Buying League Success

Sgt Pepper 64

Well, it looks like City could emerge as the EPL Champions after spending an estimated cool £930 million if this article is to be believed

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/9255702/Manchester-Citys-930-million-spending-spree-to-turn-club-into-Premier-League-title-contenders.html

Now this post isnt to bash City for this, (Far from it as I am Chelsea supporter after all!) But to explore peoples objective opinions on the emotive subject of buying league success.

I'm sure there were City fans who complained like others, when Chelsea first bought the league, now the boot is on the other foot, so to speak, do they feel the same way? Do they just accept it as part of modern football life or somehow feel it is tainted?

Many other teams of course, have benefited from a rich owners investment, QPR for example, with verying degrees of success, so if this happened to your club, the same questions apply - happy to go with it? Or feel a little uneasy

Man Utd are usually associated with "old money" success, and whilst its true, they havent had the type of single investment that Chelsea and City have had, they have benefited from being able to attract and pay for the best talent for a number of years breaking the UK transfer record along the way and so had an advantage over many other clubs.

Blackburn managed it once but then faded away and Newcastle gave it a good go.

Yet, even Chelsea havent dominated in quite the way as first feared and expected, thanks mainly to a trigger happy and euro cup hunting owner.

So winning the league this way - should it be considered real or an anomaly?
If it happened to your club, would it change the way you feel about them, even negatively?

I must admit, after years of supporting Chelsea, it did change the expectations somewhat. Before you would celebrate a cup run or a rare win over a local rival, now you are disappointed if you dont win every game, and I even feel a twinge of jealousy towards City for doing what Chelsea did to others, so kettle pot black and all that!

My eyes have been opened as to why Chelsea were so castrated and I could finally appreciate how other teams supporters felt.

Mr. Presentable

Money buys success. Why is it important where it came from? Oh, and it's still points made by players on the field - of course it's real

syngindub

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Money buys success. Why is it important where it came from? Oh, and it's still points made by players on the field - of course it's real

Money buys the players , not success. however it makes success much more achievable

Leiva

City team cost £160 million

UTD team cost £168 million

One is in debt from borrowing from the banks.
The other gets "gift" from it's owners

Still takes a good manager to rally the team and win the league.


Everyone is at it .The two at the top of the league have done it best .

G.K.

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Well, it looks like City could emerge as the EPL Champions after spending an estimated cool £930 million if this article is to be believed

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/9255702/Manchester-Citys-930-million-spending-spree-to-turn-club-into-Premier-League-title-contenders.html

Now this post isnt to bash City for this, (Far from it as I am Chelsea supporter after all!) But to explore peoples objective opinions on the emotive subject of buying league success.

I'm sure there were City fans who complained like others, when Chelsea first bought the league, now the boot is on the other foot, so to speak, do they feel the same way? Do they just accept it as part of modern football life or somehow feel it is tainted?

Many other teams of course, have benefited from a rich owners investment, QPR for example, with verying degrees of success, so if this happened to your club, the same questions apply - happy to go with it? Or feel a little uneasy

Man Utd are usually associated with "old money" success, and whilst its true, they havent had the type of single investment that Chelsea and City have had, they have benefited from being able to attract and pay for the best talent for a number of years breaking the UK transfer record along the way and so had an advantage over many other clubs.

Blackburn managed it once but then faded away and Newcastle gave it a good go.

Yet, even Chelsea havent dominated in quite the way as first feared and expected, thanks mainly to a trigger happy and euro cup hunting owner.

So winning the league this way - should it be considered real or an anomaly?
If it happened to your club, would it change the way you feel about them, even negatively?

I must admit, after years of supporting Chelsea, it did change the expectations somewhat. Before you would celebrate a cup run or a rare win over a local rival, now you are disappointed if you dont win every game, and I even feel a twinge of jealousy towards City for doing what Chelsea did to others, so kettle pot black and all that!

My eyes have been opened as to why Chelsea were so castrated and I could finally appreciate how other teams supporters felt.

Castigated?

I feel a sense of deja vu.

jive

It's real. Football is a business and if you happen to have someone to invest heavily in your club for no other reason other than the enjoyment of success then I don't see the problem. If Abramovich or Sheikh whatever didn't spend big money then we'd be looking at United consistently out-bidding every English team and winning the league year in, year out for the next god knows how many years.

