Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Other clubs' transfers

Dave

by Dave
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift

Posted
Posted

What does the fit and proper person test have to do with any of this? Does being mega-rich mean that they're not 'fit and proper'?

 

You never know, it might be something to do with how they got their money, or their authoritarian rule of a million or so people. They've inherited billions off the back of a genetic fluke, and are ploughing it into ruining English football while ignoring the problems of their own populace and their Emirate's inevitable collapse as it's only tangible source of income runs out.* Yeah, I just hate them cause they're rich, that's it, I'm a hippy.

 

I'm going to try and briefly** make my point though, in a nice simple chart form. And before I do I should add that City's new owners are merely an ultimate result of where football has been going over the last decade, its not entirely their fault, but if you'll excuse the slightly racist pun, they'll be the palm tree that breaks the camel's back. I'll hide it so I don't take up half the page:

 

 

 

1. City have effectively limitless resources

 

2. City start to pay their new players astronomical fees because otherwise nobody would play for them.

 

3. All City players begin to demand these excessive wages because they want parity, and because they know the club can afford it.

 

4. Other clubs in England and across Europe come under pressure to pay wages that are at least comparable to the city Galacticos.

 

5. Wage bills double again, becoming an ever higher proportion of a club's total costs, I believe they're already a majority for the most part, though can't cite anything because I can't be bothered to look around.

 

6. Clubs need more money to deal with this, to be able to compete.

 

7. Ticket prices continue to skyrocket because matchday income is still by far the largest source of income for clubs.

 

8. Fans gradually lose interest in paying such exorbitant prices, attendances fall away and the soul of football is eroded even more.

 

9. The biggest clubs over here copy those on the continent and make their own TV deals, screwing clubs with less global appeal.

 

10a. Either we end up with (at best) an SPL-like system where a couple of clubs who can afford to draw in the money to compete with city fight it out with them every year and the rest just sort of live in Limbo, or (and if the economy doesn't drag itself out of the mire sharpish that is pretty much certain)...

 

10b. ...Football go boom.

 

 

A lot of people were worried about Chelsea having this effect, and certainly they've pushed us along that road. However the key difference is Chelsea were never rich enough to sustain that kind of spending. City, if we are to believe what people say, have no such limit. Of course I should note this is all worst case scenario stuff, but if City start paying someone a couple million a month then we know we're well on the way.

 

*This is an incredibly simplistic take on a massively complex issue, but it was just my simple way of putting that they are, as with most of the ruling families in that part of the world, a set of bastards.

 

**Hmm, fecked that up didn't I?

 

It's about demand and supply, bro. Every player will want to pay for City but the supply of money just isn't there from other teams in regards to wages, so naturally, they will have to accept lower wages. The pressure will be on clubs who want to keep their players but in the end, City cannot buy all the best players in the world. The situation with Chelsea has demonstrated this. Even though they went out and bought pretty much world stars, the supply of such stars still dwarfs what they wanted so there were still leftovers, so to speak. And even if they spend £100m on Kaka and £200 on Messi, Milan and Barca will spend that money. In a way, it's like the gov't spending money on the economy to boost it. City are just spending money in the transfer market.

 

I don't think wage bills will double. Any club that is prudent will try to sustain itself but clubs that overreach, increase the price of tickets will drive their own fans away and in the end, be the ruin of the club because they can't sustain it. If attendances decrease, clubs will adjust because like you say, income from tickets is significant. In fact, they have already adjusted over the past couple of seasons. Bolton froze their tickets for a bit, Blackburn have decreased theirs etc.

 

The league will still be the same, even if City spend 10x more than their closest challengers each year. It will still come to down to the basics of football, to good coaching, to some luck even. This is the essence of football and why it is so fun. Nothing is ever decided on paper.

 

In the past 15 years, there have been 4 clubs who have won the league. That's not a lot of teams if you're comparing it to other sports (basketball, american football, baseball etc.). Even if City spend like this for the next 10 years, I would bet that a few other clubs are able to win a title every now and then (like Arsenal and Chelsea have during this Man Utd reign).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest quklaani

Guest quklaani

Posted
Posted

Abu Dhabi is not Dubai, they are richer and are seemingly more prudent in their investments, not as superfluously flamboyant as Dubai seems, but with an actual focus behind the spending. They need to spend some of their petro-money and immediately, as to ward off inflation, which is a problem that could plague the likes of Kuwait and Qatar whose oil money cannot be spent due to lack of infrastructure etc. then they're hit by inflationary crisis. Abu Dhabi is less afflicted by problems in comparison to Dubai, who'll face their property bubble bursting (if it hasn't already), the maltreatment of foreign workers and ethics behind that in addition to the dwindling 'pure-blood' Emirati populous. Some of these affect Abu Dhabi, but a lot less, I'd say.

 

Good points all, certainly they can't compete with Dubai for decadence and stunning myopia, but there's still a reckless opulence and a general disregard for human rights that makes me want such people kept as far away from something important to me as possible.  In addition my point was more about long term stability.  Anyway, after Thaksin I can't see how anyone wouldn't get approved, so I guess its a waste of time to get into their credentials.

 

I think we're getting slightly off topic, and theres football to be watched.

Link to post
Share on other sites
gray

gray

Posted
Posted

20.31 Sky Sports News understands West Ham United have rejected a third bid from Manchester City for Craig Bellamy.

 

20.32 Bellamy pleas with Hammers to let him join his "dream club"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1878

1878

Posted
Posted

How many Newcastle fans complained when we broke the world record to sign Shearer?  ???

