Middle Class opposition to "Conspicious Consumption"

[Joker]

There's a lot been said on this forum about the spending habits of Man City and Chelsea, and quite a few posters seem to see their behaviour as uncouth, and are inclined to turn their noses up at it, as if it's immoral in some ways. I do get the sense that this is a very middle class Guardian reading attitude to take, this opposition to what is disparagingly called "conspicuous consumption". It's as if spending money to better oneself (in this case a football club looking to improve their position in the league) is crude, and that such short-termism is detrimental to football as a whole. This does mirror quite closely the middle class attitude towards "prudence", their obsession towards savings and forgoing current consumption for future returns (which is lauded as virtuous self sacrifice in the bourgeois papers like the Daily Mail). Some of our supporters are behaving in precisely that way, praising our "self sustainable" model of not spending beyond our means, as if this short term sacrifice is necessary and crucial to maintain our long term financial health. This ignores that the fact that we're a football club first and foremost, and securing financial returns should not be the only goal of a football club.

You also get comments like "noveau rich", "arrivistes", etc, which betrays a mild form of class prejudice IMO. It's as if only the establishment (i.e. the "top 4" as it used to be known) are allowed to win trophies and any outsider looking to break this oligopoly should be treated with suspicion. It's like the middle classes turning their noses up at the working class guy done good when he spends his lottery winnings on extravagant purchases, which frequently results in snide remarks like "money can't buy class" (the same banner was on display against Man City in fact). I get the sense that this same attitude is on display on this forum quite frequently when talking about clubs like Chelsea, and it's a convenient way of ignoring the failings of our own board, who also criticise City and Chelsea to distract us from their own failings.

[Marc Overmars]

Ambition. :bow:

[Niall_Quinn]

Missing the point as always.

Sport, competition. When it's massively skewed in favour of a couple of competitors in detriment to the rest then the sport and competition is diminished. The achievement is diminished.

Outside of sport and competition, people can do what the fuck they want with their money. Can't they? Or at least they can do what they want with half of it after the government has taken a big chunk.

[Kano]

The spending these clubs are doing is no different at all to the branding exercise of any ‘self sustaining club’ and just as ‘immoral’ as making as much money as possible from marketing the shit out of the club through overpriced goodies to man, woman and child.

[Niall_Quinn]

The spending these clubs are doing is no different at all to the branding exercise of any ‘self sustaining club’ and just as ‘immoral’ as making as much money as possible from marketing the shit out of the club through overpriced goodies to man, woman and child.

Agree with that ultimately, but it's a deep argument that keeps on going. In the end we need to exploit slave labour in the far east more effectively than our competitors if we want to grab top spot. But there's still the idealism of genuine sport to shake off. Difficult to do because it's appealing and seems worthy, compared to the faceless corporate shit that sits like a terminal cancer at the heart of everything.

[Joker]

The spending these clubs are doing is no different at all to the branding exercise of any ‘self sustaining club’ and just as ‘immoral’ as making as much money as possible from marketing the shit out of the club through overpriced goodies to man, woman and child.

I agree. I'm not saying that I support the ownership structure of City and Chelsea, in an ideal world the clubs would be owned by the supporters, there would be wage ceilings in place and a much more equitable distribution of money amongst all the clubs; however, I don't get why some fans seem to continue to criticise their ownership structures while paying lip service to what our board is doing. Our board are worshipping at the altar of the free market, treating us like a private sector enterprise, while Chelsea and City's sugar-daddies are using the club as a symbol of their power and status. Neither structure is appealing.

[Niall_Quinn]

I agree. I'm not saying that I support the ownership structure of City and Chelsea, in an ideal world the clubs would be owned by the supporters, there would be wage ceilings in place and a much more equitable distribution of money amongst all the clubs; however, I don't get why some fans seem to continue to criticise their ownership structures while paying lip service to what our board is doing. Our board are worshipping at the altar of the free market, treating us like a private sector enterprise, while Chelsea and City's sugar-daddies are using the club as a symbol of their power and status. Neither structure is appealing.

Who's "paying lip service" to what our board is doing?

[Joker]

Who's "paying lip service" to what our board is doing?