City were in like division one just 10 years ago and now they're winning the PL, without rich owners nothing like that will ever be seen again. It makes for a more competitive league at the top and more interesting viewing. I'd rather have rich owners and a more competitive league at the top than United hammering the snot out of everyone every year because they hold old the coins based on history and fanbase. The fair-play rules being brought in are silly too, imo. What's unfair about attracting investment from some rich lad willing to give you a load of money? Seeking investment is simply a part of business, regardless of why the investor wants to give the money away, imo; and like I said, football is a business.

dahat

Money can buy sucess but maintaining it will be the real test of Man City in the years to come.

Turtyturd

It's the way it has always been, just because the money was generated within a clubs own means doesn't mean they are not buying success. The loudest opposition seems to come from those who were doing it in the past and are now going to fall behind the richer clubs, as seen by Ferguson's complaint last week that City are messing up the transfer market.

The_Kew_Tour

Best of luck to anyone who has the sugar daddy to give the money away.

My only concern if I did support City or Chelsea is how short term would it last.

RayCon

jive wrote: »

Football is a business .

Close the thead.

markesmith

Petrodollars and leveraged buyouts have ruined the fabric of the game imho. Spurs (disclosure: I'm a fan) run their business well and, in theory, should be rewarded with higher league positions when the financial fair play rules come in.

But there's a general cynicism about these rules, and everybody thinks that City, Chelsea, QPR, Leicester and other bankrolled clubs can and will circumvent them.

It's a shame, but as Ferguson said when Sky came on the scene initially, you're doing a deal with the devil (or something like that).

I'd like to see an NFL-style things where the next great hope, like Adam Johnson, Curtis Davies, Aaron Lennon (just to name a few through the years) were offered to the smaller clubs first. Might even things up a bit.

Alas, you'll never see a club like Bolton, Fulham or Stoke win the league again, and I still think I'll be cold in the ground by the time Spurs ever win it again.

The_Kew_Tour

markesmith wrote: »

Alas, you'll never see a club like Bolton, Fulham or Stoke win the league again, and I still think I'll be cold in the ground by the time Spurs ever win it again.

City fans more likely said same few years ago.

You never know.

markesmith

Short of them being bought out by someone with serious serious money...

I mean that club Anzhi Makawhateveryoucall it, it's the capital of Dagestan I think...players like Eto'o or Chris Samba can claim to be almost on a humanitarian mission to bring football to the poor oppressed ex-Soviet backwater.

Man City will likely hockey QPR on Sunday - both clubs filled with mercenaries there for the big payday. Ooop north, Bolton and Stoke, two well-run clubs, will slog it out and Bolton will need a win to stay up. I know who I'll be backing for the win.

Neil3030

Teams who don't develop their own players contribute nothing to football.

City, in fairness, have Joe Hart in this regard.

invinciblePRSTV

As a football supporter, I'd have no qualms in welcoming a sugar daddy on board to bankroll my team to glory.

As a citizen of country x or y, I'd have serious concern that the resources of my country have been appropriated by an individual like Berlusconi, the Oligarchs or the Arab lads, and then pished up against the wall in bankrolling some club far,FAR away from here. And i can't do anything about it.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Neil3030 wrote: »

Teams who don't develop their own players contribute nothing to football.

City, in fairness, have Joe Hart in this regard.

They bought him from Shrewsbury after he played some 50 games or so. Hardly developing their own players.

G.K.

The players capable of winning the leage for little cost are out there, they just have to be found. So many more players have the potential than one might think.

2 seasons ago Jones was some kid CB who'd played a half-dozen games for Blackburn. He wasn't rated as the youth player with the most potential or anything during his time in the youth setup. (That, coincedentally was Keith Treacy). Marco Reus was just a bog-standard 19 year old playing in the German third division 3 years ago. In the summer of 2010 Shinji Kagwa was a 21 year old hopeful moving to Europe for €350,000. 3 years ago Yann M'Vila was an 18 year old about to make his Rennes debut. 4 years ago, while Barca were still under Rijkaard, Sergio Busquets and Pedro were random hopefuls in Barcelona's youth team, but just 2 years later they started the World Cup Final. Just last season Isaac Cuenca was on loan at a 3rd tier club, this season he's starting CL knockout games.

