many more clubs could afford that. Spurs can't put a whole squad on 100k a week, but could well grab one player.
This is the thing, if every single top club can afford one less top player, and every top 4 club gets rid of a expensive star, where do they go, smaller teams.
Yes, bigger teams with more money will generally be better, but not always, look at Spurs, spending what, 100mil less than City, are they 100mil's worth further down the table right now? No where near that.
if FFP had been in place for the past decade, Chelsea would never have got to where they have, City would have improved, but no where near as much and Utd, with their ongoing debt problems, would likely have had to invest less, drop wages, maybe lost a few more players and offered less wages to those who they did buy, etc.
Think of it this way, make a list of teams that have improved and bought new players and handed out new extortionate contracts, while in debt and having financial problems........ Real, Barca, Utd, Chelsea, City, Liverpool(to a much smaller degree afaik), Milan, Inter, Valencia, Malaga, etc, etc.
Financial fair play would have likely prevented Ronaldo(to Real, were utd in debt when they bought him? I don't think they were), Villa, Ibra, Cesc, Sanchez, Robinho/ibra to Milan(I think), the vast majority of the City and Chelsea squads, and a huge portion of Real's squads being bought.
The thing is, where would all those players be had they not been bought by said teams, spread out probably a bit more fairly throughout other teams. With those top teams not buying up all the top talent, they'd be paying lower wages, which would also make the expectation for players wages lower. Aguero when he moved could easily expect £200k a week from who ever was in for him. If City/Real/Barca/Utd/Chelsea had no chance of signing him and no chance he could get 200k a week, an Arsenal, Spurs or another team could maybe have got him and he might have only expected something like 100k a week.
Last edited:
The other big difference is that Utd for sure (not sure about Chelsea admittedly) could afford to pay those wages from the clubs earnings without breaking the bank, City arent earning enough (yet) to even get close to breaking even on the transfer fees and wages they are paying.
Like everything it takes time to become a big club. It shouldnt be given /paid for overnight.
One of the major reasons Utd have stayed at/near the top is because they are able to fill the stands for most games, and then extend the seating some more so more paying customers can build the income further.
Every company has to be financially sustainable, whoever the owner(s) are. A Stoke or some team like that, isnt going to blossom over night into a top four team no matter what, but allow them to grow slowly year on year, they can aim for regular Euro place first, then possibly occasional CL placing etc etc as the income and their club starts getting more readily recognised (and with this obviously potentialy better front and backroom staff get attracted to the club where they wouldnt before).
Of course its hard competing with those who have 50k, 60k seating currently when you only have 20-30k (for example) but vice versa should the big club be held back (as its a seperate company in its own right) to extend to 80k because no one else in the league has the facility to do so ?
Im totally against buying clubs with debt (like Utd and LFC have been bought in the past) , imo thats just as bad as sugar daddy's writing out cheques for £100's of millions every year or so that is just written off. If x cant afford to buy any club with cash, then they shouldnt be allowed to proceed (however sustainable the repayment plan is thanks to the stadium being full every match)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,079
- Location
- Shepley
Does it not cross your mind that commentators might be slightly more excited about Sunderland scoring a last minute goal to beat the side top of the league than watching City put 5 past another **** team? It's not bias, it's human nature. You'll get used to it if the oil barons stay long enough for your success to stick.