Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 101 comments are related to the topic:
Are Man City the most boring team in the league?
Are Man City the most boring team in the league?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 101
|
By:
sorry last 2 transfer windows
|
|
By:
SEASON SPEND REVENUE +/-
16/17 £193m £32m -£161m 17/18 £285m £82m -£203m 18/19 £70m £49m -£21m 19/20 £150m £62m -£88m 20/21 £134m £40m -£-94m Total £ £832m 265m -£567m sorry was a bit short £567M |
|
By:
shouldn't be a minus there
the word "spend" alreadt implies a net outgoing |
|
By:
Big difference between spending money from player sales, like Liverpool did, and just spending oil money. Even Chelsea's net spend is quite good over the last few years. They bought Lukaku in the summer for £100m and still had a negative net spend. Tomori, Abraham, Zouma, Livramento and Zappacosta fees more than covered it.
But for those who think it's just about money, consider that if City win the league again this year at a canter, they'll have done it two years in a row without a striker. That is down to the manager and is unprecedented. They are scoring 2.5 a game this season on average so far, even more than last year. Won't be too far off 100 goals again without a No.9. |
|
By:
I find the whole Premier League fairly boring - I haven't watched MOTD for years.
Its all pretty predictable over the full season, because there is such monetary difference between the teams. |
|
By:
It's much worse in other leagues. PSG's wage bill is 3 times the next highest in France. Its mainly down to Klopp and Pep in England rather than money. Chelsea and Man U aren't far off City in terms of money and are both well ahead of Liverpool on spending too. A massive source of revenue nowadays is profit on player sales. Chelsea and Liverpool are brilliant at this. The likes of City, Man U and Arsenal are awful at it. Liverpool have managed to largely bridge the spending gap to United and City thru profits on player sales primarily.
The difference with PSG and City is that they rarely need to sell players and rarely make profit on players they buy. They don't have to because they have a bottomless pit to tap into and don't have to operate in the real world. FFP does little to stop this even though that's exactly what it's there for. Chelsea are similar - they have a £1.4bn interest free debt on their books repayable to Roman on 18 months notice but notice is never given. Basically all the money he has pumped in over the years and they don't operate in reality either. |
|
By:
Its all pretty predictable over the full season, because there is such monetary difference between the teams.
It's been the same since English factory owners started paying Scots to 'work' in their factories 150 years ago. Loads of teams went bust in late C19th or stayed amateur at best. money has basically always run the game whatever people think about the 'good old days'. |
|
By:
Yes £20 a week maximum wage 1961 which allowed clubs such as Burnley, Huddersfield, Ipswich etc to become champions.
|
|
By:
Owners abused the rules that they themselves wrote with regard to payments from year dot. The difference being that the money involved was of a size where a successful local bigwig could invest a bit and with a bit of luck get a decent team together. That still happens except today on top of that, you have the super rich clubs but money has always ruled.
|
|
By:
"It's much worse in other leagues. PSG's wage bill is 3 times the next highest in France."
PSG didn't even win their league last year sometimes i get teh impression you're just here to show off and try to look smart |
|
By:
"Yes £20 a week maximum wage 1961 which allowed clubs such as Burnley, Huddersfield, Ipswich etc to become champions."
also Portmouth and Sheff Wed won titles in the 30s and 40s only "small" teams to have won it since then have been Derby, Forest and Leicester |
|
By:
"Most of those mentioned just buy up players to stop them going elsewhere. Those teams could field two sides in the premiership comfortably."
this is a problem that doesn't get talked about enough in the past big clubs always had top players but they didn't have 30 of them those players should be playing for other teams i ahte this byusiness of top clubs loaning out youngsters to samller teams that shouldnt be allowed loans should "try before you buy" clubs in lower divisons shouldn't be giving man city youngsters like bazunu experience |
|
By:
not sure Derby and Forest even were small teams
Forest at least had a fair bit of money back then i think Leciester are really the only shock winners in the last 60 years |
|
By:
i would love Atalanta to win a championship in Italy
this is what football should be all about in the past they probbaly would have |
|
By:
Yes and those clubs mentioned with their surplus players are wanting extra subs too. What a surprise!!
