You understand perfectly well that that isn't what I'm saying. Of course our spending power was a large part of the reason for our success (although you imply that we spent more than anybody else could afford - which simply isn't the case). I'm saying that there is a marked difference between spending what you generate organically and spending many times more than the rest of the clubs can afford - and which would bankrupt the spending club under normal circumstances - just because you have an owner who chooses to do so.No, we didn't do what 'everybody else' was doing. 'Everybody else' didn't have our financial resources.
Are you claiming that we didn't buy our success because the money was self-generated? Therefore it didn't actually exist?
have united not bought titles in past 20 years. they have spent what 20miilion plus on a 17 yr old rooney. 30 mill on rio . 17 mill on nani. 32 mil on berba... just because they dont have a russian or arab owner doesnt mean they dont buy title either. are they excluded? they have been paying huge transfer fees right back to start of premier league and also pay mad wages. why? beacuse to be the best and keep above rivals they have to pay it imo.
i find it amazing on here when people talk shit about pursing it in the right way.. its comical.. its all about the money and who pays the most. the more money a club is willing to spend on players and agents the best players will join them , end of.
id be thrilled if kuwati crowd bought us . that real exciting times. man city are around for the long haul aand as im sure we would with them in charge and if it was all to fail whats the problem ? sell off the players and go back to the levy model of buying cheap and seen if they come good. simples lol
You understand perfectly well that that isn't what I'm saying. Of course our spending power was a large part of the reason for our success (although you imply that we spent more than anybody else could afford - which simply isn't the case). I'm saying that there is a marked difference between spending what you generate organically and spending many times more than the rest of the clubs can afford - and which would bankrupt the spending club under normal circumstances - just because you have an owner who chooses to do so.
Only a fool would deny that there has always been an inequality between the means of individual football clubs. My point is simply that the Chelski/Citeh model is distorting the game to its detriment and I want my beloved club to have no part in it.
If we admit it's all about the money then what's the point? The magical thing about sport isn't that the favorites always win. It's that with hard work, some skill, and a bit of luck; anything can happen. It's hard for a fan to relate to money, it's not necessarily something that is hardwired into us. But it is easy for us to latch onto the tribal nature of sport in today's society, especially when you look at the weakened bonds that most people have now. And it's much easier for the typical fan to latch onto being an underdog instead of the expected winner.
So to chase the money is something that is going to be the anathema to the soul. It will take something that means something now, the common struggle against the injustices of the world (as represented by Russian criminals and Islamofascist tyrants) and reduce it to something we have no linkage to.
No, it's not an entirely rational view point. I get that, but it's one that needs to be considered. And I think there is something to be said for earning what you get. Not having it given to you. Plus a massive cash infusion would see the addition of the fake fans that seem to follow the money, and there is also something to be said for avoiding bandwagon fans.
While I think that is a facile and inaccurate statement, it isn't even applicable. There is no way that anybody could describe the amounts of money thrown at Chelski and Citeh as 'investments'.Also, re the 'money morality debate' you can only claim that there is no distinction between 'invested and earned' if you believe there is no difference between sport and business. I happen to believe there are many differences even if sport does, by necessity, share some characteristics with business.
Well then. We bought success. That's what I said.
You really think we're a club in anything but name?
We're going to have to agree to differ on a point which you describe as 'casuistry' but which I believe is fundamental to the entire edifice of sport in general and football in particular.Well then. We bought success. That's what I said.
I don't know that we spent more than anyone else could afford,. We certainly spent more than most clubs could afford. I don't know how much was generated 'organically' either.
You really think we're a club in anything but name?
That isn't investing. It's spending.Of course you could. An investment doesn't necessarily have to yield a monetary return. When you 'invest' in a new car you know you won't be getting your money back.
lol at morons doubting pep Guardiolas abilities as a manager.
2 champions leagues, 2 world club champions, 3 la ligas, 2 copa del rey, 2 european super cups 3 spanish super cups 14 trophies in 4 seasons. enough said
I like your post, but I don't particularly agree with all of it. What I'd like to see is a level playing field. That's clearly not the case with the way things are right now. There is a small number of clubs that can offer the high wages that attract good players. Within this group there are a couple of clubs that can pay ridiculous transfer fees at the drop of a hat.
Seeing as FFP is unlikely to achieve anything, and seeing as those clubs are unlikely to suddenly become poor, the only way of making things more competitive is to have the money to compete on level terms (or as close as we can get).
I guess I'm saying that in a slightly paradoxical manner we (and by 'we' I mean other clubs as well) need money to somehow return to the excitement of unpredictability that you are talking about. Only when things aren't so balanced heavily in the favour of a small number of teams will there be a return to the days where hard work,skill and a little bit of luck can make all the difference.