Look at those guys now. There are so many who have talent that suddenly leap out of nowhere in a short space of time. The trick is to buy them before they prove themselves at the highest level, but once they are proven somewhere, and be the club who sees them breakthrough at the highest level. It is so much cheaper, and possibly better for the team, who can gel together for a longer period of time.

Four seasons ago all those 7 guys would have cost you next to nothing, now it'd take tens of millions even to get even one or two of them. Wenger had a nack for this, and it was looking promising - Clichy, Toure, Flamini, Song, Viera, RVP are 6 great examples - they cost about 8 million between them.

So if the scouting is good enough to buy the players before their transfer fee goes up to the likes of M'Vila's current £15m-20m asking price, I see no reason why a club that isn't super rich can't have a chance at winning a title.

Granit Xhaka could well be moving to Monchengladbach to replace Reus this summer, for £6m. This is what I'm talking about. If Bayern or Dortmund or a big club from England or Italy want him in a few years time, the fee could easily be treble that. Yet Xhaka's good enough to start for the likes of United now, as far as I'm concerned.

G.K.

Having said all this, I don't have qualms with sugar daddies. Some clubs have always been richer than others, it's just on a larger scale as football has had more money and more potential for profit come into the rquation.

Neil3030

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

They bought him from Shrewsbury after he played some 50 games or so. Hardly developing their own players.

I didn't know that actually.

Still though, he wouldn't be one of the big money type signings you'd associate with a team buying the league.

The Davestator

G.K. wrote: »

The players capable of winning the leage for litle cost are out there, they just have to be found. So many more players have the potential than one might think.

2 seasons ago Jones was some kid CB who'd played a half-dozen games for Blackburn. He wasn't rated as the youth player with the most potential or anything during his time in the youth setup. (That, coincedentally was Keith Treacy). Marco Reus was just a bog-standard 19 year old playing in the German third division 3 years ago. In the summer of 2010 Shinji Kagwa was a 21 year old hopeful moving to Europe for €350,000. 3 years ago Yann M'Vila was an 18 year old about to make his Rennes debut. 4 years ago, while Barca were still under Rijkaard, Sergio Busquets and Pedro were random hopefuls in Barcelona's youth team, but just 2 years later they started the World Cup Final. Just last season Isaac Cuenca was on loan at a 3rd tier club, this season he's starting CL knockout games.

Look at those guys now. There are so many who have talent that suddenly leap out of nowhere in a short space of time. The trick is to buy them before they prove themselves at the highest level, but once they are proven somewhere, and be the club who sees them breakthrough at the highest level. It is so much cheaper, and possibly better for the team, who can gel together for a longer period of time.

Four seasons ago all those 7 guys would have cost you next to nothing, now it'd take tens of millions even to get even one or two of them. Wenger had a nack for this, and it was looking promising - Clichy, Toure, Flamini, Song, Viera, RVP are 6 great examples - they cost about 8 million between them.

So if the scouting is good enough to buy the players before their transfer fee goes up to the likes of M'Vila's current £15m-20m asking price, I see no reason why a club that isn't super rich can't have a chance at winning a title.

Granit Xhaka could well be moving to Monchengladbach to replace Reus this summer, for £6m. This is what I'm talking about. If Bayern or Dortmund or a big club from England or Italy want him in a few years time, the fee could easily be treble that. Yet Xhaka's good enough to start for the likes of United now, as far as I'm concerned.

Good post but it's no good if the likes of arsenal just sell them on before they've been successful.

markesmith

The Davestator wrote: »

Good post but it's no good if the likes of arsenal just sell them on before they've been successful.

Or look at Newcastle - Pardew's done a great job there, but give it two weeks and the media will be dismantling that team. Ben Arfa, Cabaye, Tiote, Cisse, on to 'better things'.

It's the nature of the beast, what can you do. The class flows upwards. So Modric gets poached by Spurs, we can't be whinging when Man City poach him.

I guess City deserve it, they've been in the shadow for so long. The way that they've achieved it - buying the league, essentialy - shouldn't detract from the joy that the fans feel.

Jimmy Iovine

G.K. wrote: »

The players capable of winning the leage for litle cost are out there, they just have to be found. So many more players have the potential than one might think.

