p
Member
Registered: 20th Apr 04
Location: England
User status: Offline
|
It's unfair that we got lambasted 24/7 from all corners regarding the amount of money we spent, yet City barely get a mention.
This article is interesting. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/9255702/Manchester-Citys-930-million-spending-spree-to-turn-club-into-Premier-League-title-contenders.html
£930 million to help get them a Premier League title.
[Edited on 10-05-2012 by p]
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
Needs debt, marc, big fat gayer in the title to get people reading 
They were talking about it on talksport this morning, was gonna buy the paper for it, but the link will save me £1.20
|
Hammer
Member
Registered: 11th Feb 04
User status: Offline
|
I'm not a fan of buying success, however, the United side that started against City in the derby last Monday cost more to assemble than City's.
You can't argue with the facts.
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
Wolves are the only current premiership team not in debt apparently as well 
Will do them loads of good next season
|
Whittie
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 06
Location: North Wales Drives: BMW, Corsa & Fiat
User status: Offline
|
Ironic a Chelsea fan makes the thread.
|
Whittie
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 06
Location: North Wales Drives: BMW, Corsa & Fiat
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cavey
Wolves are the only current premiership team not in debt apparently as well
Will do them loads of good next season
Will make a few quid when they come back up then....!
|
p
Member
Registered: 20th Apr 04
Location: England
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whittie
Ironic a Chelsea fan makes the thread.
I've already partly alluded to the point in my first post. I'm not arguing about what we've spent. I'm just stating that we got lambasted for it 24/7, yet for some odd reason the City spending very rarely gets a mention.
[Edited on 10-05-2012 by p]
|
Hammer
Member
Registered: 11th Feb 04
User status: Offline
|
You have go to be joking? 
City are lambasted every bit as much as Chelsea were, if you can call it 'lambasted'.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hammer
I'm not a fan of buying success, however, the United side that started against City in the derby last Monday cost more to assemble than City's.
You can't argue with the facts.
compare wages
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
Its the way football (unfortunately) is right now. It doesnt just happen in the Premier League either. I'm glad it is happening up there though, i really want some shit no mark team like Reading or West Brom to do it. Then i can say welcome to my world!
|
p
Member
Registered: 20th Apr 04
Location: England
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hammer
You have go to be joking?
City are lambasted every bit as much as Chelsea were, if you can call it 'lambasted'.
Oh really? How so?
|
mwg
Member
Registered: 19th Feb 04
Location: South Lakes
User status: Offline
|
Just have to hope this FFP will curb their spending a bit when it comes in. Although they have already found a way round that by getting that sponsorship deal in place. I'm sure there will be a lot more of those deals to come yet too.
Another thing they will have to be careful of is what's happened at Chelsea. That team is still largely Mourinhos and now its getting old. Chelsea don't seem to have a long term plan in place. City do at least with all the investment they are making in facilities in Manchester so might not fall in to the same trap.
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
Thats because all Abramovich wanted to do was increase his ego by winning a CL and other stuff.
Seems this Shiekh guy actually wants to build a legacy, which is far more tolerable. Get all the facilities up and running, win a few more things, drag in a few more glory hunters and market themselves massively and they wont be far off self sufficient.
|
p
Member
Registered: 20th Apr 04
Location: England
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by mwg
Just have to hope this FFP will curb their spending a bit when it comes in. Although they have already found a way round that by getting that sponsorship deal in place. I'm sure there will be a lot more of those deals to come yet too.
Another thing they will have to be careful of is what's happened at Chelsea. That team is still largely Mourinhos and now its getting old. Chelsea don't seem to have a long term plan in place. City do at least with all the investment they are making in facilities in Manchester so might not fall in to the same trap.
You what? The facilities hasn't really got much to do with anything. If anything what they've done is ultra bad. They had a pretty good youth system, then they blew that away by signing all those players! How's their youth system gonna have much of a chance now? We didn't have a great youth system, yet as soon as Roman took over the club a whole new complex was done for the youth/reserves/new training ground etc - Obviously not many have come through, but you could say that about all the top teams in the country. We had a vision and plan since day one, we didn't just blow the record transfer on Robinho, or put in a £100 million pounds bid for Kaka as soon as Roman bought the club. Obviously the re-building of the training ground, the facilities for the youth and reserves was part of that, ergo the two youth cups we've won in the last 3 years. How many will make it? Christ knows, probably not many, but the thing you said about City is kind of wrong.
|
p
Member
Registered: 20th Apr 04
Location: England
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by JonnyJ
Thats because all Abramovich wanted to do was increase his ego by winning a CL and other stuff.