There are a few on this board and in general when I read articles on blogs, etc. For example I like Arseblog but he seems to be in Kroenke camp, and has barely put the board under the spotlight this season.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Or they could just be football supporters, Joker.

[Niall_Quinn]

Look at it another way. What if Abramovich could bribe the Olympics Committee (unrealistic I know) to allow him to place his starting blocks for the 100m sprint on the 90 metre line? He'd win and therefore he'd be better than Usain Bolt. In fact Bolt would be a loser. When you can buy your way through every problem without constraint then you are moving your starting block further up the track. Injuries, suspensions, loss of form, doesn't affect you. You just roll in the next £20mill player to cancel out the effects others clubs have to endure. Plus you have probably robbed those other clubs of that £20mill bench warmer in the first place. And you have undermined your competition by flashing unsustainable wage packets in the faces of their players. Wage packets nobody else can match so every season becomes an exercise in trying to hold onto players rather than consolidate a team. So when you win this way it is most certainly a hollow victory, not in terms of the final tables or the points tally, but in terms of sport itself. Fucking hell, even hunters don't shoot the fox before the hunt begins.

[Kano]

Agree with that ultimately, but it's a deep argument that keeps on going. In the end we need to exploit slave labour in the far east more effectively than our competitors if we want to grab top spot. But there's still the idealism of genuine sport to shake off. Difficult to do because it's appealing and seems worthy, compared to the faceless corporate shit that sits like a terminal cancer at the heart of everything.
If we want to follow this model and become the super club the move was designed for, then we need a continent of slave kids working to the bone. Ripping off local based fans and squeezing what we can out of those across the world is not enough. when you are on an equal footing to your direct competitors from your resources then that competitive edge remains. getting there is the problem but i can’t criticise others for taking the short cut as if you aren’t smart enough to take the quick route, you have to suffer the consequences.

[Niall_Quinn]

If we want to follow this model and become the super club the move was designed for, then we need a continent of slave kids working to the bone. Ripping off local based fans and squeezing what we can out of those across the world is not enough. when you are on an equal footing to your direct competitors from your resources then that competitive edge remains. getting there is the problem but i can’t criticise others for taking the short cut as if you aren’t smart enough to take the quick route, you have to suffer the consequences.

We could start a war with Russia and steal their resources. That would knock Abramovich out of the game too. We could prove Chelsea have WMD.

[Flavs]

I wonder what Diana would of made of it all :rose:

(The express)

[Niall_Quinn]

I wonder what Diana would of made of it all :rose:

(The express)

Hating the monarchy for treating the Queen of Hearts like shit is old news. New news is hitting the streets on Tuesday to feast and grovel. Please try to keep up with all the deeply heartfelt emotional issues.

[Flavs]

You're right of course, we should blame house prices...

(The independent)

[PGFC]

Money without class is just vulgar :shrug:

[Syn]

Fucking yawn.

[IBK]

OP ignores the fact that football, like any sport is supposed to be about competing fairly; the excitement of unpredictability; the romance etc. That's what distinguishes sport from pure commerce, and is the reason why people love it.

Of course, we are coming increasingly further away from the Corinthian spirit, but once you stray as far from it as football is getting, the competetiveness aspect of the game starts to disappear and sport loses its essence.

So I would bracket Citeh and the Chavs along with athletes who dope. The result of what they are doing is nothing more or less than gaining an unfair advantage in pursuit of success. And the reason I would say that their situations are different from the 'have's/have not's that have always existed in the EPL is that they are basically taking out all of the variants that used to exist before the kinds of sums that they are now able to spend. Injuries/suspensions - no longer an issue for them. Players off form? - ditto - just bring in some international superstar from the bench. And they are not only making themselves immune to some of the variants that others are subject to, but they are effectively suppressing the competition by unsettleing their bast players; making transfer targets unattainable, and making all players more expensive - therefore destabilising or relegating the weakest of them.

Nothing to do with class politics, I'm afraid.

[Kano]

We could start a war with Russia and steal their resources. That would knock Abramovich out of the game too. We could prove Chelsea have WMD.
when you say us, do you mean arsenal or goonersweb?

[Niall_Quinn]

when you say us, do you mean arsenal or goonersweb?

GW. I'm confident we could start a war with anyone, any time.

[server too busy!]

