Liverpool could really win the Premier League this year!

[Goon]

Can I please correct you Sir,

 

Congrats to Man city, who have won the league twice and bought it twice

 

An interesting view you have there. Perhaps you'd lke to expand on it a little and open it to debate.

[tzijlstra]

An interesting view you have there. Perhaps you'd lke to expand on it a little and open it to debate.

 

Are you implying that without the several hundred million quid your sheik threw at the team you would have still won the league twice in the past three years?

[Goon]

Are you implying that without the several hundred million quid your sheik threw at the team you would have still won the league twice in the past three years?

 

No, I am not implying anything, I'm asking somebody to expand on something they've said.

 

Also, I have not won the league nor do I own a Sheik.

[Robbie Loving]

Are you implying that without the several hundred million quid your sheik threw at the team you would have still won the league twice in the past three years?

 

Similarly - without the millions Chelsea, Arsenal and Man United have spent.... Would they have continued to win the league?

 

Man city are only catching up with the millions previously spent by others. Liverpool are also guilty spending big too.

 

The fact is, millions need to be spent before getting anywhere close. City have probably had to spend more solely because they have more money and they weren't as fashionable as the regular top 3.

[tzijlstra]

My view is that spending in the Premier League is at ridiculous levels and it is corrupting the game, Man City just got a massive fine for flaunting the rules for a reason. For all I care all clubs in football get a fixed salary cap depending on how many fans they get into the stadium.

 

So as I see it: City bought the league, Chelsea did, Arsenal did, Man U did, in fact, since the Premier League started every bloody title in it has been bought.

[Goon]

My view is that spending in the Premier League is at ridiculous levels and it is corrupting the game, Man City just got a massive fine for flaunting the rules for a reason. For all I care all clubs in football get a fixed salary cap depending on how many fans they get into the stadium.

 

So as I see it: City bought the league, Chelsea did, Arsenal did, Man U did, in fact, since the Premier League started every bloody title in it has been bought.

 

But would you not agree that when big spending is taking place then it means the sport is in a really healthy state? Certainly in City's case the money is going into sport (not just football) at grassroots level and promoting a lot of home-grown talent. As well as this, there is the knock-on effect that benefits the local community.

 

Whilst I agree that it is generally the richer teams that are more successful, we must remember that football is a business. We may not like it but it has been that way for many years. As for the fine that City have been hit with, I don't think that is the end of the story. I think the ruling will be challenged and changed at some point as I don't think you can penalise any business for making an investment, even on a massive scale.

[JFKvsNixon]

My view is that spending in the Premier League is at ridiculous levels and it is corrupting the game, Man City just got a massive fine for flaunting the rules for a reason. For all I care all clubs in football get a fixed salary cap depending on how many fans they get into the stadium.

 

So as I see it: City bought the league, Chelsea did, Arsenal did, Man U did, in fact, since the Premier League started every bloody title in it has been bought.

 

Are you suggesting that the an employer that can afford to pay higher wages may well be able to attract a higher performing employee?

[Bypassblade]

People are saying City bought the league I disagree, they have bought great players but if you cast your minds back to the 80's Man Utd bought all the best on the open market.

 

They still did not win the league until 92 the secret is making the best players play as a unit, which is what City & United do/did (later years).

 

Think back to 95 & Newcastle 12 points clear at Christmas and yet lost title to Man Utd, one reason was they had too many "individual" players Asprilla springs to mind.

 

Ego's have to be kept in check, like Giggs said the other day if Van Gall takes over he wants to retain the input of the class of 92, no he wants to clear them out and be his own man.

 

The class of 92 have had way too much influence at Old Trafford which is wrong, Man Utd have done no better since sacking Moyes.

[tzijlstra]

But would you not agree that when big spending is taking place then it means the sport is in a really healthy state? Certainly in City's case the money is going into sport (not just football) at grassroots level and promoting a lot of home-grown talent. As well as this, there is the knock-on effect that benefits the local community.

 

Whilst I agree that it is generally the richer teams that are more successful, we must remember that football is a business. We may not like it but it has been that way for many years. As for the fine that City have been hit with, I don't think that is the end of the story. I think the ruling will be challenged and changed at some point as I don't think you can penalise any business for making an investment, even on a massive scale.

 

I don't think English football is in a healthy state at all, no. The Dutch national eleven demonstrates that the way it is arranged there is far superior to the British game and this discrepancy has been there since the PL started. The main reason for that is that football is organised from top to bottom with the same goal: Get youngsters into football and give them a real chance of getting into professional football.

 

If I compare that to the PL and see how many home-grown talents are booted for cheaper foreign players that don't add a lot to the game at all...

 

I have no problem with football being a business, but it is and should remain a hobby first. Instead we are seeing TV deals and the super wealthy owners delivering billions a year and most of that going straight into the pockets of some 300 footballers. I'd rather see Rooney be paid 150K a week and 150K a week going straight to pitches in Manchester to enable more grass-roots development than see Rooney take 300K home and buy a new Ferrari every week (figuratively speaking). Fans are too gullible in letting the big clubs get away with that.

 

May I also remind you that City was milling around in League 1 not so long ago? Too many clubs are going to the wall trying to compete on an uneven playing field. All Mansour has done for that playing field is force it to be more uneven. (And no, he isn't the first or last to do so)

 

Are you suggesting that the an employer that can afford to pay higher wages may well be able to attract a higher performing employee?

 

Yes? Not sure where your point is leading?

 

People are saying City bought the league I disagree, they have bought great players but if you cast your minds back to the 80's Man Utd bought all the best on the open market.

 

They still did not win the league until 92 the secret is making the best players play as a unit, which is what City & United do/did (later years).

 

Think back to 95 & Newcastle 12 points clear at Christmas and yet lost title to Man Utd, one reason was they had too many "individual" players Asprilla springs to mind.

 

Ego's have to be kept in check, like Giggs said the other day if Van Gall takes over he wants to retain the input of the class of 92, no he wants to clear them out and be his own man.

 

The class of 92 have had way too much influence at Old Trafford which is wrong, Man Utd have done no better since sacking Moyes.

 

Is there too much money swilling round in the pro-game Pete?

[JFKvsNixon]

Yes? Not sure where your point is leading?

 

I am suggesting that the world, not just football, has always been this way, and it will always be this way.