Football is never going to be what it used to be. The only way it will become anything resembling anything other than a series of meaningless titles bought by a handful of clubs will be if there are 10, 15, maybe even 20 rich clubs that make the presence of money virtually irrelevant.
That's never going to happen either, but you can see why people would want our club to dine at the table of success enjoyed so frequently by clubs like United, Arsenal, Chelsea, and soon City.
That's all success is now though. City won the league. Chelsea won the Champions League. Both bought their success and will will still have their names on those trophies many years from now.
Personally I'd like to see us maintain our team whilst gradually building. The only way I can see that happening is if we are able to pay wages that compete with the biggest hitters. We might not sign players for £50m, but if we could keep players like Modric by paying them £150k plus I'd be happy with that.
Without money we won't get a new stadium, or be able to build a team constantly having to start again due to being able to hold on to key players. Any hope of doing otherwise is a pipe dream at worst, or an ephemeral and moderate success at best.
If we admit it's all about the money then what's the point? The magical thing about sport isn't that the favorites always win. It's that with hard work, some skill, and a bit of luck; anything can happen. It's hard for a fan to relate to money, it's not necessarily something that is hardwired into us. But it is easy for us to latch onto the tribal nature of sport in today's society, especially when you look at the weakened bonds that most people have now. And it's much easier for the typical fan to latch onto being an underdog instead of the expected winner.
So to chase the money is something that is going to be the anathema to the soul. It will take something that means something now, the common struggle against the injustices of the world (as represented by Russian criminals and Islamofascist tyrants) and reduce it to something we have no linkage to.
No, it's not an entirely rational view point. I get that, but it's one that needs to be considered. And I think there is something to be said for earning what you get. Not having it given to you. Plus a massive cash infusion would see the addition of the fake fans that seem to follow the money, and there is also something to be said for avoiding bandwagon fans.
I think there is only so much of a level playing field that one can construct. A team like Spurs is going to have more resources than a team based in a smaller city (let's say Stoke). I think the approach that is needed is something similar to what the FFP shoots for. There are too many clubs to ensure that everybody can (naturally) pay a similar wage. And even if there were 15-20 rich clubs like you talked about (assuming you mean domestic, not the CL) the bigger clubs would still be able to massively outspend the smaller ones, so you'd see the same problems.
I think the best solution would be some sort of wage cap. Limit the amount clubs can spend on players, and you'll give a smaller, well run club a chance to make an impact. Obviously the rich clubs can offer more marketing money and exposure. But as long as they are allowed to spend stupid amounts of money I believe we'll see the game continue to be warped towards the money. At some point our society will have to realize that the hellbent pursuit of the dollar/pound/euro is not the be all, end all of happiness and civilization. Unfortunately we aren't their yet.
I like, but the fact is that Spurs stopped being a club not on the day that KB stuck two fingers up at the boardroom in 1984, but in 1895, when we turned professional. We fans may preserve the quaint romantic fiction that we're still a 'club', but membership buys us nothing more than first dibs on tickets; in reality we're a subsidiary of the Tavistock Group, a huge investment conglomerate run by two exceptionally hard-nosed businessmen that invests in who-knows-what? Joe Lewis is at base a currency trader; that makes him morally superior to Abramovich and Sheikh Yerbooti? I think we're on potentially shaky ground here.
I like, but the fact is that Spurs stopped being a club not on the day that KB stuck two fingers up at the boardroom in 1984, but in 1895, when we turned professional. We fans may preserve the quaint romantic fiction that we're still a 'club', but membership buys us nothing more than first dibs on tickets; in reality we're a subsidiary of the Tavistock Group, a huge investment conglomerate run by two exceptionally hard-nosed businessmen that invests in who-knows-what? Joe Lewis is at base a currency trader; that makes him morally superior to Abramovich and Sheikh Yerbooti? I think we're on potentially shaky ground here.
A wage cap would be good. A transfer cap would be even better. Set it at, say, £50m per season. Obviously there would be very few teams that would have that sort of money, but it would mean that those that do would have to be a lot smarter with their cash. It would force the rich teams into deciding whether to spend their money on 3 or 4 players at around £10m to £15m, or splurge the whole lot on Torres. Eventually a consensus of player value would be established, and if rich clubs want to make full use of their millions they can pay massively for one player, yet would pay the consequence of being unable to strengthen other areas.
As for society realising that the pursuit of money is not the be all and end all of happiness - I think you're possibly making the same mistake Marx did by underestimating capitalism's ability to expand and multiply it's morality vacuum of a system in a more or less infinite manner. The current economic crisis is all part of that expansion. I think of it as forests needing to be burnt down routinely in order to regrow.
I think a lot of things. Mostly bullshit. I blame Jenas.