2 seasons ago Jones was some kid CB who'd played a half-dozen games for Blackburn. He wasn't rated as the youth player with the most potential or anything during his time in the youth setup. (That, coincedentally was Keith Treacy). Marco Reus was just a bog-standard 19 year old playing in the German third division 3 years ago. In the summer of 2010 Shinji Kagwa was a 21 year old hopeful moving to Europe for €350,000. 3 years ago Yann M'Vila was an 18 year old about to make his Rennes debut. 4 years ago, while Barca were still under Rijkaard, Sergio Busquets and Pedro were random hopefuls in Barcelona's youth team, but just 2 years later they started the World Cup Final. Just last season Isaac Cuenca was on loan at a 3rd tier club, this season he's starting CL knockout games.

Look at those guys now. There are so many who have talent that suddenly leap out of nowhere in a short space of time. The trick is to buy them before they prove themselves at the highest level, but once they are proven somewhere, and be the club who sees them breakthrough at the highest level. It is so much cheaper, and possibly better for the team, who can gel together for a longer period of time.

Four seasons ago all those 7 guys would have cost you next to nothing, now it'd take tens of millions even to get even one or two of them. Wenger had a nack for this, and it was looking promising - Clichy, Toure, Flamini, Song, Viera, RVP are 6 great examples - they cost about 8 million between them.

So if the scouting is good enough to buy the players before their transfer fee goes up to the likes of M'Vila's current £15m-20m asking price, I see no reason why a club that isn't super rich can't have a chance at winning a title.

Granit Xhaka could well be moving to Monchengladbach to replace Reus this summer, for £6m. This is what I'm talking about. If Bayern or Dortmund or a big club from England or Italy want him in a few years time, the fee could easily be treble that. Yet Xhaka's good enough to start for the likes of United now, as far as I'm concerned.

3 years ago Falcao moved to Porto for €4 million. 2 years later he moved to Atletico for 10 times that much.

Wenger is definitely the best in the business for it. The Newcastle scouts have proved their worth picking up cheap players as well. The won't win the league but they're challenging at the top at least.

As was pointed out on the United Superthread I think, contrary to Fergie's beliefs there is value in market if you look for the players. Snap a player up when he's on the fringes of stardom and he could be worth 30/40 million in a few years time.

dreamers75

Apply the 65% rule accross the board and football will actually become a working class sport again.

Simply put you cannot pay be it in wages or fees any money in excess of 65% of your income.

Soon as UEFA enforce that rule everything will be great again.

eagle eye

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

They bought him from Shrewsbury after he played some 50 games or so. Hardly developing their own players.

Micah Richards is a youth that has come through.

G.K.

I wrote a huge post on Newcastle but lost it. Don't want to do it again - basically Newcastle's policy is sustainable and they are sitting on a mountain of profit from their XI assembled at a cost of slightly over the price of Andy Carroll. Sell one or two of the big players and the squad could be totally be rebuilt again, with the potential for massive resale value after the players' peak, but before anyone else notices that they are starting to decline.

Newcastle could easily be buying the likes of Adam Maher, Mapou Yanga-M'Biawa, Erik Pieters, Bas Dost, Marvin Martin as they've done with so many recently and bringing through Haris Vuckic or Shane ferguson as they did with Krul and Saylor - and he'd a) get a fantastic player, but perhaps more significantly b) would get huge resale value down the line.

Jimmy Iovine

eagle eye wrote: »

Micah Richards is a youth that has come through.

He is the only one though. Even Adam Johnson was bought in. They used to have Onouha but he's gone so it's only Richards left. Pretty brutal if you ask me.

Thanx 4 The Fish

eagle eye wrote: »

Micah Richards is a youth that has come through.

I never denied that. I just said that Joe Hart did not come through the Manchester City youth system as the poster asserted.

Sgt Pepper 64

G.K. wrote: »

I wrote a huge post on Newcastle but lost it. Don't want to do it again - basically Newcastle's policy is sustainable and they are sitting on a mountain of profit from their XI assembled at a cost of slightly over the price of Andy Carroll. Sell one or two of the big players and the squad could be totally be rebuilt again, with the potential for massive resale value after the players' peak, but before anyone else notices that they are starting to decline.

Newcastle could easily be buying the likes of Adam Maher, Mapou Yanga-M'Biawa, Erik Pieters, Bas Dost, Marvin Martin as they've done with so many recently and bringing through Haris Vuckic or Shane ferguson as they did with Krul and Saylor - and he'd a) get a fantastic player, but perhaps more significantly b) would get huge resale value down the line.