OP ignores the fact that football, like any sport is supposed to be about competing fairly; the excitement of unpredictability; the romance etc. That's what distinguishes sport from pure commerce, and is the reason why people love it.

Of course, we are coming increasingly further away from the Corinthian spirit, but once you stray as far from it as football is getting, the competetiveness aspect of the game starts to disappear and sport loses its essence.

So I would bracket Citeh and the Chavs along with athletes who dope. The result of what they are doing is nothing more or less than gaining an unfair advantage in pursuit of success. And the reason I would say that their situations are different from the 'have's/have not's that have always existed in the EPL is that they are basically taking out all of the variants that used to exist before the kinds of sums that they are now able to spend. Injuries/suspensions - no longer an issue for them. Players off form? - ditto - just bring in some international superstar from the bench. And they are not only making themselves immune to some of the variants that others are subject to, but they are effectively suppressing the competition by unsettleing their bast players; making transfer targets unattainable, and making all players more expensive - therefore destabilising or relegating the weakest of them.

Nothing to do with class politics, I'm afraid.

:gp:

[fakeyank]

I have said this before.. Our club is a middle class club. Same mentality of middle class people to just be happy with 3rd or 4th place finish, happy to make up the numbers in the CL and complaining about the riches of other clubs. Our fans are pretty much the same too.. far too many who are keyboard warriors and wont do a 'serious' thing to make the necessary noise for change at the club.

The only part our club that has a 'winning' or 'high class' mentality is the board.. no wonder they are getting richer at our expense while we just sit here and complain how terrible they are. :rolleyes:

[Niall_Quinn]

I have said this before.. Our club is a middle class club. Same mentality of middle class people to just be happy with 3rd or 4th place finish, happy to make up the numbers in the CL and complaining about the riches of other clubs. Our fans are pretty much the same too.. far too many who are keyboard warriors and wont do a 'serious' thing to make the necessary noise for change at the club.

The only part our club that has a 'winning' or 'high class' mentality is the board.. no wonder they are getting richer at our expense while we just sit here and complain how terrible they are. :rolleyes:

Take it you are voting Ron Paul in the upcoming elections?

[Boss]

I hope the people spouting nonsense on here do realise the league has only become more competitive as a result of this 'financial doping' and we've probably seen the best title race in years this season.

In the past only us or United could realistically win the league, now at the beginning of the year you have Chelsea, ManU, Citeh at the very least competing for it and us, Liverpool and Spurs that should be able to. Look at Dortmund in Germany and Montpellier in France for examples that show it's not all about the money.

Of course money gives Citeh, Chelsea etc a head start but Fergie proved you could beat millions of pounds worth of spending when he took the title away from Chelsea and for all Citeh's quality players, they were run very close by a United side that on paper is probably weaker than ours. I wonder how much of this whining would still be taking place if we had manned up and bought a couple decent players over the last few years instead of selling on average a world class player every season.

[Dennis Bendtner]

fucking middle class free market fundamentalist ponces

[fakeyank]

Take it you are voting Ron Paul in the upcoming elections?

Mitt Romney

[Globalgunner]

As was aptly shown last year Chelseas spending was not our undoing last year, neither was Citys. Man U were the only top 6 team that beat us home and away. You can argue that Chelsea ahad an ubcharacteristically bad year in the league, but we were not there to capitalise because of our own shortcomings. it is the nature of unsuccesful people to always blame others for thier own shortcomings. indulge me me please

1. is it Chelseas fault that we have 1 young excellent keeper and 3 hapless clowns

2. Is it Citys fault that we have 1 dent RB, 1 average LB and Djorou as back up CB, with the god awful Squillaci taking up a squad place

3. Was it SAF that forced Wenger to play Wilshere into a literal grave 2 seasons ago, knowing full well what the implications could be long term

4. Who was making all those mind bogging sunstitutions and playing a clearly out of sorts Ramsey for 70% of last season.

2 seasons ago, it was reported that RVP literally begged Wenger to sign VDV who eventually went to the spuds, evidently Wenger must have not known where to play him aor maybe that would have 'killed" Walcott. Afellay is apparently available now, another player that RVP swears by. If your best players dont believe in your stategy, you will fail

We lost last season to mind boggling defeats to Blackburn, Wigan, Swansea et al and poor displays when there was no one on the bench to change the game, add to that an infuriating incapability to defend on the break. These are sysytemic and endemic deficiencies that have little to do with money and all to do with tactics and training. Our wage bill is not reflective of the quality of our players. Money is not our problem, we are stupid in the way we spend it. We buy shit, caress shit, maintain shit, indulge shit and finally wonder why we look like shit.

