Man City are ‘buying the league’. The lack of any level playing field in top level football.

[Col city fan]

Guardiola is clearly a superb football manager. He has round pegs in round holes at Man City and has done so wherever he has been manager.

However...... Man City could realistically field TWO first 11’s, both of which could realistically get into the top three or four in the Premiership.

Is tonking the opposition 5 or 6-1 really good for the Premiership? Or for football in general?

Surely the fact that Man City have spent a billion quid (or so it seems) in their quest for football stardom has created a massively uneven playing field?

Yet nobody seems bothered. The adulation and adoration for Guardiola is present it would seem whilst the money the club have spent goes unnoticed?

Have Man City bought the league? What’s happened to financial fair play? 

Discuss..

[lildave3]

Surely Man United aren't that far behind in terms of spend? Personally I couldn't care less, Iove watching this Man City side.

[Guest MattP]

You still have to spend it wisely.

In terms of net spend in the last 5 years Man City aren't far ahead of Man Utd and the latter still has a higher wage bill.

I like watching them and I always support a manager with a style like Pep who sends out Ferrari's rather than parks a bus.

[Fox92]

People (especially Utd fans) talk as if it's never happened before. But Fergie was spending £20m in the early 00's on the likes of Veron and Ferdinand. (In fact wasn't Veron nearer £30m??). Utd used to batter teams, even in my lifetime I remember them scoring 6, 7 and 8.

[BenTheFox]

I just find the amount of money that's in football today to be so depressing.

[Arriba Los Zorros]

Interesting topic - but you have to give credit where it's due. the likes of recent Chelsea, Manchester United and even previous Manchester City sides have shown that throwing a huge amount of money at top quality players doesn't guarantee success, it is also difficult to manage top class players that aren't starting each week. Guardiola has managed to create a top, top team, seemingly largely free of egos (Yaya aside and he was there before Pep arrived)  who play scintillating, devastating, incisive attacking football loved by neutrals. 

I don't think many managers in the world if any could do what he's done even given a blank chequebook.

You'll always get simpletons who say any manager could walk the PL with that sort of money, but it's utter BS - you need to know how to spend that money effectively too, Mourinho's giving a masterclass on how not to do it. Pep's proved what a top manager he is at City, as if any sort of evidence was needed before he arrived.

[urban.spaceman]

We were the fifth highest earners the season we won the league. Fifth.

Spurs (2m), Man Utd (3m), Man City (3.6m) and Arsenal (7m!!!!) all earned more than us.

If that doesn't tell you how corrupt the system is then I don't know what will.

Mechanism for distributing this revenue most equitable of Europe’s major football leagues

 

 

The Premier League has announced the value of the central income payments made to its clubs in the 2015/16 season.

The revenue distributed to clubs includes income generated from the sale of central broadcasting rights (United Kingdom and international) and other central commercial rights.

The mechanism for distributing this revenue is the most equitable of Europe’s major football leagues and is based on the Premier League Founder Members' Agreement, the contract signed by the initial clubs that formed the League in 1992.

It has resulted in a ratio of 1.52:1 between the club finishing top and that finishing bottom in 2015/16, the lowest such ratio in the history of the Premier League, and works as follows:

• 50% of UK broadcast revenue split equally between the 20 clubs
• 25% of UK broadcast revenue paid in Merit Payments ("Prize Money" per place in the table)
• 25% of UK broadcast revenue paid in Facility Fees each time a club's matches are broadcast in the UK
• All international broadcast revenue, and central commercial revenue, is split equally among the 20 clubs.

 

That was before the current TV deal; "facility fees" are now £10m per game.

Edited 20 August 2018 by urban.spaceman

[yorkie1999]

Yet Guardiola has just agreed with Mourinho saying that you can't buy class. Come off it.

[Corky]

57 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

People (especially Utd fans) talk as if it's never happened before. But Fergie was spending £20m in the early 00's on the likes of Veron and Ferdinand. (In fact wasn't Veron nearer £30m??). Utd used to batter teams, even in my lifetime I remember them scoring 6, 7 and 8.

And 15-20 years it was Arsenal or Man United winning the league or finishing second. In the last ten years we've had double the title winners compared to that supposed era of open opportunities.

Unfortunately, some with always have more than others. It has always been the case.

[Col city fan]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

You still have to spend it wisely.

In terms of net spend in the last 5 years Man City aren't far ahead of Man Utd and the latter still has a higher wage bill.

I like watching them and I always support a manager with a style like Pep who sends out Ferrari's rather than parks a bus.

I do agree but also make the point that you have to have it to be able to spend it wisely (or unwisely). Take Mahrez as a recent example. 

