- 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
City lost £195 Million in 2010-2011
Posted on 11/18/11 at 10:09 am
Posted on 11/18/11 at 10:09 am
5
Posted on 11/18/11 at 10:52 am to LSUMJ
You can't swag that hard on a budget.
Posted on 11/18/11 at 11:07 am to LSUMJ
*links arms and does The Poznan*
Posted on 11/18/11 at 12:19 pm to LSUMJ
Shocker
Posted on 11/18/11 at 2:34 pm to LSUMJ
If you are not losing (money), then you are not winning.
Edited.
Edited.
This post was edited on 11/18/11 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 11/18/11 at 2:37 pm to Vicks Kennel Club
Tell that to the dude who doesn't give a shite about money and so he decided to buy Man City and spend ridiculous amounts of money on any player thus inflating the transfer market and driving up player prices and further costing him money.
Posted on 11/18/11 at 2:39 pm to cwil177
shite, typed that wrong. I am stupid. My b.
Posted on 11/18/11 at 2:40 pm to MrBossHogg
Posted on 11/18/11 at 2:41 pm to Vicks Kennel Club
quote:
If you are losing (money), then you are not winning.
Eh, it's the game that is suffering...City is racking up on the silverware.
Posted on 11/18/11 at 3:51 pm to xavierTIGER
quote:
Eh, it's the game that is suffering
This shite again? This years EPL race has been the most interesting in years. For the first time since 03-04 a team not named chelsea or united is leading the league. I guess the game has been suffering for the decades that barca, inter, milan, and real have been spending money.
Posted on 11/18/11 at 4:06 pm to puffulufogous
quote:
This years EPL race has been the most interesting in years.
We're only now coming up on a third of the season. City has dropped 2 out of a possible 33 points. They'll probably have the League Title wrapped up by March 1st. Riveting. Yes, the battle for 3rd and, perhaps more intriguing, 4th is shaping up quite nice...no thanks to City's finances.
quote:
I guess the game has been suffering for the decades that barca, inter, milan, and real have been spending money.
I suppose fans of teams not named Barca, Inter, AC, and Real would probably agree with you.
Posted on 11/18/11 at 4:37 pm to xavierTIGER
quote:
I suppose fans of teams not named Barca, Inter, AC, and Real would probably agree with you.
Look man I am not trying to ruin MJ's thread but fans, provided they don't have deep seated hate for a club already, like to see galacticos. They want to watch teams like the invincibles, real a la beckham and zizou, and modern barca where they can see the best play together. Those kinds of teams, with a slight exception of arsenal who got henry for like 11 million, don't come together without a lot of cash. People want to act like spending money is anti-football, but the truth is that no one is going to remember who finished fourth in the league no matter how fiscally responsible they were. Now if a team wins a championship on a budget then they deserve a lot of credit, but we know that that doesn't happen.
Posted on 11/18/11 at 5:39 pm to puffulufogous
I kind of figured he started a new thread about this (instead of posting it on the City thread) to spark a debate on the evils of excessive spending...if not, he can come in and politely tell us to shut the frick up and I'll happily oblige. 
When I said that the game suffers, I wasn't referring solely to the creation of superpowers. It's a given that some clubs are going to be larger, generally more successful over time. I don't think what United, Barca, Real, even Chelsea, and perhaps one or two of the German or Italian clubs have done with spending is good for the game as a whole. I think it's a little presumptuous to say that all fans want to see superpowers collect all of the talent and destroy the rest of the competition. But, perhaps even worse, as the article points out, by spending so much these clubs drive up the costs for players and price mid and small clubs out of the market thereby increasing the gulf between the top several clubs in the world and everyone else. Of course I like watching City toy with the competition and then score with one of their half dozen world class strikers...but not at the expense of parity.