[Cripps_orig]

As was aptly shown last year Chelseas spending was not our undoing last year, neither was Citys. Man U were the only top 6 team that beat us home and away. You can argue that Chelsea ahad an ubcharacteristically bad year in the league, but we were not there to capitalise because of our own shortcomings. it is the nature of unsuccesful people to always blame others for thier own shortcomings. indulge me me please

1. is it Chelseas fault that we have 1 young excellent keeper and 3 hapless clowns

2. Is it Citys fault that we have 1 dent RB, 1 average LB and Djorou as back up CB, with the god awful Squillaci taking up a squad place

3. Was it SAF that forced Wenger to play Wilshere into a literal grave 2 seasons ago, knowing full well what the implications could be long term

4. Who was making all those mind bogging sunstitutions and playing a clearly out of sorts Ramsey for 70% of last season.

2 seasons ago, it was reported that RVP literally begged Wenger to sign VDV who eventually went to the spuds, evidently Wenger must have not known where to play him aor maybe that would have 'killed" Walcott. Afellay is apparently available now, another player that RVP swears by. If your best players dont believe in your stategy, you will fail

We lost last season to mind boggling defeats to Blackburn, Wigan, Swansea et al and poor displays when there was no one on the bench to change the game, add to that an infuriating incapability to defend on the break. These are sysytemic and endemic deficiencies that have little to do with money and all to do with tactics and training. Our wage bill is not reflective of the quality of our players. Money is not our problem, we are stupid in the way we spend it. We buy shit, caress shit, maintain shit, indulge shit and finally wonder why we look like shit.:goodpost:

[Tipsychubbs]

OP ignores the fact that football, like any sport is supposed to be about competing fairly; the excitement of unpredictability; the romance etc. That's what distinguishes sport from pure commerce, and is the reason why people love it.

Chelsea and city are not obligated to compete fairly for the good of the game, they'll do whats in their interests. If a rich businessman with bottomless pockets chooses to invest in a business, then so be it.


So I would bracket Citeh and the Chavs along with athletes who dope. The result of what they are doing is nothing more or less than gaining an unfair advantage in pursuit of success.

So report them to UEFA and FIFA for their illegal activity.


the competetiveness aspect of the game starts to disappear

Those clubs can't buy every player alive. You make it sound like everything's pointless and clubs without sugar daddies should pack up and go home. Then there would only be about 2-3 clubs in some leagues.

Ask montpellier if the essence of the game and the "lessened competitiveness" stopped them from competing and even winning the title against mega-rich psg. It was a 3 team title race till the last few games including Lille. This defeatist attitude is a bit strange.


I get the sense that this same attitude is on display on this forum quite frequently when talking about clubs like Chelsea, and it's a convenient way of ignoring the failings of our own board, who also criticise City and Chelsea to distract us from their own failings.

I agree and its also to do with the class argument. It's become a sort of snobbish excuse and great a decoy to use that deflects attention from our own board/manager/team's failings.

I don't really know how we can get on our "self sustaining" high horse. The stadium project that was sold to us apparently to propel us into the big league has resulted in asset stripping, fatcats profiting from the club and expecting the fans to pay for it, 6 years later, with regular CL revenue. That to me is more annoying than big spenders who have always been around in some degree.

The essence of the game arguments are deceiving, football is already out of touch with reality and has been for a long time. Whats the difference between 1 million and 100 million. I could retire and live on both amounts. I'd be happy with the 1, i don't need to be snobbish and turn my nose up at the guy down the road who has 100 of them. Football is no longer an after work community club thing. Its big business. We are already dealing with humongous sums of money here, so perspective flew out of the window a long time ago. If someone is richer than you, then tough luck. You were already rich in a sense since you could and already have paid a million pounds or more for a football player, and more on an annual wage bill!