|
|
By:
MU were relegated in 1974
Spurs were relegated in 1977 Chelsea were relegated in 1988 Man City were in now Division 1 in 1998 I just can't see it happening any of that happening now - possibly Newcastle could go down. Forest were a smallish club for the top tier - Derby the same and Leicester I agree money has always being a big help to any club, but the differences are bigger now. You need a billionaire backer for a top 4 spot. |
|
By:
i ahte the five subs rule
favours big teams and shyte managers if you've got your tactics and seclection wrong you should have to face the consequences |
|
By:
if your 100m start striker isn;t playing well just bring on another
 |
|
By:
Chelsea and Man City weren't big teams at the time
didn't Forest break the transfer record when they signed Trevor Francis? they must have had some money another thijng, Liverpool' success in the 70s and 80s wasn't based on money they didn; even get huge crowds back then |
|
By:
"I agree money has always being a big help to any club, but the differences are bigger now."
yes it would be virtually impossible for a club like Man Utd to get relegated now missing out of the champions league for a season or two is about as bad as it is going to get for them even if they had a horribvle start to the season, 10 defeats in a row, they would just keep changing the manager and but an ecntire new team in january |
|
By:
limit all clubs to 20 senior professionals
make them use youth players when squads are stretched |
|
By:
|
|
By:
"Are you trying to suggest that the French league is competitve? "
yes Montpellier (!), Monaco and Lille have all won league titles in the last ten years all since PSG was taken over by Qatar |
|
By:
Utd have a higher net spend then City since Pep took over........so not sure unlimited spend always works as proven in Utds case
|
|
By:
yes utd are just as bad
i don't care where the money comes from utd don't have a "right" to spend money just because they have more fans |
|
By:
They don't have a right to spend their own money? That's a new one.
|
|
By:
Make the Premier League a total salary cap league, but allow the clubs playing in Europe to have a separate squad and extra players allowed for domestic cup games - Say total salary allowed per playing EPL squad is £100m. Then you would really find out the best managers and the EPL would be more competitive.
|
|
By:
another thijng, Liverpool' success in the 70s and 80s wasn't based on money
they didn; even get huge crowds back then WALOFS Suppose dalglish and Souness were for peanuts to =name just two. They got 43,000 crowd v York City ( FA Cup '85 ) |
|
By:
I remember going to Anfield in the 70s for a game that they could seal the title on if they won. They managed to win it at a later date but at 1.30 the gates were closed for a 3pm kick off.
|
|
By:
"They don't have a right to spend their own money? That's a new one."
of course they do as do man city's owners it's none of UEFA's business |
|
By:
Liverpool didn't sell out Anfield in the 80s
crowds were 30,000 - 40,000 sometimes under 30,000 they are actually a bigger club now than they were back then their success was not built on money season picked at random https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984%E2%80%9385_Liverpool_F.C._season lowest league crowd 27,000 for Coventry, that;'s almost half empty several games under 30,000 (judging by the crowd for Everton 45,000 which I assume was a sell out) |
|
By:
Liverpool v Man Utd
35,000 at Anfield 57,000 at Old Trafford |
|
By:
that's the 84-85 season in case the link is unclear
Liverpool finished second that year and reached the cup fonal so they weren't shyte |
|
By:
there was 50,000 at Arsenal v Liverpool at Highbury
|
|
By:
Liverpool isn't a big city
lots of their fans nowadays are not from Liverpool, they are glory hunting fans from elsewhere that is why the crowds are bigger |
|
By:
irish and norwegian fans couldn't afford to fly in for a game in the 80s, they can now
|
|
By:
i think the mid 80s was the all time low for english football attendance
but liverpool's crowds were surprisngly low, even by the standards of teh time |
|
By:
Ref Liverpool in the late 1970s (not on the cheap)
Liverpool paid a record British fee for Dalglish in August 1977 Liverpool paid a record English to English club fee for Souness in Dec 1977 |
|
By:
did Liverpool have more money than Utd, Arsenal and Spurs in the 80s?
or even Everton? I ****g hate Liverpool but the truth is they never bought titles |
|
By:
how could Liverpool have bought titles with those sorts of crowds in a realtively poor city like Liverpool?
|
