So Messi is good because he would cost a fortune to buy?
Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions
- Thread starter PlayerOne
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
So Messi is good because he would cost a fortune to buy?
The game has changed irreversibly since firstly the mid 90's and then far, far more in the mid 00's. You are talking about a time period whereby the only real difference in a clubs income was a few million in gate receipts. The financial disparity was absolutely nothing compared to nowadays. When Villa, Norwich, Forest, Leeds etc were finishing near the top of the table do you think they have a competitor that had 3 or 4x the revenue? United will turnover around £430m this season, whereas Everton even if you added Champions League revenue would turnover barely 1/3 of this.
The Premier League without sugar daddies and Manchester United for the last decade would be a very competitive League whereby Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs, Everton and a host of others would probably be competitive (mainly because of Arsenal's stadium debt). However you add a club to the mix that is such a financial superpower that they have the spending power of a sugar daddy club, even though they aren't one and it makes for a shit League.
If you added Bayern Munich to the French League it would be equally one sided, as you'd win every single season. You add Madrid, Barcelona or United and it would be likewise a one horse race every year. The reason the French League is a one horse race is because every club was shit, now every club apart from two are pretty shit. Why should Bayern Munich or Manchester United be able to open up such a ludicrous financial gap on everyone else, but PSG and Monaco can't?
Looking at the French League table to me makes much better reading than the German League table. Monaco were 7 points behind and pushed PSG quite hard. Likewise Lille were 11 points behind them and only 2 points ahead of 4th. Compare this to the Bundesliga, which in my opinion is identical to the Premier League without City/Chelsea, whereby Manchester United would have won the League by 44 points over 2 seasons and second place Arsenal are top of a separate League. This would happen in 75% of seasons (without Moyes of course!).
If we are really talking about fair play we need to stop Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern and United having such a disparity, along with clubs with rich owners. If Uefa wanted real "fair play" and decided to cap every single European clubs turnover at say £20m (turnover of every club divided by amount of clubs), fair enough. That is real financial fair play whereby everyone has an equal footing and all Football income is split between all top level Football teams. Letting historically rich club spend £100m per season but not letting historically not so rich clubs to is just elitism.
Liverpool also finished above Chelsea and would have finished above City if not for a monumental collapse, so surely that makes your point about unfairness through owner investment equally redundant? Clubs will always have the occasional terrible season and clubs will always break into the elite, with or without rich owners.
United's dominance is because of Sir Alex. But it is also because of his ability to go out and spend £30m on Ferdinand, Rooney etc or offer Arsenal's best player a bumper pay rise to leave them. Take away rich owners and United would have the financial muscle to outspend every other team by a significant margin. Just like City/Chelsea often win because of money alone, so would United. Look at Bayern with Gotze, Lewandowski etc, that would be United. Arsenal's best player has just had a great season? Lets buy him and offer him £100k pay rise. We would have no competition domestically when looking at signing a player, just like Bayern.
Put any decent manager at the helm of a club and give them twice the budget of their nearest rivals and they'd be winning 8 or 9 out of 10.
You did say this.So I was just using the reverse logic.
We definitely would have. The argument is to show that United would have been on top not for their financial muscle but for SAF and once was SAF was out of the picture, all the irrelevant clubs you talked about will be well within a shot.
If not for City or Chelsea, Everton could have been in CL for sometime and that would be added motivation for players like Rooney to stay with Everton rather than Move. You can build from being in the top 4. You don't have to compete for Top spot in a year, its a gradual process and teams like city and chelsea are doing more harm to teams like Everton by stopping that.
You chose to ignore that fact that we are in need to spend because of the fact that teams around us have spent so much and that's the reason we have to spend more. To your question, would I be happy. Yes of course,I would be.Even if we spend the amount quoted in the papers, It will be a one off occasion, in probably 10 years. Tell me one summer where we just went mental like city or Chelsea have done with our supposed financial muscle.
Breaking the British transfer record twice in the same summer in 2001 was quite the flexing of those muscles.