As alluded to in the excellent article that was posted on here at the time..... Man City don’t need Riyad Mahrez. They might LIKE him, but they don’t need him. Signing Mahrez was like the chairman just adding another one to his collection. The Mahrez signing isn’t about spending it ‘wisely’. If Mahrez doesn’t work out for Man City then no problem, they’ll sell him and go for the next one...

[Finnegan]

We're pretty much freak let's be honest. 

Class of 92 and the Arsenal invincibles were both mostly self engineered but these days everyone wants to buy the finished product. 

The rise of Abramovic is probably where it became ridiculous. 

[Manwell Pablo]

4 hours ago, Col city fan said:

Guardiola is clearly a superb football manager. He has round pegs in round holes at Man City and has done so wherever he has been manager.

However...... Man City could realistically field TWO first 11’s, both of which could realistically get into the top three or four in the Premiership.

Is tonking the opposition 5 or 6-1 really good for the Premiership? Or for football in general?

Surely the fact that Man City have spent a billion quid (or so it seems) in their quest for football stardom has created a massively uneven playing field?

Yet nobody seems bothered. The adulation and adoration for Guardiola is present it would seem whilst the money the club have spent goes unnoticed?

Have Man City bought the league? What’s happened to financial fair play? 

Discuss..

That article is utter tripe.

if you’d posted  this a year ago it might have a bit of weight. Even then though they aren’t exactly spending huge amounts more than their rivals whether you talk gross or net.

Saying it now because they’ve bought Maherz is somewhat bizarre, think expenditure for this window they’re behind premier league power houses like wolves and Fulham. They literally bought one decent first team squad player and people begrudge them it ?. Bought it may have been but there are players in that team that have been there 7/8 years.

They don’t need anyone. I don’t think that’s really a reason why they should stop signing players to try and improve their squad.

Just a very good manager who has excelled despite many saying he’d fail in this league when he took the job. Fair play to him and city for sticking by him, he didn’t have the greatest of starts. 

Edited 20 August 2018 by Manwell Pablo

[Col city fan]

6 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

That article is utter tripe.

if you’d posted  this a year ago it might have a bit of weight. Even then though they aren’t exactly spending huge amounts more than their rivals whether you talk gross or net.

Saying it now because they’ve bought Maherz is somewhat bizarre, think expenditure for this window they’re behind premier league power houses like wolves and Fulham. They literally bought one decent first team squad player and people begrudge them it ?. Bought it may have been but there are players in that team that have been there 7/8 years.

They don’t need anyone. I don’t think that’s really a reason why they should stop signing players to try and improve their squad.

Just a very good manager who has excelled despite many saying he’d fail in this league when he took the job. Fair play to him and city for sticking by him, he didn’t have the greatest of starts. 

That’s what frustrates me about you. You always sit on the bloody fence and never speak your mind!

Personally, I love watching Man City play. But when opposition teams are being routinely hammered week-in, week-out, I don’t think it can be good for the competitive side of the division. How much of this is Guardiola’s ‘style’ of football (a lot...granted) and how much is the fact that they’ve spent a zillion quid over the past few seasons is what I’m debating. Or trying to.

It seems as though generally people aren’t bothered. If the plying field isn’t anywhere near level, then so what? Seems to be the attitude. 

A bit like La Liga I guess.

[Guest MattP]

11 hours ago, Col city fan said:

I do agree but also make the point that you have to have it to be able to spend it wisely (or unwisely). Take Mahrez as a recent example. 

As alluded to in the excellent article that was posted on here at the time..... Man City don’t need Riyad Mahrez. They might LIKE him, but they don’t need him. Signing Mahrez was like the chairman just adding another one to his collection. The Mahrez signing isn’t about spending it ‘wisely’. If Mahrez doesn’t work out for Man City then no problem, they’ll sell him and go for the next one...

If (as it appears) Pep is now going to turn Bernardo Silva into a David Silva type player in a deeper role they probably do need another attacking option. If he goes three up front he needs another along with Sterling or Sane for the wide positions.

[grobyfox1990]

12 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

We were the fifth highest earners the season we won the league. Fifth.

Spurs (2m), Man Utd (3m), Man City (3.6m) and Arsenal (7m!!!!) all earned more than us.

If that doesn't tell you how corrupt the system is then I don't know what will.

Mechanism for distributing this revenue most equitable of Europe’s major football leagues

 

 

The Premier League has announced the value of the central income payments made to its clubs in the 2015/16 season.

The revenue distributed to clubs includes income generated from the sale of central broadcasting rights (United Kingdom and international) and other central commercial rights.

The mechanism for distributing this revenue is the most equitable of Europe’s major football leagues and is based on the Premier League Founder Members' Agreement, the contract signed by the initial clubs that formed the League in 1992.

