- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Man City's "out of control spending" is a myth
Posted on 3/23/15 at 4:03 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 3/23/15 at 4:03 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Manchester United were always a much much much bigger club that City were pre-buyout. Not even in the same galaxy. To claim that they could have done what ManU did is just ridiculous.
Why? Give me a reason pre-SAF United was bigger than Everton? City's prestige is certainly on that level now a days. There is no reason whatsoever they can't invest heavily in world class youth instead of a revolving door.
quote:
Regardless, it still doesn't answer my question as to why owners should be prevented from speeding their own money
This has been answered ad nauseum. You have any idea what their wage bill is right now? That transfer money doesn't come without strings attached. Its not like its spent and just goes away and the club doesn't spend any further money on the player. Pulling out of the club leaving players with massive contract demands can destroy a club. This doesn't even take into account tax implications.
Regardless of this, the point UEFA hammers home is an equality or parity amongst teams under its laws.
quote:
Chelsea would be now if FFP had come around in the late 90's or something.
As I've already said, Chelsea would have invested heavily in their loan network, just as they started doing once FFP started. This has been an effective strategy.
2
Posted on 3/23/15 at 4:11 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
Why? Give me a reason pre-SAF United was bigger than Everton?
Well neither of us was really watching soccer back then so it's a little tough to prove one way or the other but when I read about the history of the game or watch documentaries they are always talked about as a very big club. I specifically remember a doc about the Liverpool-ManU rivalry and Liverpool players of the time feeling like they didn't get their due and ManU was always the media darling glamour club. That doesn't sound like Everton to me.
SCH is the first to pimp ManU as a great club even before SAF but now he's poor mouthing because it suits his argument.
quote:
This has been answered ad nauseum. You have any idea what their wage bill is right now? That transfer money doesn't come without strings attached. Its not like its spent and just goes away and the club doesn't spend any further money on the player. Pulling out of the club leaving players with massive contract demands can destroy a club. This doesn't even take into account tax implications.
You can easily make a rule that says to buy a club you have to be financially capable of taking on a wage bill, or a rule that says if you're committing x amount over your revenues then you have to place the difference in escrow to protect the club.
Why is it that you think you (or anybody else) should be allowed to bar someone from spending their own money the way they see fit? Stop giving me this "to protect the club" nonsense because there's less restrictive ways to do that, as I'm illustrating.
You have this idea that certain spending in soccer is morally better than others. It's an incredibly arrogant position.
quote:
As I've already said, Chelsea would have invested heavily in their loan network, just as they started doing once FFP started. This has been an effective strategy.
How many of the trophies that they've won since Roman would they have today?
This post was edited on 3/23/15 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 3/23/15 at 4:18 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Can someone give me the Cliffs Notes of this thread?
This post was edited on 3/23/15 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 3/23/15 at 4:21 pm to WarSlamEagle
quote:
Can someone give me the Cliffs Notes of this thread?
If you don't agree with SCH and BleedPurple, they go straight to personal attacks and other logical fallacies.
They also think they know what's best for everyone else and should be allowed to tell people how to spend their money.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 4:25 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Well neither of us was really watching soccer back then
One of my hobbies is watching old games. I've watched hundreds from all different types of clubs from the 60-present. They were a big club but nothing like today. City's reputation today is certainly on par with what their's was then.
quote:
I specifically remember a doc about the Liverpool-ManU rivalry and Liverpool players of the time feeling like they didn't get their due and ManU was always the media darling glamour club.
This could not be more wrong. I don't know what time period you're referring to, but the rivalry has done a complete 180. In the 70s and 80s United were always playing catchup. They were very much so in LFC's shadow. LFC had many high profile glamour players. Most LFC fans disliked them, but the rivalry didn't have as much vitriol as it does now until SAF. Once he knocked us off our perch we became the team always playing catch up, always in United's shadow. The Busby Babes were obviously a glamorous story but until the class of '92 United were rarely in the spotlight.
quote:
SCH is the first to pimp ManU as a great club even before SAF but now he's poor mouthing because it suits his argument.
You seem to think that a prerequisite to being able to establish a sustainable youth program is that they were a great club. This isn't the case. City are a great club. City have prominence and popularity right now on par with United from the 90s. This is the point. If 1993/94 United could do it then City can. They were very similar.
quote:
You can easily make a rule that says to buy a club you have to be financially capable of taking on a wage bill, or a rule that says if you're committing x amount over your revenues then you have to place the difference in escrow to protect the club.
If these sugar daddies ever signed something to that effect I will eat my shoe. That would be the #1 sign of the apocalypse. I would love nothing more for them to take on responsibility but they're the ones that roadblock those propositions. Again, my primary issue is sustainability. If there is a way to do so while allowing them to drop arse tons of money then I'll roll out the red carpet.