Because now we're taking CL slots that were previously reserved for the old rich clubs? Damn us for our selfish ways..
Before Chelsea were taken over the top 4 was occupied by Aston Villa, Norwich, Blackburn, Newcastle, Nottingham Forest, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leeds and United.
But they can? They just need 20 years of great work instead of making stupid decisions for decades and then crying about injustice and jumping the line by winning the lottery. There's nothing that prevents a club like PSG from doing the same. The difference is that they have a new owner who doesn't want to work for success like we did. I'd understand the discussion, if we were talking about a small town club that could never ever build a successful football team with a big fanbase because they lack the infrastructure and all that's needed. But that's not the case. All those billionaires choose clubs in important cities that don't have a disadvantage. They don't increase the chance for smaller clubs to be successful.
Also your arrogance towards the French league is staggering, the top teams in a top 6 league in Europe aren't shit. UEFA consists of 54 different FAs and they need to find solutions that work for all of them. You can't use the premier league as an example for sugardaddy clubs making club football more competitive and at the same time dismiss the fact that the development in the French league is exactly the opposite and saying it doesn't count because their teams were shit is just stupid.
I totally forgot that you're the one who said that Bayern were constantly underachieving in the past decades because we don't win the league every season. I mean it's so obviously wrong and you base all your theories on it
.Twenty years of great work would have PSG still having a small turnover and still being screwed over by the fact that they are a French club whose TV deal is around 25% that of the top teams in England and Spain. Likewise they'd be screwed over by the fact that they don't have the potential to earn £200m in a season through Commercial activities, because French Football does not get that kind of exposure. Because of this inherent cap in their potential income, the best they could hope for is some incredibly astute signings that would then leave them a few years later when someone like Everton (let alone top teams) came in with a £10m bid.
French Football is destined to be perpetually shit if not for the likes of PSG and Monaco, because the League is incredibly poor (financially) and would have their best talent taken by even mid table Premier League clubs. Marseille and Lyon have less turnover than the club that finishes bottom in the Premier League. It isn't arrogance that the bottom 18 teams in their League are shit, it's common sense. How can clubs that have a £10k, £20k or even £30k a week salary cap ever keep quality player's, when other League's relegation fodder can offer a better wage?
I totally forgot that you're the one who said that Bayern were constantly underachieving in the past decades because we don't win the league every season. I mean it's so obviously wrong and you base all your theories on it
You also may remember a couple of years ago I stated that I'd be stunned if Bayern didn't start winning the Bundesliga by a big margin almost every year, now that they have started to actually spend a lot of the money that they earn on the team and now that they seem to have sorted out the managerial merry-go-round.
Since that prediction they've won the League by 44 points over 2 campaigns and if I bet £1,000 on them to win it next year I'd get a £74 payout. As a comparison if I bet the same on PSG to win the French League next year I'd win £182. What we can assume from this is that the French League is far more open in the eyes of the bookies next season vs the Bundesliga.
Let's wait until we keep a manager for more than 2 seasons before we make such bold statements
.Not really. From about 95 until Roman arrived the top 4 was basically Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and whatever random team happened to be having a good season. The only difference now is that there are about 5-6 teams challenging for the title rather than the old 2-3 so the top 4 slots tend to be taken up by them.
And you're entitled to your opinion. I am not saying you shouldnt watch football - what I am saying is that if people are offended by the money in the game and don't enjoy the PL for what it is now they don't have to watch it if they don't want.
The fact is I'm not the one moaning about the "state of the game" like some fans are on here. I accept what is happening now as symptomatic of what modern football is all about - money, in one form or another and accept that the horse has bolted and that isnt going to change. I'm not getting myself bent out of shape because whichever club are spending more than another club.
Fact is whether FFP is brought in and adhered to makes no difference to me. You're going on as if the idea of it offends me - it doesnt. I dont care what happens to Chelsea, City, PSG or whoever. If football starts to piss me off for whatever reason I'll go and watch something else.
