There you go.

What Chelsea did to the transfer market, I'm sure you have more to tell me. That is why, players like Bent is "worth" 17million now.

relax taoren. u shouldn't take people with inflammatory quotes in their sigs too seriously. i certainly don't.

As Zan81 has quite rightly said, Chelsea did have a decent squad even before Abramovich dumped barrel loads of rubles into the club. However it has to be said that his generous spending did give you an edge of over other clubs that were vying for a place amongst the top four. i.e. Aston Villa, Newcastle & Tottenham. Chelsea may have gotten there on their own in time but one cannot argue that Roman's spending accelerated the process which leads to people saying that you "bought" success.



I've given my 2 cents on this before but it's easy for fans not of the 80's or early 90's era to forget. Man Utd took the long road to success. It took Fergie 7 years to win the title if I'm not mistaken. Much of their success in the 90's was due to the emergance of players like Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, David Beckham, the Neville's, Nicky Butt, etc. Star players like Peter Schmeichel ($530,000) and Eric Cantona ($ 1.2 million) were acquired at reasonable amounts. Yes they have spend a lot on players now and could even afford a couple of expensive flops most notably Juan Sebastian Veron but their road to success was a longer one.

Personally I think it does because what creap has posted, you inflated the price of players and their wages by offering them obscene amounts of money. In layman terms, you "spoil market". Now clubs stall for "better offers" knowing that some ultra rich club may come in to offer them an obscene amount for their star player(s). Players themselves are demanding for higher wages knowing that clubs like Man City most recently, can offer them twice what they are currently getting. You may not realise or admit it, but it really have impacted the game greatly.

At the end of the day though, winning is winning.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jan 22 2009, 09:52 AM

You have to understand that before Chelsea, Man U were always the biggest spenders. 1.2 Million was a lot of money at that time. Do you remember that Andy Cole was actually the record buy at that time at 8 million if i can remember. And they have always been engliand 'favourite' team. So seriously they have been always punching above their weight. Yes they did develop new players and they did went through a large period of transition but you have to understand that they always had the edge over the others.

Actually come to think about it, if you read other posts, Man City did not really spoil the market for unknown players. All Man City did was severely inflate the price of superstars. So there is a need for clubs that do not have much cash to now then it is up to you to do your own wheeling and dealing and find potential superstars instead of already made ones.

Winning is not everything if it is not sustainable. Do you call a club like blackburn or even newcastle a success? I mean they were never able to sustain their success and now they are such a joke.

This post has been edited by sylar111: Jan 22 2009, 10:12 AM

All i say is becos he is a Englishmen. Btw, how much did Man Utd pay for Owen Hargreaves? I dont think he is worth half of that price as he is just a bench warmer at Bayern Munchen.

---

Added on January 22, 2009, 10:05 amBro, I think you better think twice before you say this. If you are true English Football Fan, as I am not. But I think you should know this fact. I've got some friends living in Manchester and they told me those who stays in Manchester, Supports Manchester City! I guess the one team in Manchester should be the one in Maine Road.

---

Added on January 22, 2009, 10:06 amSo will Inter be Chelsea? Duh!? Sorry for saying such things in a Man City thread.

---

Added on January 22, 2009, 10:08 amBro, we (Juve) sold him to Man City la...We got him from Lecce before this.


This post has been edited by gwong: Jan 22 2009, 10:08 AM

I'm not suggesting they didn't spend but not in the same manner that Chelsea did. Heck I'm not defending Man Utd but they did an excellent job in marketing themselves worldwide, to the Asian market in particular. If Liverpool had taken advantage of their success in the 80's and done the same, who knows how much we'd have in our coffers right now. To a large extent, the success of Man Utd looked more like it was planned and measured. Where do you reckon they got the money to spend on players like Andy Cole?

You are right which is why I'm a firm advocate of the saying that money cannot buy success. For it to be sustainable, you need a plan or a roadmap, not just a long list of players you'd like on your team. Spending huge wads of cash on players without considering if your chequebook balances itself may not bring about sustained success. It is why I agree with the notion that there are only really two big clubs in England because neither Arsenal or Chelsea have dominated for a sustained period of time in the way that Man Utd have in the 90's and 00's or Liverpool did in the 70's/80's. I'm not taking the piss, but as you've suggested, success has to be sustained.

bet duke is someone who understand how the football game is plan ,played , administered and marketed . it's a combo package now

it remain to be seen what man city owners wants in the long term . at the moment i could only see them as wanting instant success and fame . no matter how much money they have , one of the best way to buy instant fame are through buying a EPL club , pump lots of money into the transfer market for good or sometimes even average players and sit back and hope for success and if things didnt go well as expected , will start to interfere with footballing issues they are not train to understand . rich owners buying into club and invested heavily on players would naturally want to have big say in transfers market. wonder how often they might peep into the shower and dressing room .