There is definitely a shift in policy at Chelsea as well.
Trying to do a Newcastle, buying young upcoming players like Marko Marin and Kevin De Bruyne, instead of only the older more established stars

G.K.

Marin, De Bruyne, Lukaku (Though that one was hardly cheap), Romeu, Kalas, Bruma, Bertrand, PVA, Delac, Feruz, MacEchran (Or however you spell it), Davila, Bamford, Kakuta and especially Chalobah, Courtois and PIAZON are an incredibly promising group of players to have for this model.

Supplement them with older guys like Ivan, Ramires, Mata, Luiz, Cech, Cahill and one or two more and there's a lot of promise there.

One day Abramovic will regret sanctioning the sales of Stoch, Borini, Matic and Tore.

markesmith

Not to labour the point, but it's an interesting thread (bit of a rarity on this forum :rolleyes:)

These big-money owners perpetuate the system as it is. Spurs, for example, can afford to play hardball with Chelsea and Barca over Modric and Bale. The response? Raise the price. £32 they're claiming for Bale.

Likewise Liverpool. Chelsea go in for Torres, 'Pool say no way, Torres wants to win trophies - he's not Scouse like Stevie G so he's not as fickle about who he wins it with. £50m you can't turn down, but it gave 'Pool the money to splash £35m on the relatively unproven Carroll.

If we get £40m for Bale, we'll poach someone from Villa, or Everton, or Sunderland. They'll hold out for £10-£15m for McLean or whoever, then they'll splash themselves.

Teams like Leeds, Notts Forest, Southampton et al haven't a chance in a system like this. No-one will ever do like what Clough did again, win it with a 'provincial backwater' team. The money's in London, Moscow, Dubai and Wall Street.

Sorry for the ranting!

Thanx 4 The Fish

The only problem with that comes if the young players do not become the mext messi's or ronaldos. Lukaku has not done much or Romeiu for that matter. The way the world is now, people want results immediately and if a player does not perform straight away they will not make too many more appearances.

Liverpool bought 20 year old Henderson and he has been nothing but pilloried all season. Lucas cost them £5m and the manager was being ridiculed left right and centre for such a dreadful signing. Carroll is only 23 and he is well off where he will be at his peak but he is not getting decent press in what is a really bad season for the whole team. Lucas after a shaky start has gone on since to be one of the best DMCs in the premiership and I can say with very little doubt, if he had not been injured Liverpool's season would have been very different. There is a balancing act and particularly for the top teams, it is going to be very hard to bring talented young players through the system or even buying players that look decent and giving them a game.

LuckyLloyd

Money buys success in all walks of life. There are ways to stop this, but football fans don't have the balls or imagination to ever make such ways palatable for the powers that be.

eagle eye

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

He is the only one though. Even Adam Johnson was bought in. They used to have Onouha but he's gone so it's only Richards left. Pretty brutal if you ask me.

He is the only current one but City have had and continue to have an excellent academy so there is every chance that more will come through as time goes by. All the excellent players that are there at the present time will only help to improve the youngsters I'd imagine.

They have a lot of young players out on loan at the present time. They've got Guidetti, Boyata, Cunningham, Wabara, Rekik and Vladimir Weiss amongst a host of young prospects.

G.K.

Guidetti is a serious talent.

eagle eye

G.K. wrote: »

Guidetti is a serious talent.

Yeah he has been fairly ripping up the Dutch league.

markesmith

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Money buys success in all walks of life. There are ways to stop this, but football fans don't have the balls or imagination to ever make such ways palatable for the powers that be.

I guess that, at the tail end of it, there are more important things in life that need changing!

Thanx 4 The Fish, couldn't agree more on Lucas and I think Henderson will come good. I mean, it's not like his prior experience was one season in the Portuguese first division

Jesus Wept

I simply do not care. Lots of teams have thrown money around before them, most teams that win the title in recent years have spend plenty of money, probably all.

Good luck to them. And hopefully my team follows suit.

Xavi6

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

I'm sure there were City fans who complained like others, when Chelsea first bought the league, now the boot is on the other foot, so to speak, do they feel the same way? Do they just accept it as part of modern football life or somehow feel it is tainted?

I never once complained about Chelsea doing it, in fact I said good luck to them.

If we win the title it certainly will not be 'tainted'.