I was simply pointing out the other side of the coin as to why the big spending doesnt offend me like it seems to offend others and voicing an opinion as to why I believe so many United fans happen to be so vocal about it.
I dont believe that FFP will ever "level the playing field" like some seem to want, nor do I think its really ever going to make a great deal of difference to where we are now.
How?.Please don't count Arsenal as challengers?. Even when they were leading the table in February, no one including them expected to last the race. Its just City, Chelsea and Liverpool this year and probably and hopefully Liverpool will be replaced by United next year. Only United have the spending power to match that of City and Chelsea,so it will still be a three horse race.
I didnt say that at all. You're not only "reversing" what I said but twisting it upside down sideways and backwards.
As regards Rooney - Everton may have had a chance of top 4, but United bid a records sum for a teenager before he'd had any chance to actually have an impact and probably trebled his wages. You're dreaming if you beleiev a player with that level of talent would not be snapped up by a big club at the first opportunity and its shown by the fact that United were willing to py a huge sum even by todays standards to get him at such a young age. The only difference now is that they would probably get more money because at least three other PL clubs could comfortably compete for his signature.
As regard the last point the "needing to build" argument is bizzare. Did Chelsea and City not need to do that in order to mount a title challenge? We would be doing nothing more than buying in players on big money to make up for the fact that we didnt get CL football.
Even if it is "one off", how is that defensible? When is it fine to do it - once a decade but not twice? Youre just drawing arbitrary lines to suit an argument that its alright for one club but not another.
Chelsea do not have spending power in the way it was. They have to live ti their means which could well require selling to buy.
You did say that , if don't like money in football, don't watch it. What exactly does this mean then??
So Everton should be resigned to the fact that they are not going to keep hold of their players and just wait till they get a billionaire owner to take them above?. Spurs would have held onto Bale if they had played in CL for 2-3 years. Like someone said, its a knock on effect. If a top level club spends money on your players, it puts more pressure on mid-table clubs to buy more and it goes on , until clubs at the bottom of the chain, spend beyond their measures and go into administration.
Everton would have had a good chance of hold onto their players if it was for one suitor. Afterall, there are only so many players united could have brought and this idea that Everton will get more money because of three suitors, is no good to them, because, ultimately they are losing their top talent.
The supposed spending by United in the summer is again due to the fact that we are playing catchup with the teams which have spent more than us. We have the financial muscle to do it. Does Arsenal or Liverpool have it?. Again the title will be decided based on the big spenders.
I am not arguing FFP is the only solution make football fair . I have said all along that other measures like salary cap,transfer limitations etc.., have to be brought down the line to make it even more competitive. I don't want United to throw around money as a solution. But now because of the competition increased,we have to do it. But your idea that if every team should be brought by billionaires, so that "you can be entertained", is ridiculous. It won't be entertaining for you to see the league being won in the summer rather than the course of the year.
Let's wait until we keep a manager for more than 2 seasons before we make such bold statements
True enough
!Despite their perennial choking, Arsenal are challengers and it'd be unfair to discount them, especially now their stadium is done. They certainly deserve to be considered challengers more than Liverpool do with their one lucky season so far.
So your argument is that it was fine when United were the only ones poaching their talent, but now it's bad because other teams can do it too?
So your argument is that it was fine when United were the only ones poaching their talent, but now it's bad because other teams can do it too?
When did I ever say that?. Everton will have more of a chance holding their players if it was just United rather than 3 suitors. Didn't they hold onto Baines and Spurs hold onto Bale from us?.
For clubs like Everton to be successful, there are two possiblities.
1) Get a lottery like city or chelsea. It hasn't been happening as Everton have been available for years now and there is no one ready to do it.
2) Get in CL for a few years, that way they can hold on to their players and challenge for the title. This is also not possible now because , Chelsea and city have cemented top 4 with their money.
How is that fair on clubs like Everton, Spurs and N'caslte, when they have no hope of getting into top 4 except whore themselves to some foreign owner and hope they invest a billion there.