i shall wait for the day when suddenly Roman said , Chelsea no longer is my plaything and chelsea will then be back in the good old days of sitting in mid-table where winning the FA cup or even the League is consider a big success

just as the new owner of man city just discovered , willingness to pay the highest amount of money will not guarantee the player they wanted , whats more , success on the pitch . To attract big name players, the club need history and a brand image and ofcoz a fierce ambition , the last of which they dont lack at this moment . I rate Mark as a decent manager at such a young age , but his name could and will not attract star player and even with kaka , bridge ,bellamy and robinho around they may struggle in the BPL but such is the truth of the present situation at city ,unless the owner are patience which i dont think they are and would , the only alternatives is to spend big , big and big . every other club that city approach for players will want to milk every drops of susu from the world richest club . just ask the russian guy .

i fully support and shared SAF belief that club have to create and build their own youth players or to buy young players from elsewhere as with such good foresight ,judgment and youth development program, this can save the club lots of money but at the same time , if needed , the club must be willing to spend big on players he believe will deliver for the club . of course every youth development plan created , every purchases on player must be translated into success on the pitch with as many trophies as possible and the bigger the better , as that is what counts before one can think of marketing a " brand " image

every manager or club are bound to make a few mistakes and some could be very costly as well in the transfer market . the issue is , how much could the club afford to lose on those lost transfer transaction and what other income or even profits generated within the club revenues could be use to balance this transfer losses .

This post has been edited by sunnyK: Jan 22 2009, 01:36 PM

I think it's common sense lah. If a clubs only source of transfer funds is from rich investors then there would be a massive disparity between clubs. Other sources of revenue from TV, merchandise sales, ticket sales, etc contribute to it as well. Yes Fergie did spend a fair bit but a lot of the income came from marketing initiatives, which reinforces my belief that Rick Parry is a d***.

Not only can this help clubs save, it can also help clubs make money. If you are a smaller club like Southampton for example, you stand to profit from selling good young players to bigger sides, and you can then expand your squad. Look how much they got from the sale of Theo Walcott. If you are a bigger side, you stand to profit from shipping out players who don't make the grade to smaller clubs.

Now this might be more feasible

"Kaka to go to Liverpool" if he is being sought by Rafa.


"Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks is in tentative talks with representatives of the Al Kharafi family, whose head Nasser is the 48th richest man in the world with an £9bn fortune."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/...rpool-sale.html

Ok I think this is starting to become a little bit of a joke now. Nigel De Jong is a good player from what little I've seen of him but to pay almost 10 times the amount Hamburg paid for him just a few months ago? Shay Given? Decent keeper but in Joe Hart, City already have one of the best young English keepers in the game. Robinho for Drogba? No disrespect to Drogba but to swap one of the best young footballers in the world with an ageing warhorse? I'm really beginning to wonder if the new owners have a clue.

Not to mention that City could've bought De Jong for 2.7 million during the summer due to his release clause. I'm sure they have a good enough stand-in midfielder now in Vincent Kompany or even Gelson Fernandes.

read the newspaper?

there's a release clause in De Jong contract come this summer for just a couple of million and Man City can't even wait for that.

EDIT : opss...blinky beat me

This post has been edited by bearbear: Jan 23 2009, 11:48 AM

people rich mar.

Being rich is one thing. But to insanely inflate prices of players and to close business deals without a hint of common sense will just spoil the market and reflect badly on the English Premier League as a whole.

i know. already got used to it since 2003.

City could have signed De Jong for £2.3m





chelsea and MU never do this

they are in desperado mode right now after kaka snubbed them......btw shouldn't man city goes for DEF rather than attacking player since their def really lousy at the moment??

No super famous defensive player at the moment. That's why. LOL.

Thing is De Jong is hardly a world class player is he? To pay over the top shows just how desperate City are in showing the world that the have the dough and are unafraid to use it. The Kaka diss must have caught them off guard, but I think they've got a point to prove to everyone that they mean serious business. The signings so far have come short of the Galactico's batch they were reportedly linked to. Bellamy? Bridge? De Jong? Good players, but no where near the class of Robinho.

Ya, they really need another tough defender.


-----------------------------------------------------------------Joe Hart/Kasper Schmeichel


---------------------------------- Micah Richards ---- Tal Ben Haim ---- Richard Dunne (captain) ----Javier Garrido/Wayne Bridge


--------------------------------------------Nigel de Jong/Dietmar Hamann ------- Vincent Kompany/Pablo Zabaleta


----------------------------------------------- Shaun Wright-Phillips---- Stephen Ireland ----- Elano/Martin Petrov


-----------------------------------------------Jô/Craig Bellamy ---- Robinho ----- Bojinov/Benjani Mwaruwari

---

Added on January 23, 2009, 1:33 pmMaybe they should try some talent Asia player...

This post has been edited by nakata101: Jan 23 2009, 02:43 PM