If FIFA/UEFA want to do the wage/transfer caps like the American sports or enforce the ffp rules in a greater way, then ok if they take steps to level the playing field. Till then, as mentioned above, if some clubs want to take a headstart with sugar daddies, instead of crying about it and using it as an excuse, do your best to maximise your own resources and keep growing as club to compete as best as you can. Arsenal F.C. are far from being paupers, good management at all levels and solid signings should see us up there competing.

[Niall_Quinn]

Mitt Romney

Precisely. You sit in America urging UK fans to do something and yet you are voting status quo (doing nothing) in your own backyard. Won't even defend your own country and countrymen but you are quick to tell us all we are cowards.

[Niall_Quinn]

Chelsea and city are not obligated to compete fairly for the good of the game, they'll do whats in their interests. If a rich businessman with bottomless pockets chooses to invest in a business, then so be it.



So report them to UEFA and FIFA for their illegal activity.



Those clubs can't buy every player alive. You make it sound like everything's pointless and clubs without sugar daddies should pack up and go home. Then there would only be about 2-3 clubs in some leagues.

Ask montpellier if the essence of the game and the "lessened competitiveness" stopped them from competing and even winning the title against mega-rich psg. It was a 3 team title race till the last few games including Lille. This defeatist attitude is a bit strange.



I agree and its also to do with the class argument. It's become a sort of snobbish excuse and great a decoy to use that deflects attention from our own board/manager/team's failings.

I don't really know how we can get on our "self sustaining" high horse. The stadium project that was sold to us apparently to propel us into the big league has resulted in asset stripping, fatcats profiting from the club and expecting the fans to pay for it, 6 years later, with regular CL revenue. That to me is more annoying than big spenders who have always been around in some degree.

The essence of the game arguments are deceiving, football is already out of touch with reality and has been for a long time. Whats the difference between 1 million and 100 million. I could retire and live on both amounts. I'd be happy with the 1, i don't need to be snobbish and turn my nose up at the guy down the road who has 100 of them. Football is no longer an after work community club thing. Its big business. We are already dealing with humongous sums of money here, so perspective flew out of the window a long time ago. If someone is richer than you, then tough luck. You were already rich in a sense since you could and already have paid a million pounds or more for a football player, and more on an annual wage bill!

If FIFA/UEFA want to do the wage/transfer caps like the American sports or enforce the ffp rules in a greater way, then ok if they take steps to level the playing field. Till then, as mentioned above, if some clubs want to take a headstart with sugar daddies, instead of crying about it and using it as an excuse, do your best to maximise your own resources and keep growing as club to compete as best as you can. Arsenal F.C. are far from being paupers, good management at all levels and solid signings should see us up there competing.

Fight evil with evil and make sure you're just that bit more evil? Join the herd and head in the prevailing direction? See no evil, hear no evil, speak not at all unless it is to apologise for evil? Turn a blind eye? Cross the street? Keep your head down? Go with the flow? And so on.

When it comes to money everything is the thin end of a bigger wedge. The end game here is a European super league that will have the same teams locked in forever because they are exponentially richer than the rest of football combined. If that's what you want then just keep going along to get along. Criticise idealists all you want but at lest they slow the descent to naked vulgarity and on the way down we get to enjoy those sporting moments that stick in our memory. Believe me, if the money men you forgive so easily could get away with it they would much rather extract our money in return for nothing at all. And as soon as you given them an inch that's the direction they head in.

[fakeyank]

Precisely. You sit in America urging UK fans to do something and yet you are voting status quo (doing nothing) in your own backyard. Won't even defend your own country and countrymen but you are quick to tell us all we are cowards.

:lol:

I cant vote here.. I only work in the US and did my college here. If I had it my way, Romney would never be running for President, let alone vote for him! And yes, you people in the UK need to get some balls. Go strike against the ****s running our club..

[Niall_Quinn]

:lol:

I cant vote here.. I only work in the US and did my college here. If I had it my way, Romney would never be running for President, let alone vote for him! And yes, you people in the UK need to get some balls. Go strike against the ****s running our club..

Thought you were a real yank. Who are you voting for in the Bangladeshi elections then?

[fakeyank]

Thought you were a real yank. Who are you voting for in the Bangladeshi elections then?