It might make zero sense to you, but next time you visit England ask a fan how important "protecting a club" is to them. They've seen foreigners buy organizations their great great grandfathers supported and run them into nonexistence. To those people this is important and their voices deserve to be heard.
quote:
How many of the trophies that they've won since Roman would they have today?
305. I don't fricking know. All I know is their reaction to FFP was brilliant and sustainable. Very smart. City's not so much.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 4:26 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
f you don't agree with SCH and BleedPurple, they go straight to personal attacks and other logical fallacies.
They also think they know what's best for everyone else and should be allowed to tell people how to spend their money.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 4:40 pm to Oizers
quote:
You know how I know you are a supporter of a club in the shadow of their noisy neighbor?
lul thinking United is in City's shadow.
fwiw this is coming from an Arsenal fan.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 4:40 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
If you don't agree with SCH and BleedPurple, they go straight to personal attacks and other logical fallacies.
They also think they know what's best for everyone else and should be allowed to tell people how to spend their money.
Well, that was the worst book I've ever bought.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 4:44 pm to WarSlamEagle
quote:
Can someone give me the Cliffs Notes of this thread?
failed argument about City turned into another FFP pissing match
Posted on 3/23/15 at 4:46 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
failed argument about City turned into another FFP pissing match
Now that makes more sense. Glad I didn't miss anything.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 4:46 pm to WarSlamEagle
Posted on 3/23/15 at 5:23 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:Are you claiming City hasn't begun to invest heavily in world class youth? Because I think that's a pretty misinformed opinion, if so. It'll take time, but City have absolutely attempted to become more self-sufficient, even if the process has been slow.
There is no reason whatsoever they can't invest heavily in world class youth instead of a revolving door.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 5:23 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
One of my hobbies is watching old games. I've watched hundreds from all different types of clubs from the 60-present. They were a big club but nothing like today. City's reputation today is certainly on par with what their's was then.
I was comparing City pre-buyout to ManU pre-SAF.
quote:
This could not be more wrong.
Thats what the Liverpool players said, not me.
quote:
I don't know what time period you're referring to
it was an episode of football rivalries
quote:
They were very much so in LFC's shadow
doesn't mean they weren't still a huge arse club.
quote:
You seem to think that a prerequisite to being able to establish a sustainable youth program is that they were a great club.
No, i don't think that at all. But if the Class of 92 came through at say Swansea, they would have a couple of good years then all go off to other clubs because Swans, under FFP wouldn't be able to pay them the wages they would command/players would want to go to "bigger" clubs. Even if they had an owner who wanted to keep the team together. I don't think that's right.
quote:
If these sugar daddies ever signed something to that effect I will eat my shoe.
Considering it's less restrictive than the current rules, why wouldn't they agree to it?
quote:
It might make zero sense to you, but next time you visit England ask a fan how important "protecting a club" is to them.
I have gone out of my way to reiterate that I support those aspects of FFP that prevent adding debt to the club.
quote:
305. I don't fricking know. All I know is their reaction to FFP was brilliant and sustainable. Very smart. City's not so much.
They would have a lot less and you know it.
#1 They had a 10+ year head start before FFP to build their brand internationally and accumulate assets that could be resold at a profit. Youth setups are great, but that's just one tool. Chelsea bought a lot of players that they wouldn't be allowed to do today in order to build that brand which now is sustainable on it's own after years and years of success. That model is now ostensibly dead. That's a bad thing for the sport because there's less potential for new challengers over time.
And #2 why should intelligent spending be legislated? City's owners have not run the club the way i would run it, but it's their money, not mine. They aren't adding debt to the club so who cares? Why does that need to be outlawed?
This post was edited on 3/23/15 at 5:25 pm
Posted on 3/23/15 at 5:47 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I was comparing City pre-buyout to ManU pre-SAF.
Maybe this is where our disagreement lies. I'm talking City at the point of FFP sanctions. Aka last year. Again, no problem with initial investment, but it should be done with an eye to the future. If City changed their policies in the face of FFP then I'd be fine. They have done so, but in a thinly veiled attempt to get around the restrictions themselves instead of actually attempting to use their newfound power to establish a lasting groundwork to build the club.
quote:
Thats what the Liverpool players said, not me.
Again, context is critical. If it was in the 90's it makes total sense. If it was in the 70s I'd like to see the quotes. I've watched that episode of football rivalries many times (for obvious reasons) and never heard that being said.
quote:
But if the Class of 92 came through at say Swansea, they would have a couple of good years then all go off to other clubs because Swans, under FFP wouldn't be able to pay them the wages they would command/players would want to go to "bigger" clubs. Even if they had an owner who wanted to keep the team together. I don't think that's right.
