Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:01 pm  

Mancini's right to keep emphasising that its just 3 points. It would have better really for us if this result had come two or three months later in the season. Now were like a 5000m runner that has gone from the bell.

I'm sure United will respond to this, just not sure how. It will be interesting to see which back four Fergie puts out when all his defenders are fit. Its also notable that our two best performances have been against teams playing 4-4-2. Both Spurs and United put us under pressure down the flanks early on but then gradually were overwhelmed in midfield. Obviously the sending off was a major factor yesterday but I thought we were taking control of the game at the time.

Must admit that I was gobsmacked when Fergie said they should have settled for 3-1. I could imagine him thinking this and perhaps saying it in private to the players, just never expected him to say something like that publicly. It kind of takes away some of their aura.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:06 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that anyone in the league can win it? Are you saying that sides like Norwich have a chance of reaching the Champions League? You are utterly clueless if you don't think football has money problems. Every year clubs are going into administration, every year clubs sell off their assets to 'raise funds' because they can't afford to match others without selling. Only a select few have the luxury of spending big without consequence, and even then it could turn around to bite them in the backside. If City's owners were to do a u-turn and sell the club to somebody without the bottomless pit, City would probably gone within a couple of years, such is the level of over-achieving in the financing department. It's embarrassing that you're trying to say all sides spend big. Do Wigan spend like City? Do Everton? Do Bolton?

Just because sides get the odd result, doesn't mean that everything is fine, because it's not. We try and con ourselves into believing the league has a top six, i.e. United, Chelsea, City, Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool. But we don't, we have a top three, then Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal, and then the rest. None of the other sides have a chance of winning the league or even the top 4, it's not open at all, it may be down the bottom half of the table, but that's only because they're as poor as each other.

Rob the Divison 1/Prem has been like this for the last 20+ years

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:07 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Mancini's right to keep emphasising that its just 3 points. It would have better really for us if this result had come two or three months later in the season. Now were like a 5000m runner that has gone from the bell.

I'm sure United will respond to this, just not sure how. It will be interesting to see which back four Fergie puts out when all his defenders are fit. Its also notable that our two best performances have been against teams playing 4-4-2. Both Spurs and United put us under pressure down the flanks early on but then gradually were overwhelmed in midfield. Obviously the sending off was a major factor yesterday but I thought we were taking control of the game at the time.

Must admit that I was gobsmacked when Fergie said they should have settled for 3-1. I could imagine him thinking this and perhaps saying it in private to the players, just never expected him to say something like that publicly. It kind of takes away some of their aura.

I think Fergie managed to put in an even worse performance than his team with his comments.

Worst day of his managerial career? Seriously? It's three points and a bit of embarrassment. You simply cannot compare yesterday with their mauling by Barca in the CL Final.

He should have talked about the 5-0 to us. He should have talked to the double that the scousers did to them. And then said that despite those matches United still lifted the trophies.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:08 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Not really. It shows how well teams are doing with generating points from their spending. There is no question about it, if you spend enough you will win trophies. There is very little skill to it.

Try it on Football Manager. Give yourself a £1,000m budget to spend and see what it does.

City can't expect any acknowledgement for their 'achievements' this season.

Err, I don't think you fully understood how the figures were reached do you. I suggest you do some research and get back to me on that one.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:23 pm  

Wire_85 wrote:

Rob the Divison 1/Prem has been like this for the last 20+ years

I know. Doesn't mean it shouldn't change or be ignored. Football as a whole - owners, sponsors, governing bodies, players, managers, supporters etc. - all sit back and let it happen, it just goes from one extreme to another. We never look to progress, to change, to make the right thing happen, we just sit back and watch as the sport continues to lose all morals.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:29 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Mancini's right to keep emphasising that its just 3 points. It would have better really for us if this result had come two or three months later in the season. Now were like a 5000m runner that has gone from the bell.

I'm sure United will respond to this, just not sure how. It will be interesting to see which back four Fergie puts out when all his defenders are fit. Its also notable that our two best performances have been against teams playing 4-4-2. Both Spurs and United put us under pressure down the flanks early on but then gradually were overwhelmed in midfield. Obviously the sending off was a major factor yesterday but I thought we were taking control of the game at the time.

Must admit that I was gobsmacked when Fergie said they should have settled for 3-1. I could imagine him thinking this and perhaps saying it in private to the players, just never expected him to say something like that publicly. It kind of takes away some of their aura.