These teams have already shown that they can compete with United-SAF this year and that would have been the case even in 90's if not for SAF. Say if United have one more season like this next year, do you think Barkley would want to join United or stay at Everton??So the idea that United stronghold can only be matched by oil money is not true.
Last edited:
Being in the CL isnt enough. Ask Arsenal. Its about salaries.
So why should United be the ones in that position? How is that more fair than a number of clubs being able to compete on that level?
Also, why do we suddenly care about Everton?
Presumably you'd be happy with Chelsea, City, Arsenal AND United all having their large fortunes removed, and having to contend with all the other clubs to try and make top 4 each year then?
Not just Everton. All midtable clubs in general.
I wouldn't want the likes of United, Barca and Real to spend ridiculous amount of money as well. Read my previous posts.
Fixed.
The problem with this is that Man Utd didn't just start spending large sums as a reaction to Chelsea, Chelsea had to spend huge sums to compete with United. You guys made some huge transfers pre-(and post)Roman. As for the rest, we've been hearing the same scaremongering about how all this money is going to make football uncompetitive for a decade, and in reality the exact opposite has happened. This year was probably the most competitive the Premier has been in it's history.
@bleedred Fair - a bit of both Id say.
People have short memories. League was competitive even back in the 90's, just cause every time United won, people assume it was just one-sided.
As I have been saying, it would have been noncompetitive,if not for SAF, Chelsea would have walked the league 6-7 years in a row,before city came over.
Err..
92-93 = Man Utd
93-94 = Man Utd
94-95 = Blackburn
95-96 = Man Utd
96-97 = Man Utd
97-98 = Arsenal
98-99 = Man Utd
99-00 = Man Utd
00-01 = Man Utd
01-02 = Arsenal
02-03 = Man Utd
Yeah really competitive!
Bear in mind some of us actually supported poor (at the time) clubs during that period and got to see exactly how 'competitive' the league was.
Given the amount of money that had gone into your club, no we really wouldn't. Assuming you had a top manager of course (which a team of your profile should have regardless). Having SAF was obviously a huge bonus for you guys, but let's not go overboard and assume he was producing miracles. You still had some hugely expensive players.
Why do people only focus on what City and Chelsea have spent? The more important question should be why have they had to spend that much to get where they are.
Err..
92-93 = Man Utd
93-94 = Man Utd
94-95 = Blackburn
95-96 = Man Utd
96-97 = Man Utd
97-98 = Arsenal
98-99 = Man Utd
99-00 = Man Utd
00-01 = Man Utd
01-02 = Arsenal
02-03 = Man Utd
Yeah really competitive!
Bear in mind some of us actually supported poor (at the time) clubs during that period and got to see exactly how 'competitive' the league was.
Yet even after Chelsea and City's investment, there have only been Three winners.
04-05- Chelsea
05-06- Chelsea
06-07-United
07-08- United
08-09-United
09-10- Chelsea
10-11- United
11-12- City
12-13- United
13-14 City
How is this seen as competitive yet, the previous ten years, not competitive.
We would have struggled regardless of the manager (Except SAF) against big spenders .Chelsea were very close in 07,08,11 to win the title.If they had stuck to a single manager during this time,they would have dominated the league. Any other manager with Glazers spending would have struggled.
Its takes more than a billion for a shite team to get to the top. Isn't that obvious?.
Well, that's a fair enough question. And the answer is obvious. But that doesn't mean either Roman or Mansour have spent their money wisely. Huge amounts have been positively wasted on players that hardly ever featured, on sacking managers right, left and centre - and so forth. And you can allow yourself to throw away money like that if there are no consequences. You just throw more money at whatever problems you may have - and sooner or later you'll get your trophies. It doesn't require much beyond having truckloads of money to burn.
Don't really see the point in what you've written. Everyone knows Mansour and Abramovich are incredibly wealthy and spent accordingly. No one denies that. The point is why has it taken two men of such wealth to make a team challenge at the top.