 

If City have the money, they've got every right to spend as much or as little ofit as they want. No point complaining, it just smacks of jealousy imo.

 

When we signed Shearer, where did the money come from? Where were we in terms of league standing?

 

Fair point we were one of the best teams in the country when he signed and we got obviously found the money from somewhere to make it happen. This arab bloke has waltzed in with loads of cash to spend and he wants instant success so he's prepared to pay through the nose to get the big names in. He's clearly not prepared to build things up slowly and if they've got the cash to make a real go of it then that's their good fortune. We signed a raft to players for big money to get to and stay near the top of the League and they're just starting the process.

 

At least part of the money for Shearer came from later sales of Sir Les, Huckerby, Kitson etc.

 

True, but at the time I remember lots of fans saying very similar things about us signing Shearer as I'm reading today about Kaka. It was jealousy back then and it's jealousy now.

 

Don't buy this 'bad for the game' stuff. City are about to raise the (financial) bar and it's up to the other clubs to compete. If they can't, City could dominate in the same way Man U have done for the last 15 years.

 

It's not just raising the financial bar though. It's launching it into another planet. The world's highest paid players at the moment are on around £150k a week but even the more conservative estimates in today's rags were claiming they will double(!) that figure for Kaka.

 

It's obscene and will have a knock on effect for every other club in the top divisions around the world. Even Chelsea weren't anywhere near this bad when Abramovich went on his initial spending spree.

 

It will have a knock-on effect yes. They obscene money they're shelling out is going straight to other clubs to spend on alternative players. They aren't giving it to charity, they'll be giving it to the clubs who can spend it on strengthening their own squad at the expense of losing one of their top players.

 

The City transfer fees will eventually trickle down the divisions so from that respect I'd argue it is probably beneficial to the game. There's 2 ways of looking at it imo. :thup:

 

Possibly, yeah. With the transfer fees anyway.

 

When I said a "knock on effect" I was thinking more of wages really.

 

It will cause a lot of unrest and higher pay rolls at all the clubs. Why is Kaka worth 300k a week but Ronaldo, Messi, Gerrard etc are only getting half that amount? Likewise with Bridge earning 90k while the likes of Clichy, Lescott etc are on 40-50k and so on and so on until lower league clubs are getting hit in the pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KaKa

KaKa

Posted
Posted

Spurs have bid for Palacios, rejected.

 

Couldn't stand to see him at Tottenham and they will have to pay a lot more for him.

 

Wouldn't accept less than £18 million for him. He is a top player.

 

All the while Mark Hughes is chasing Scott Parker instead. Bloody clueless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
midds

midds

Posted
Posted

How many Newcastle fans complained when we broke the world record to sign Shearer?  ???

 

If City have the money, they've got every right to spend as much or as little ofit as they want. No point complaining, it just smacks of jealousy imo.

 

When we signed Shearer, where did the money come from? Where were we in terms of league standing?

 

Fair point we were one of the best teams in the country when he signed and we got obviously found the money from somewhere to make it happen. This arab bloke has waltzed in with loads of cash to spend and he wants instant success so he's prepared to pay through the nose to get the big names in. He's clearly not prepared to build things up slowly and if they've got the cash to make a real go of it then that's their good fortune. We signed a raft to players for big money to get to and stay near the top of the League and they're just starting the process.

 

At least part of the money for Shearer came from later sales of Sir Les, Huckerby, Kitson etc.

 

True, but at the time I remember lots of fans saying very similar things about us signing Shearer as I'm reading today about Kaka. It was jealousy back then and it's jealousy now.

 

Don't buy this 'bad for the game' stuff. City are about to raise the (financial) bar and it's up to the other clubs to compete. If they can't, City could dominate in the same way Man U have done for the last 15 years.

 

It's not just raising the financial bar though. It's launching it into another planet. The world's highest paid players at the moment are on around £150k a week but even the more conservative estimates in today's rags were claiming they will double(!) that figure for Kaka.

 

It's obscene and will have a knock on effect for every other club in the top divisions around the world. Even Chelsea weren't anywhere near this bad when Abramovich went on his initial spending spree.

 

It will have a knock-on effect yes. They obscene money they're shelling out is going straight to other clubs to spend on alternative players. They aren't giving it to charity, they'll be giving it to the clubs who can spend it on strengthening their own squad at the expense of losing one of their top players.

 

The City transfer fees will eventually trickle down the divisions so from that respect I'd argue it is probably beneficial to the game. There's 2 ways of looking at it imo. :thup:

 

Possibly, yeah. With the transfer fees anyway.

 

When I said a "knock on effect" I was thinking more of wages really.

 

It will cause a lot of unrest and higher pay rolls at all the clubs. Why is Kaka worth 300k a week but Ronaldo, Messi, Gerrard etc are only getting half that amount? Likewise with Bridge earning 90k while the likes of Clichy, Lescott etc are on 40-50k and so on and so on until lower league clubs are getting hit in the pocket.

 

The best players will always earn the most money. That's always been the case.

 

The money City hand over in transfer fees could go towards keeping other players happy if need be. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disco

Disco

Posted
Posted

Spurs have bid for Palacios, rejected.

 

Dave Whelan '10million is not enough for Palacios'

 

True. Spurs will turn the corner should they buy him. He is exactly what they (and very much us but we'll never get him) need.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...