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

He is the only one though. Even Adam Johnson was bought in. They used to have Onouha but he's gone so it's only Richards left. Pretty brutal if you ask me.

Let's look at a few other clubs for more examples of this brutality.

How many youth products are playing in the Liverpool first team regularly? Spearing and...Martin Kelly at a push?

Or United. Giggs and Scholes are there but I consider them in the Gerrard and Carragher category of being too far gone to count so after that you've got Welbeck. The rest were bought from elsewhere.

Chelsea have given Bertrand a run occassionally this season. Who else has featured for them regularly?

How many do Spurs, the club used as the benchmark for well run clubs when arguing against the City model, have in their starting eleven? Zero.

So while City haven't got more than a couple of homegrown talents in and around the first team, the epidemic is a little more widespread, and there are very few clubs in the Premier League giving youth a chance for the sake of it.

markesmith

Andy Carroll wrote: »

I simply do not care. Lots of teams have thrown money around before them, most teams that win the title in recent years have spend plenty of money, probably all.

Good luck to them. And hopefully my team follows suit.

Fair point and I'd be the same with Tottenham, but it's all a bit X-Factor at this stage. Sky Sports, Monday Night: the colossal WIGAN versus the indefatigable BOLTON. The money has created a bunch of overpaid prima donnas.

Money has changed the soul of teams like Man City and Chelsea, and their relationship with the fans. Look at Villa like, they all want Agent McLeish out. Look at Blackburn. Look at the Glazer's £500m interest payments burdened by United. Fan management is all about brand now, and marketing.

Maybe I'm just cynical this Friday night?

Thanx 4 The Fish

Xavi6 wrote: »

....
How many youth products are playing in the Liverpool first team regularly? Spearing and...Martin Kelly at a push?

Or United. Giggs and Scholes are there but I consider them in the Gerrard and Carragher category of being too far gone to count so after that you've got Welbeck. The rest were bought from elsewhere.

....

How many do Spurs, the club used as the benchmark for well run clubs when arguing against the City model, have in their starting eleven? Zero.

So while City haven't got more than a couple of homegrown talents in and around the first team, the epidemic is a little more widespread, and there are very few clubs in the Premier League giving youth a chance for the sake of it.

Flanagan has also played a decent amount of games this season and discounting Gerrard and Carragher just because it suits your point is a bit silly isn't it. The Man U team that were winning before and behind them had quite a few homegrown players with a nice supplement of others. TBH I do not care where a player comes from, I just don't think it is very clever to go around taking people out of the equation because you are trying to make out like there is some nature of "epidemic" or not whichever the case may be.

There are 5 players in the Liverpool team who have come from the youth setup, 2 established regulars and 3 youngsters who are getting decent runs. Sterling looks like he will be getting a run out next season more and more but perhaps Carragher will have restricted game time but if you left that at 5 with Raheem and Carra trading places then I do not think that is too bad a number who will regularly be getting a run out.

Also I do not think that any club will give youth a chance for the sake of it. They will do it because they have discovered a player who can add something to the senior team. I do not see that happening at City for manys a year to come while there is the likelihood that there is a better player out there who can be bought in and perform immediately rather than having to bed into a team and be as good or better than anyone out in the world who could be purchased with the monopoly money that is currently available to them (and fair play to them TBH, I would take a league win over a long term sustainable model every day of the week)

CSF

markesmith wrote: »

Fair point and I'd be the same with Tottenham, but it's all a bit X-Factor at this stage. Sky Sports, Monday Night: the colossal WIGAN versus the indefatigable BOLTON. The money has created a bunch of overpaid prima donnas.

Money has changed the soul of teams like Man City and Chelsea, and their relationship with the fans. Look at Villa like, they all want Agent McLeish out. Look at Blackburn. Look at the Glazer's £500m interest payments burdened by United. Fan management is all about brand now, and marketing.

Maybe I'm just cynical this Friday night?

Well this was obviously going to happen as support for football clubs edged further outside the local area.

Jimmy Iovine

Xavi6 wrote: »

Or United. Giggs and Scholes are there but I consider them in the Gerrard and Carragher category of being too far gone to count so after that you've got Welbeck. The rest were bought from elsewhere.

Don't forget about Tom Cleverley. Also Wes Brown, John O'Shea and Darron Gibson who have all just left. Then there's Pique and Guiseppe Rossi who United got when they were around 16 I think. Darren Fletcher was an academy graduate as well.