Fair enough. Maybe there is no point to it.
Because the most successful team (United) only managed 5 out of 10, whereas previously they'd taken 8 out of 11.
Ah come on now, you've hardly been struggling by on a pittance the last 10 years. A large chunk of the spending by both Chelsea and City was to bring them up to a level where they could compete in the first place, it's not like they started out on a level playing field.
How is that fair excuse for the spending?. Did you guys stop spending after reaching the top level in 2005?. What was the excuse for spending after that?.
Again why is PL alone chosen as an example. Look at the French Ligue, PSG and Monaco have outspent the others to reach Top level and now the others teams have no capablity to spend like them. So, Just because United can spend as much as city and chelsea now, its fine for the league is it?.
As a United fan, I am not worried about City and Chelsea's spending, because We can match and even outspend you guys.but as a football fan, this is going to affect the league, because all the other teams are going to be left behind and the roll on effect is going to put a lot of clubs into administration. Like I said, I wouldn't even want United to spend and I see FFP as a first step in preventing clubs from spending beyond their means. Obviously it has to be backed by other measures as well.
Last edited:
The teams at the top were built based on their success. To reach that level, same amount of success has to be obtained.Money was used as the shortcut for success. I don't get your point. Did it take United that much money to break the stranglehold at the top?.
Because it was necessary to keep up. Once we started spending at the level required to get to the top, it became an arms race, or have you forgotten transfers like Rooney in 2004 already? Just as a sample here's your 2006/2007 transfers in..
Michael Carrick Tottenham £18,600,000 31 Jul, 2006
Owen Hargreaves B Munich £17,000,000 01 Jul, 2007
Anderson Porto £27,000,000 02 Jul, 2007
Tomasz Kuszczak West Brom £2,125,000 02 Jul, 2007
Nani Sporting Lisbon £25,500,000 02 Jul, 2007
They might not all have turned out to be massive successes, but no-one knew that at the time.
The French league was terrible before, so one team spending huge completely unbalanced it. If anything it's good that Monaco have spent big now, because at least there'll be some competition over there. The PL has never been as wildly out of kilter though, because we started out with a couple of clubs with much bigger budgets than everyone else. It's not like the Evertons and Tottenhams were in contention to win the title before Roman came along.
Your fears are not backed up by the evidence though. You're painting a picture of the leagues becoming uncompetitive and clubs going bust left right and center, and in reality football is booming. Money is pouring into the game, and that money is spreading.
Since reaching ""Top level" (2004/05), Chelsea have a net spend of close to 375 million and United have a net spend of 170. I just checked and chelsea spent 100 Million in 2005, the year after they won the league.Including player wages and pay offs to the managers to that equation makes it even worse. What do you have to say about that?. So much for just reaching top level and sustaining after it.
You find Ligue 1 interesting now do you?. Why don't you ask a fan from Lyon or Lille about whether the league is interesting or not. See that's the point, its easier for us to say its fine to spend money cause you have a rich owner and we have enormous wealth, but the reality of it is that it sucks to be a fan of the clubs who don't have rich owners like that.
Winning the league isn't everything you know. Everton and tottenham would have made it into europe many a time which would have improved their financial standings, global appeal etc and that inturn will have increased their chances of fighting against United and Arsenal.
Just look at the number of football clubs who have unmanagable debts, cause they were trying to soar too high. Within the last few years, Palace, Sóton, Portsmouth several times, Cardiff and so many others in Spain.
Last edited:
And money was used to maintain that success achieved by Utd. Platini has even admitted UEFA are batt
Half of the cases aren't even comparable. For one, Portsmouth were effectively spending money they didn't have, it wasn't like a wealthy owner came in and got bored.
Pretty much all the fans I know not of top 4 clubs find City's and Chelsea's spending good for football, same way they viewed Walker's spending at Blackburn. The notion that all the lesser clubs hate City and Chelsea is nonsense, they appreciate that they have attained success the only way possible.