When I said that the game suffers, I wasn't referring solely to the creation of superpowers. It's a given that some clubs are going to be larger, generally more successful over time. I don't think what United, Barca, Real, even Chelsea, and perhaps one or two of the German or Italian clubs have done with spending is good for the game as a whole. I think it's a little presumptuous to say that all fans want to see superpowers collect all of the talent and destroy the rest of the competition. But, perhaps even worse, as the article points out, by spending so much these clubs drive up the costs for players and price mid and small clubs out of the market thereby increasing the gulf between the top several clubs in the world and everyone else. Of course I like watching City toy with the competition and then score with one of their half dozen world class strikers...but not at the expense of parity.
Posted on 11/18/11 at 6:20 pm to LSUMJ
Doesn't this mean City can't be in the UCL in 2013 (or some date like that)?
Posted on 11/18/11 at 6:36 pm to TN Bhoy
Only if UEFA has the balls to enforce fair play.
Posted on 11/18/11 at 6:42 pm to xavierTIGER
Liverpool fans have little room to talk about financial fairplay with their recent signings.
I typically don't like the idea of inflating the market with rich owners, but if it means someone other that United and Chelsea win a title, I'm for it.
I typically don't like the idea of inflating the market with rich owners, but if it means someone other that United and Chelsea win a title, I'm for it.
Posted on 11/18/11 at 8:41 pm to xavierTIGER
quote:
drive up the costs for players
And Andy Carroll's transfer didn't further drive up the price for English players? I think we tend to forget that the market sets the price of goods. If city hadn't bought aguero someone else would've at a very similar cost. shite, you want to talk about overinflated prices? Someone needs to publish a pointless article about Anzi's spending. Now every over rated and aging striker is going to expect eto money.
quote:
parity
Like I said, you have to go back to 1994 to find a EPL champion not named arsenal, united, or chelsea. You can look at Barca, real, and valencia the same way. If city want to spend I say go for it, but we know football is a cruel mistress. City could just as easily end up like valencia if they spend their way into the poor house.
Posted on 11/18/11 at 9:41 pm to thenry712
quote:
Liverpool fans have little room to talk about financial fairplay with their recent signings.
Learn a little something today.
Posted on 11/18/11 at 10:58 pm to puffulufogous
quote:
shite, you want to talk about overinflated prices? Someone needs to publish a pointless article about Anzi's spending.
A pointless article? Or an article on Anzi's pointless spending? Who have they spent excessive money on? They overpaid slightly for Dzsudzsak, they paid less for Zhirkov than Chelsea paid for him, and paid probably what is a reasonable price to attract one of the world's best strikers. That's not the best example.
Even in football clubs owned by Arab oil money, City's spending seems excessive. However, City's goal was to quickly catch United, which they have done.
quote:
If city hadn't bought aguero someone else would've at a very similar cost
Who? You realize there is a recession in Europe right now. The Italian teams don't have the spending power they once did, Aguero couldn't go to Real, Barca don't have the money to buy Fabregas and another star player, none of the German teams could afford him. PSG could afford him, but they already bought Pastore. The only other team that could have feasibly afforded Aguero this summer was Chelsea, and they probably wouldn't go after him because they overpaid for an overrated striker earlier this year.
This post was edited on 11/18/11 at 11:16 pm
Posted on 11/18/11 at 11:14 pm to puffulufogous
quote:
provided they don't have deep seated hate for a club already, like to see galacticos
What you mean to say is that these types of teams attract more attention they wouldn't otherwise get. These teams will sell shirts, make fans of impressionable kids, but don't pretend like it's universal. I can guarantee that most people didn't like it, and complained about Real's spending this last decade like they complain about Man City's spending this decade.
quote:
They want to watch teams like the invincibles
The Invicibles cost about £100 mil spread out over 7 years. Man City's forward line costs about £105 mil spread over 3. There isn't a comparison.
quote:
Those kinds of teams don't come together without a lot of cash.
While I agree in general, the most successful of the modern teams have been teams with great managers and extremely strong youth systems that were augmented by world-class players. Chelsea and Man City have been thrown together with very little help from their youth systems and a lot of cash thrown around. It's worked, but it isn't a sustainable model, even for the biggest clubs in the world.
And that's the point that City fans, and Chelsea fans before them miss. It's not a sustainable model for the sport as a whole to have an owner who doesn't care if he loses money. I don't see what is so controversial about stating that.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News