Ravel Morisson would have been a first-team player if he didn't act the tool and go off to warm the bench at West Ham. Pogba will be a first-teamer as well as long as he doesn't leave as well. Then Will Keane has the potential, and the same with Tunnicliffe and a few others on the reserves team.

Ezekiel Fryers has made a few appearances at left back and would have made a lot more I feel if Fergie didn't have such a hard on for Evra and dropped him once in a while.

England is way behind the likes of Barca and Real for youth team development. The quality of the players that Madrid have let go from their youth system over the years is unreal. And sure we can all see the results of Barcas system.

West Ham had a great program in place in the 90s. They brought through Rio, Lampard, Carrick, Joe Cole, Defoe and a load of others.

I can't say I wish City any luck with their system but I wish the lads going over there some luck. I know a lad from home who went over and was a starter in the youth team that got to the final in '06. He started alongside Daniel Sturridge but he got let go and he has slid down the leagues a good bit now unfortunately.

Xavi6

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Flanagan has also played a decent amount of games this season

Five league games in total, four of which came with the season effectively done and dusted, isn't a 'decent amount'.

Also, I said how many are playing in the first team regularly. Flanagan isn't a regular, as the stats show.

and discounting Gerrard and Carragher just because it suits your point is a bit silly isn't it.

It's not at all because the point is about how City aren't currently giving youngsters a go. If anything, Gerrard and Carragher are barriers to the next wave of young talent, the latter in particular.

If we're arguing about clubs giving youngsters a shot in 1998 then I'll include them.

The Man U team that were winning before and behind them had quite a few homegrown players with a nice supplement of others. TBH I do not care where a player comes from, I just don't think it is very clever to go around taking people out of the equation because you are trying to make out like there is some nature of "epidemic" or not whichever the case may be.

Again, the accusation aimed at City is that they aren't currently giving youngsters a chance. Pointing out that none of the top sides are doing so is a facht.

jive

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Don't forget about Tom Cleverley. Also Wes Brown, John O'Shea and Darron Gibson who have all just left. Then there's Pique and Guiseppe Rossi who United got when they were around 16 I think. Darren Fletcher was an academy graduate as well.

Ravel Morisson would have been a first-team player if he didn't act the tool and go off to warm the bench at West Ham. Pogba will be a first-teamer as well as long as he doesn't leave as well. Then Will Keane has the potential, and the same with Tunnicliffe and a few others on the reserves team.

Ezekiel Fryers has made a few appearances at left back and would have made a lot more I feel if Fergie didn't have such a hard on for Evra and dropped him once in a while.

So just Cleverley and Fletcher then? Brown, O'Shea and Gibson all left for a reason, first team football (or surplus to requirements?). Pogba has signed for Juve

Liam O

jive wrote: »

So just Cleverley and Fletcher then? Brown, O'Shea and Gibson all left for a reason, first team football (or surplus to requirements?). Pogba has signed for Juve

Welbeck too bro.

Xavi6

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Don't forget about Tom Cleverley. Also Wes Brown, John O'Shea and Darron Gibson who have all just left. Then there's Pique and Guiseppe Rossi who United got when they were around 16 I think. Darren Fletcher was an academy graduate as well.

Well if we're talking about players given debuts in the past ten years like those above I'll refer to -

Joey Barton
Stephen Jordan
Nedum Onuoha
Lee Croft
Stephen Ireland
Kasper Schmeichel
Micah Richards
Michael Johnson
Ched Evans
Vladimir Weiss
Daniel Sturridge
Dedryck Boyata

All of the above established themselves with City for a while in and around the first team and have gone on to do well out of the game.

Ravel Morisson would have been a first-team player if he didn't act the tool and go off to warm the bench at West Ham. Pogba will be a first-teamer as well as long as he doesn't leave as well. Then Will Keane has the potential, and the same with Tunnicliffe and a few others on the reserves team.

Ezekiel Fryers has made a few appearances at left back and would have made a lot more I feel if Fergie didn't have such a hard on for Evra and dropped him once in a while.

Again, if that's the criteria, we have

Greg Cunningham
Alex Nimely
John Guidetti
Abdul Razak
Reece Wabara
Karim Rekik
Luca Scapuzzi
Denis Suarez

who have all played first team football and have potential. Not to mention other promising lads like Benali, Bunn and Helan who are doing great things.