Spot on post. I knew what Fergie would go with, posted the exact team(Vidic the exception) a couple of pages back. I'd have gone for Rooney up on his own and put Jones in the midfield to try and shackle Silva. I also think playing two flair players in Young and Nani wasn't ideal. Valencia provides a higher workrate and a bit more grit than the other two. A Park, Fletcher, Jones, Anderson, Valencia midfield would have been more suited to to containing City.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:40 pm  

getdownmonkeyman wrote:

City, and Chelsea before them are taking the PL in a direction where to be at the top, you have to have vast financial resources behind you. It may sound ridiculous, but, if other clubs are to gain simliar investment (which is a must if you want to compete at the top), it takes the game even closer to a European Supler League, which will create a real them and us scenario.

I would say that if there's going to be a salary cap it will only come via a European Super League. I can't see where else you could introduce one. If you introduce one in England it will be turnover based (i.e. cap limited to 50% of turnover) because the big clubs have a strong case to argue that it would hinder their ability to compete in the CL. A turnover based cap is hardly a salary cap though, more a concession to competitiveness. Realistically for true competitiveness you need a flat cap.

If a ESL for football isn't going to happen then perhaps leagues should look at the distribution of revenue within their competitions in the same way that some American sports do. To me though a ESL seems a logical end result for European football. The CL is now the pinnacle of world football and UEFA would be silly to not even be considering it because their competition are sports like the NFL, NBA, MLB and probably Brazilian football in the future. The EPL currently is the main rival to sports like that and either you allow the EPL to grow as it has done or you risk undermining its ability to compete with those other sports for global revenue (essential for a continued improvement of revenue streams). Therefore, a ESL becomes an increasingly likely point of discussion over the next twenty years.

Saddened! wrote:

Try it on Football Manager. Give yourself a £1,000m budget to spend and see what it does.

It's also worth mentioning that you can take a team from no budget in the non-league to Premiership Champions as I have done myself with Gloucester City

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:42 pm  

McClennan wrote:

It's also worth mentioning that you can take a team from no budget in the non-league to Premiership Champions as I have done myself with Gloucester City

Show-off!

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:30 pm  

mmp wrote:

this is the one thing that annoys me...it's almost a case of 'no one is allowed to compete with us'. I've read similar is happening in Germany where Beyern used to monopolise the market - now others are competing with them they're asking for a cap which would obviously maintain a kind of status quo with themselves ahead.

Just been through UK transfer records - United still have 4 of the top 10 most expensive players in Premier League history and were spending close to £30m per player as far back as 2001. Veron, Ferdinand were both transfer records in 2001, then 2002. Rooney transferred in in 2004. Berbatov joined in 2008.

the difference is that in the early 2000s only Man U and the odd other club in England had masive spending power. United competed with Madrid/Barcelona and the Italian clubs for the biggest stars (nearly £30m for Veron! - who was a signing who might be said to have been 'written off') but for the next tier down, a going rate of £8m - £15m was beyond what most in the Premier League could pay and United could hoover them up...Forlan (£7m) and Van Nistelrooy (£18.5m) in 2001 along with Veron that year, Fedinand a year later and then Djemba Djemba (£4m) Kleberson (£7m), Ronaldo (£12m), Saha (£13m), Heinze (£7m), and Alan Smith (£7m) all joined in 2003/04. Add that to a goalkeeper (Howard - £2m) and you've a full team on top of what was already at the club which included Scholes, Neville(s), Beckham, Butt etc.. Ps. there are a few in that list who could be seen as 'written off'.

Now there are more buyers in the market - Chelsea and Liverpool are big spenders as well as City and the clubs overseas. Right through to Premier League clubs in mid-table they can spend £10 - £15 on a one off basis...so City's spending at around £25m for players like Milner, Silva etc. just seems to be the going rate.

To think any club has ever not bought the title is just daft - every Premier League title winner (apart from Leeds in year 1 maybe?) has been a big spender, its spending it well that matters

City have spent in excess of £220 million since summer 2010. The examples you collate are over a period of time. As I said; unprecedented. It isn't a question of boo-hoo, it is a case of City raising the bar, that it requires clubs to have a similiar financial structure to compete. Barcelona are the obvious exception, but how often will you see a team that comprises of the talents of Villa, Messi, Xavi and Iniesta all at the same time.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:47 pm  

Maybe we should do what the Liverpool fans do in times of strife and roll out 'net spend' statistics?