It has resulted in a ratio of 1.52:1 between the club finishing top and that finishing bottom in 2015/16, the lowest such ratio in the history of the Premier League, and works as follows:

• 50% of UK broadcast revenue split equally between the 20 clubs
• 25% of UK broadcast revenue paid in Merit Payments ("Prize Money" per place in the table)
• 25% of UK broadcast revenue paid in Facility Fees each time a club's matches are broadcast in the UK
• All international broadcast revenue, and central commercial revenue, is split equally among the 20 clubs.

 

That was before the current TV deal; "facility fees" are now £10m per game.

I don't think it's corrupt. If you look at three of the five payment boxes, they are fixed. Whether you finish bottom of the league and are never on tv, or top and on tv every week, you get paid the same. The fourth box is based on league position, again, great. It's only the 'facility fee' which gets the big clubs to the top of the earning list. And said big clubs will always be on tv the most, because they have the most fans, so get the most ratings.

Actually think it's a very reasonable and equitable system.

[ozleicester]

1997 called, they want their topic back

[Chico1958]

I didn't like them in 1969

And haven't since. Yep he's a good coach but for me Klopps hot his heels

But it gives me a chance to bring this out again 

 

[RonnieTodger]

I can see them dominating it for years to come, like Juventus or Bayern Munich have. 

[indierich06]

12 hours ago, Col city fan said:

I do agree but also make the point that you have to have it to be able to spend it wisely (or unwisely). Take Mahrez as a recent example. 

As alluded to in the excellent article that was posted on here at the time..... Man City don’t need Riyad Mahrez. They might LIKE him, but they don’t need him. Signing Mahrez was like the chairman just adding another one to his collection. The Mahrez signing isn’t about spending it ‘wisely’. If Mahrez doesn’t work out for Man City then no problem, they’ll sell him and go for the next one...

I'd argue that they spend money extremely wisely in general, and I think Mahrez is no exception. What big money signings have they made in the Guardiola-era that haven't worked out? Only one I can really think of is Gundogan - who got injured - and Nolito, who was a bit of a flop. Apart from that, they've spent serious money and it's turned what was a good Premier League squad into a brilliant one.

The majority of Guardiola's initial spending was to get the squad into the position where they would be able to challenge for the title and for the Champions League - and a lot of that money has been spent on young players who will be with the club for years to come. Since the end of the last season's summer window, they've only signed two marquee players (Laporte and Mahrez) both of whom you can say are smart additions who will improve their squad.

There are much better targets for criticism around overspending, Manchester United spring to mind immediately - given that they've spent £700m since Ferguson left and have nothing to show for it except a top four finish. 

Manchester City are probably one of the best examples in the world of what you can do when you get the right coach, the right owners and the right recruitment strategy in place. It's fine to spend money, but you can't 'buy' the league without the right manager and the right strategy. Mourinho picks players like a child in a sweet shop, without any real thought as to how they will fit into his side - that's not an accusation you can level at Man City. I think their strategy - and Liverpool's recently too - has been spot on. Football's a big money game now, and the big clubs have always spent the most. If they're going to do it, they should at least get it right.

[Koke]

The great Man Utd sides of the 90s and Arsenal sides of the late 90s & early 2000s were almodt self made. Mam Jtd did spend big money in the early 2000s the income they generated were miles ahead of anyone else (still is btw). 

Man City are lottery winners. Don't respect them and probably never will. I'm generally supportive of smaller clubs breaking glass ceilings but not with Man City. 

[Koke]

The great Man Utd sides of the 90s and Arsenal sides of the late 90s & early 2000s were almost self made. Man Utd did spend big money in the early 2000s but the income they generated were miles ahead of anyone else (still is btw). 

Man City are lottery winners. Don't respect them and probably never will. I'm generally supportive of smaller clubs breaking glass ceilings but not with Man City. 

Edited 21 August 2018 by Koke

[filbertway]

At least Man City play like a team that's spent a lot of money. Can't be doing with boring managers spunking hundreds of millions and playing safe boring football.

[Samilktray]

Genuinely wish I was born in Manchester whenever I watch them play. Unreal at times, best premier league team I've seen in my lifetime

[AjcW]

The point about spending it right is spot on.

When Kaldoun first came in he spent a combined £70m (big for 08 terms) on Robinho, Craig Bellamy, Wayne Bridge and Nigel De Jong  

 

[BenTheFox]

Personally I'm a big fan of the German ownership model, the 50+1 rule. Meaning that paying members have a majority say in a club's direction. It results in fair ticket pricing, good match day experience, promotion of youth players and that most of the clubs' traditions remain intact. However, I guess the downside is that while it remains in place none of the other clubs can even come close to challenging Bayern for the title. I know I've gone off topic a bit but I'd love to know how thins would pan out in England if such an ownership was in place.