I'm speaking specifically of City. Today's City. If that class comes through today's iteration of City the club could go on for decades of success. I'm not concerned with City immediately post buyout. I do think they could have spent more intelligently then, but have no issue with an initial influx of massive amounts of money as long as its a long term project.
quote:
Considering it's less restrictive than the current rules, why wouldn't they agree to it?
They'd be bound to debts they left behind? Who wants that? That's usually the reason businesses are sold in the sporting world.
quote:
They would have a lot less and you know it.
Perhaps in the beginning. But they'd still be the power they are today.
quote:
#1 They had a 10+ year head start before FFP to build their brand internationally and accumulate assets that could be resold at a profit. Youth setups are great, but that's just one tool. Chelsea bought a lot of players that they wouldn't be allowed to do today in order to build that brand which now is sustainable on it's own after years and years of success. That model is now ostensibly dead. That's a bad thing for the sport because there's less potential for new challengers over time.
They were very successful for 7 years before Bates sold the club to Roman. Its not like Roman inherited a complete dud of a club. You are correct that they were unrestrained for years, but the point I'm making is that the administration reacted effectively to the FFP announcement. They would have done the same had it happened a few years earlier.
quote:
And #2 why should intelligent spending be legislated? City's owners have not run the club the way i would run it, but it's their money, not mine. They aren't adding debt to the club so who cares? Why does that need to be outlawed?
Intelligent spending isn't legislated. However, City's spending is not intelligent. And they are adding to the debt of the club as I've pointed out before, if they were to leave. Besides, the point of FFP is parity as well as club protection.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 6:06 pm to BleedPurpleGold
City is going to spend BIG this summer, they have to. Aging squad and need to sell as well. Just look at the deal they gave Sagna. He had to take it for his future.
It will be a very interesting summer, a lot of high profile players will be leaving a lot of big clubs.
It will be a very interesting summer, a lot of high profile players will be leaving a lot of big clubs.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 6:11 pm to glassman
With how young our squad is it would be nice to nab a veteran. Convincing one of them is a totally different story.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 6:14 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
I'm speaking specifically of City. Today's City. If that class comes through today's iteration of City the club could go on for decades of success.
Well sure, but I'm thinking about the next City or the next Chelsea that will never be because of these rules.
quote:
I've watched that episode of football rivalries many times (for obvious reasons) and never heard that being said.
Start @7:00
LINK
quote:
They'd be bound to debts they left behind? Who wants that? That's usually the reason businesses are sold in the sporting world.
When you've got that kind of money i don't think they would blink an eye at guaranteeing a contract when they buy a player.
quote:
but have no issue with an initial influx of massive amounts of money as long as its a long term project.
So you also agree that FFP, as currently constituted, goes too far? What are we even arguing about then?
quote:
but the point I'm making is that the administration reacted effectively to the FFP announcement. They would have done the same had it happened a few years earlier.
And I'm saying that they wouldn't have been in a position to do it as well as they have because they would have been prevented from acquiring the assets that they later leveraged into that loan system.
quote:
Besides, the point of FFP is parity as well as club protection.
Saying Liverpool can spend 40 million, but Stoke can only spent 10 is the opposite of parity.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 6:29 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Start @7:00
LINK
I've literally never heard that. I've talked to tons of fans from both sides who remember the rivalry and both United and LFC fans have always said that United hated LFC much more than LFC hated United until SAF. Grobbelaar, Keegan, Dalglish were the showboaters and always getting in trouble. Now, I'll trust those reporters but I've heard the exact opposite from many who were in the stands at both grounds in the 70s and 80s.
quote:
When you've got that kind of money i don't think they would blink an eye at guaranteeing a contract when they buy a player.
Haha no. These are businessmen. They only care about money and a return on that investment. I highly doubt these guys would drop as much money as they are without feeling like it'll translate into success.
quote:
So you also agree that FFP, as currently constituted, goes too far? What are we even arguing about then?
Do you understand how amortization works with transfer fees? If not you should look into how FFP apportions transfer prices over the course of player contracts.
quote:
And I'm saying that they wouldn't have been in a position to do it as well as they have because they would have been prevented from acquiring the assets that they later leveraged into that loan system.
I guess there's that possibility. We'll never know for sure. I think they'd be able to considering how cheap young players were before City and PSG inflated the marker on a number of positions. Keep in mind Chelsea don't buy British very often.
quote:
Saying Liverpool can spend 40 million, but Stoke can only spent 10 is the opposite of parity.
Like anything, its an attempt at a balance. A salary cap situation will never fly. So they have to create this hybrid.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 6:37 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
With how young our squad is it would be nice to nab a veteran
I like where we are right now. A lot of players in the peak right now in terms of career age.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 6:42 pm to glassman
We desperately need some experience. And the type that won't stomp on people's legs.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News