My point is that you labelled City as 'brutal' when it comes to youth players, yet I've shown that we stand toe to toe with United when it comes to giving players a chance or developing some for other clubs to benefit from.

Yes we spend a shitload of money on players but, as was shown in a previous post, your team for the last derby cost more than ours.

If we're 'brutal' then you are just as guilty, as are the majority of top clubs.

Liam O

This United's team cost more argument is very weak too. Yes Rooney and Ferdinand were signed for 30 odd million but they have played for United for nearly 8 and 10 years respectively now. How many of the City players bought for 20-30m will be there in 10 years?

Jimmy Iovine

Xavi6 wrote: »

Well if we're talking about players given debuts in the past ten years like those above I'll refer to -

Joey Barton
Stephen Jordan
Nedum Onuoha
Lee Croft
Stephen Ireland
Kasper Schmeichel
Micah Richards
Michael Johnson
Ched Evans
Vladimir Weiss
Daniel Sturridge
Dedryck Boyata

All of the above established themselves with City for a while in and around the first team and have gone on to do well out of the game.



Again, if that's the criteria, we have

Greg Cunningham
Alex Nimely
John Guidetti
Abdul Razak
Reece Wabara
Karim Rekik
Luca Scapuzzi
Denis Suarez

who have all played first team football and have potential. Not to mention other promising lads like Benali, Bunn and Helan who are doing great things.

My point is that you labelled City as 'brutal' when it comes to youth players, yet I've shown that we stand toe to toe with United when it comes to giving players a chance or developing some for other clubs to benefit from.

Yes we spend a shitload of money on players but, as was shown in a previous post, your team for the last derby cost more than ours.

If we're 'brutal' then you are just as guilty, as are the majority of top clubs.

Right well I stand corrected on the matter then. United are no worse, nor are they any better than City at developing youth talent, aside from the class of '92.

Will those young players be given the chance in a few years ahead of the likes of Kompany or Yaya Toure? There is such a depth in the squad that quality players are finding it difficult to break into the team as it is.

I presume that these FFP rules will mean that City will have to curb their spending to meet the criteria? That might help the younger players to establish themselves in the squad.

Oh and don't forget that Shaun Goater was spotted by United scouts and brought over as a 17 year old.

jive

Liam O wrote: »

This United's team cost more argument is very weak too. Yes Rooney and Ferdinand were signed for 30 odd million but they have played for United for nearly 8 and 10 years respectively now. How many of the City players bought for 20-30m will be there in 10 years?

Kind of a null point though because they still cost that much money and have been on ever-increasing wages to keep them at the club. If City bought more English players then they'd probably be there for a long time but the reality is the quality isn't there in England for the team that City want to put together.

It's common place now for foreign players, be they from south america or europe, to want to move on to Spain when the likes of Madrid or Barca come calling; or even just moves to Italy... somewhere sunnier than Manchester basically. I've noticed that Ferguson has been investing more so in English based players where he can (Smalling, Young, Jones to name a few off the top of my head) in recent years than many other English clubs have. Probably a smart move too. Obviously had to go Spanish for the keeper because the quality wasn't available in England.

Also I think we forgot Evans, he came through the United academy I think. Could be wrong!

Jimmy Iovine

jive wrote: »

Obviously had to go Spanish for the keeper because the quality wasn't available in England.

The quality was there but unfortunately it was Joe Hart. Fergie came out a while back and said he regretted not buying him 6 years ago for £100,000.

jive wrote: »

Also I think we forgot Evans, he came through the United academy I think. Could be wrong!

Yea I forgot to mention him. He gets a hard time from people but he has shown this season that when he gets a good run in the team he is a quality defender. It's unfortunate that he has had one of the best partnerships in the world ahead of him for years. Give him 5 years and he could be a starter in there.

K-9

Success breeds success, players will go to the successfull clubs regardless of wages, or go to a City or Chelsea offering astronomical money which will lead to quick, short term success.

Liverpool had the muscle in the 70's and 80's, wasted it through poor management and not keeping up with the times, resting on their laurels. United can still match City despite not having their financial muscle.

My worry would be clubs start trying to match City level of wages. Nobody can afford that, not even United. The only hope is FFP and that depends on the FA enforcing it.

Fair play to City but I think the league is at its limits as regards wages, even the top clubs.