Football Season 2011-2012

[Steve]

Arsenal fan or no, I'm a bit of a purest. In some ways I can understand City and Chelsea fans. I can't respect. Sorry. What I find a derelict of duty is the media not even mentioning how much of a factor the money is. My hope is the financial fair play rules will even things out. I doubt it but its my hope. I'm not even saying had chelsea not have an oligarch, Arsenal would have won. We probaby would not have anyway, its not about Aresena but the game. Chelsea is now a global brand but it was bought and paid for over the last several years. Sorry, but both clubs are billionaire toys.

[sayjann]

Arsenal fan or no, I'm a bit of a purest. In some ways I can understand City and Chelsea fans. I can't respect. Sorry. What I find a derelict of duty is the media not even mentioning how much of a factor the money is. My hope is the financial fair play rules will even things out. I doubt it but its my hope. I'm not even saying had chelsea not have an oligarch, Arsenal would have won. We probaby would not have anyway, its not about Aresena but the game. Chelsea is now a global brand but it was bought and paid for over the last several years. Sorry, but both clubs are billionaire toys.

 

it's not merely a case of which of us here liked whatever team.

the big teams will always spend big with varying degrees of success but rules are rules and they all knew/know about the financial situation coming from UEFA.

 

i know a lot is media talk but City are considering appealing against the rules coming in which imo is laughable.

and talk that RVP will double his wages if he does go to City,where does that stand them with new rules coming in?.

Dalglish paid with his job this season after the £100+ he spent on players backfired quite a bit.

not to say that those players won't be a resounding success next season?.

 

but once again the CL Final was an anti-climax for the majority of the game for me.

stalemate for the 1st 80 odd minutes and then it livened up thankfully.

Bayern played into Chelsea's hands by being too intricate at times and hoofing high balls into the area that are bread and butter to English teams,they play against it every week.

but they defended well and as much as i dislike Cole,he had a great game.

Robben could have been a hero but after the penalty miss it seems his confidence was gone when it came to the shoot-out and he opted to decline taking one.

i bet he feels so downhearted today after having the chance to maybe win the game against his old team.

[Steve]

The richest (and usually the biggest) club won most of the titles in every league. First they made their own money. Second there was only so much they could spend. The scale to which City and Chelsea can outspend everyone is greater than at any other times by multiples.

[The_Munchmaster]

Arsenal fan or no, I'm a bit of a purest. In some ways I can understand City and Chelsea fans. I can't respect. Sorry. What I find a derelict of duty is the media not even mentioning how much of a factor the money is. My hope is the financial fair play rules will even things out. I doubt it but its my hope. I'm not even saying had chelsea not have an oligarch, Arsenal would have won. We probaby would not have anyway, its not about Aresena but the game. Chelsea is now a global brand but it was bought and paid for over the last several years. Sorry, but both clubs are billionaire toys.

 

 

Other successful teams, Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal earned the money to buy the players to win the trophies. Chelsea and to a phenomenaly greater extent Man City just received a pot of free cash to buy the trophies. Basically they won the lottery. If it wasn't for Abu Dhabi Man City would still be a nondescript mid table team, with absolutely no ability to improve themselves. Effectively they have achieved nothing, only their Arab owner has, with his money. The blinkers are well and trully on with the Man City supporters particularly with BM 163 who seems to think that Man City have achieved something on their own merit!

 

Give every team in the PL a billion pounds to spend and where would Man City be? Prossibly in the top half of the table.

[163]

 

Other successful teams, Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal earned the money to buy the players to win the trophies. Chelsea and to a phenomenaly greater extent Man City just received a pot of free cash to buy the trophies. Basically they won the lottery. If it wasn't for Abu Dhabi Man City would still be a nondescript mid table team, with absolutely no ability to improve themselves. Effectively they have achieved nothing, only their Arab owner has, with his money. The blinkers are well and trully on with the Man City supporters particularly with BM 163 who seems to think that Man City have achieved something on their own merit!

 

Give every team in the PL a billion pounds to spend and where would Man City be? Prossibly in the top half of the table.

 

Earned the money to buy the players.Even Tony Adams says without Danny Fiszmans money they wouldn't of been able to be successful in the 90s.My season ticket for 2012/13 was only £475 which is probably a fraction of what Arsenal charge.Even though i doubt you have ever held one.What does that banner at Arsenal say you can't buy success.Think your a tad bitter because Samir Nasri as bought himself a pl winners medal.

 

Live by the sword die by the sword Arsenal would come to City in the past and put 5 past us .With the trainees who come through the ranks like Henry ,Bergkamp Pires wiltord..ljunberg.

[chelseafan]

Earned the money to buy the players.Even Tony Adams says without Danny Fiszmans money they wouldn't of been able to be successful in the 90s.My season ticket for 2012/13 was only £475 which is probably a fraction of what Arsenal charge.Even though i doubt you have ever held one.What does that banner at Arsenal say you can't buy success.Think your a tad bitter because Samir Nasri as bought himself a pl winners medal.