Seems this Shiekh guy actually wants to build a legacy, which is far more tolerable. Get all the facilities up and running, win a few more things, drag in a few more glory hunters and market themselves massively and they wont be far off self sufficient.
This just isn't correct. Surely coming in then suddenly putting in a bid of £100 million for Kaka is evidence of that? How's that tolerable? What about their good youth system they ruined by blowing cash on all those internationals?
|
Jamie Walby
Member
Registered: 15th Nov 04
User status: Offline
|
By my calculations from Abramovich taking over and winning their first title, Chelsea spent £325,200,000
From The Arabs taking over at City to them winning their first league (assuming they win this season), they have spent £483,450,000.
|
Jamie Walby
Member
Registered: 15th Nov 04
User status: Offline
|
However you take into consideration it only took chelsea 3 seasons and City likely to be 4, plus player price inflations etc....
Then I would say Chelsea spent more.
Cast, wait.
|
p
Member
Registered: 20th Apr 04
Location: England
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Walby
However you take into consideration it only took chelsea 3 seasons and City likely to be 4, plus player price inflations etc....
Then I would say Chelsea spent more.
Cast, wait.
3 Seasons? What?
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
They needed to make an impact to get things running initially, if they just came and and focused on youth City would still be scrapping around mid table. Kaka didnt sign anyway, and their spending on transfers is coming down now they have a title winning squad together.
Their youth is on the backburner whilst they make a name for themselves, i imagine, but their plans for the development at Eastlands, which include state of the art youth facilities look impressive. Time will tell whether it pays off or not.
|
Jamie Walby
Member
Registered: 15th Nov 04
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by p
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Walby
However you take into consideration it only took chelsea 3 seasons and City likely to be 4, plus player price inflations etc....
Then I would say Chelsea spent more.
Cast, wait.
3 Seasons? What?
2 seasons my bad. That makes it even worse for Chelsea.
|
Jamie Walby
Member
Registered: 15th Nov 04
User status: Offline
|
Since Arsenal moved to the Emirates they have spent £15,000,000 less than Chelsea spent in the first season of Abramovichs ownership.
|
p
Member
Registered: 20th Apr 04
Location: England
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Walby
quote:
Originally posted by p
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Walby
However you take into consideration it only took chelsea 3 seasons and City likely to be 4, plus player price inflations etc....
Then I would say Chelsea spent more.
Cast, wait.
3 Seasons? What?
2 seasons my bad. That makes it even worse for Chelsea.
How so? First season = nothing. Second season = Carling Cup/Premier League titles.
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
I think this Chelsea fan is jealous that all those who defected from Man Utd to Chelsea when they started spending are no defecting to Man City.
Chelsea could be bollocksed if the dont win the CL this year. Can see Roman throwing in the towel soon.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
I think this spending big to get success is a fairly short term solution to winning things, it happened to chelsea and i can see it happening to city, maybe have 2-3 seasons of winning things, then owners get bored, sack managers, make strange decisions, etc look at the teams that have had continued long term success, united, and barcelona probably two of the biggest and most famous, yes they obviously have spent big money on some players throughout, but they have also had an ethos of bringing up talent through there youth systems, and a lot of there biggest players were established that way. It also installs a mindset throughout the club of building for the future and is key imo, to success long term
|
p
Member
Registered: 20th Apr 04
Location: England
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by JonnyJ
I think this Chelsea fan is jealous that all those who defected from Man Utd to Chelsea when they started spending are no defecting to Man City.
Chelsea could be bollocksed if the dont win the CL this year. Can see Roman throwing in the towel soon.
Not fussed one little bit. Although I find the latte of your comment funny, given I imagine many on here thought he'd leave after 3/4 years, and next year he's owned the club for 10.
|