 

Live by the sword die by the sword Arsenal would come to City in the past and put 5 past us .With the trainees who come through the ranks like Henry ,Bergkamp Pires wiltord..ljunberg.

 

 

I have been following this debate though somewhat in the background. All I will say is that, Yes, money helps and can take you so far but the players still have to perform. Saturdays match is a good example, Chelsea were outplayed, outmaneavoured but through grit, spirit and determination they won the CL (incientally in a team full of Germans, why let the Dutchman take a penalty!!)

 

I defy anyone to deny that if a rich arab/russian buys your club and throws money at it that they wouldnt say be ecstatic about it.

 

Arsenal have done fantastic this season considering their structured pay scales but CS, do you really believe that you will ever win any major silverware unless the club moves with the times?

[Steve]

two things, Fiszman bought shares in Arsenal. He made an investment. That investment could have lost money. Arsenal were not a near bankrupt club when he bought in. Arsenal was the biggest club in London, arguably 3rd biggest club in England after Man Utd and Liverpool. We wiil differ on Fiszman's monetary influence and Arsenal's 90s success. Fiszman and the board spend only what Arsenal brought in. Arsenal were successful in the early '90s Titles in '89 and '91, cup win in '93) but that wasn't due to financial reasons. In the mid '90s Arsenal were getting poorer and poorer. We finished 12th at one point. Wenger was the reason for the success (although things got better with the Bergkamp purchase in '96). Third, Arsenal have always been a parsinmonious club. The owners of the past Hill-Wood and others were fairly tight with money. Still are. You've never seen a 20 mil transfer at Arsenal but have from clubs much poorer. Strange that a club which is probably 4th or 5th richest in the world still doesn't make mega buys. Arsenal and always has bought players from what they make. We've never gone into debt to make purchases. The only time the club took on debt was the build the stadium. I'm afraid you're probably the only person that would see Arsenal as comparable to Chelsea or City.

 

As for as Chelsea's and City's money 'helping', what percentage of each clubs success would be attributed to the financial involvement of their owners? I've never bought the 'players still have to do it on the pitch' argument. You amass great players its about as close to a guarantee of success as you can have. Its a near certainty that over time you will win titles and cups. In a one season, no, but continued spending more than anyone else over time? A metaphysical certitude. I'd like to find some example of the club that spent the most over time and didn't win. Inter perhaps is the closest example several years ago but they just ran out of money. Had the spending continued they would have but they also had to contend with big money spending from Milan and Juve as well. In every league I can think of its come to fruition. Barca and Real Madrid, Man Utd, Bayern Munich, Milan and Juve before their fall from grace, Celtic and Rangers, even in other sports (NY Yankees), its a truism in sports. If I bought the world cup XI and put them in the SPL (Scottish league), would the argument they still have to do it on the pitch be seen as a sick cynical joke?

Chelsea won it on the pitch and won it with one of their worst sides since Roman took over. They got past a Barca side that will be remembered amongst the best ever. The fact remains it was won and couldn't have been won without the pillars of nearly a billion pounds in total investment over 7 years or so. I'm not saying not to be happy and proud but at least be honest about it. I'm the same about the NBA players in the Olympics. We put the best players on the planet (Jordan, etc.) in the old days and was it any wonder we were winning the Olymipics by embarassing margins when in the past we used uni players but when the world caught up we brought out the big guns.

 

I'd have more respect for the EPL if they had a system similar to the bundesliga. 51% german own requirement, strict financial rules, you can't have the kind of debt that saw Leeds go into administration or what is carried on Chelsea's books. Bayern dominated the league but the rules offfered the other clubs more of a chance. If Man City's money is allowed to run amok, and they keep the spending pace, the EPL will look more like the SPL and fans will leave.

 

I know it sounds like jealousy and pettiness. I stopped watching American professional sports for similar reasons and we have a much more egalitarian, even socialistic approach to our professional leagues with revenue sharing and such. Still our pro leagues got too commerical and it lost me. The EPL and football in general was refreshing. Passion. Competitiveness. Now, its getting uncompetitive and watching the likes of City buy players they don't need and loaning them (Adebayor for example) to be used against rivals but not against themselves is sullying the game.

 

If Roman and the sheiks paid of the club debts and set up the clubs in a manner where they could fun their own success, such as stadium expansion, etc. I'd have an infinite amount of respect for them.

[sayjann]

bloody hell Steve.

i'm impressed, you used some long words in your post.........

[The_Munchmaster]

....The EPL and football in general was refreshing. Passion. Competitiveness. Now, its getting uncompetitive and watching the likes of City buy players they don't need and loaning them (Adebayor for example) to be used against rivals but not against themselves is sullying the game.

 

If Roman and the sheiks paid of the club debts and set up the clubs in a manner where they could fun their own success, such as stadium expansion, etc. I'd have an infinite amount of respect for them.

 

[163]

Google Etihad campus you will see the regeneration plans for East Manchester that City are planning.