I never lived in bangladesh either. I was born and brought up in UAE. I can vote in bangladesh though and if I had it my way, both the bitches will be dead. Military rule tbh..

[Xhaka Can’t]

There's a lot been said on this forum about the spending habits of Man City and Chelsea, and quite a few posters seem to see their behaviour as uncouth, and are inclined to turn their noses up at it, as if it's immoral in some ways. I do get the sense that this is a very middle class Guardian reading attitude to take, this opposition to what is disparagingly called "conspicuous consumption". It's as if spending money to better oneself (in this case a football club looking to improve their position in the league) is crude, and that such short-termism is detrimental to football as a whole. This does mirror quite closely the middle class attitude towards "prudence", their obsession towards savings and forgoing current consumption for future returns (which is lauded as virtuous self sacrifice in the bourgeois papers like the Daily Mail). Some of our supporters are behaving in precisely that way, praising our "self sustainable" model of not spending beyond our means, as if this short term sacrifice is necessary and crucial to maintain our long term financial health. This ignores that the fact that we're a football club first and foremost, and securing financial returns should not be the only goal of a football club.

You also get comments like "noveau rich", "arrivistes", etc, which betrays a mild form of class prejudice IMO. It's as if only the establishment (i.e. the "top 4" as it used to be known) are allowed to win trophies and any outsider looking to break this oligopoly should be treated with suspicion. It's like the middle classes turning their noses up at the working class guy done good when he spends his lottery winnings on extravagant purchases, which frequently results in snide remarks like "money can't buy class" (the same banner was on display against Man City in fact). I get the sense that this same attitude is on display on this forum quite frequently when talking about clubs like Chelsea, and it's a convenient way of ignoring the failings of our own board, who also criticise City and Chelsea to distract us from their own failings.

You are the Joey Barton of GW.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I have said this before.. Our club is a middle class club. Same mentality of middle class people to just be happy with 3rd or 4th place finish, happy to make up the numbers in the CL and complaining about the riches of other clubs. Our fans are pretty much the same too.. far too many who are keyboard warriors and wont do a 'serious' thing to make the necessary noise for change at the club.

The only part our club that has a 'winning' or 'high class' mentality is the board.. no wonder they are getting richer at our expense while we just sit here and complain how terrible they are. :rolleyes:

And you are Joey Barton's retarded brother.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Before someone complains, no offence to retards was intended.

[Niall_Quinn]

I never lived in bangladesh either. I was born and brought up in UAE. I can vote in bangladesh though and if I had it my way, both the bitches will be dead. Military rule tbh..

UAE, so you are an American then? Make your mind up.

I see, that's a different way to go. Change for the worse. Which explains why you want Wenger gone and the board to be lauded.

[Niall_Quinn]

Before someone complains, no offence to retards was intended.

None taken.

[Xhaka Can’t]

UAE, so you are an American then? Make your mind up.

I see, that's a different way to go. Change for the worse. Which explains why you want Wenger gone and the board to be lauded.

He's in to all things United.

[Tipsychubbs]

Fight evil with evil and make sure you're just that bit more evil? Join the herd and head in the prevailing direction? See no evil, hear no evil, speak not at all unless it is to apologise for evil? Turn a blind eye? Cross the street? Keep your head down? Go with the flow? And so on.

When it comes to money everything is the thin end of a bigger wedge. The end game here is a European super league that will have the same teams locked in forever because they are exponentially richer than the rest of football combined. If that's what you want then just keep going along to get along. Criticise idealists all you want but at lest they slow the descent to naked vulgarity and on the way down we get to enjoy those sporting moments that stick in our memory. Believe me, if the money men you forgive so easily could get away with it they would much rather extract our money in return for nothing at all. And as soon as you given them an inch that's the direction they head in.

What exactly is it that these clubs have done to make them evil? What wrong/crime am I supposed to be forgiving? Automatically being rich with cash makes you evil by default? This is the snobbish attitude I'm talking about. And I'll believe the super league idea when I see it.

[gunnerrrrr]

There are some seriously bitter replies in this thread.

The top 10 clubs in Europe for the last 20 years, more often than not, have been the most richest. So a few new teams enter this elite circle....so what?

Let's be honest' the Real Madrids, Barcelonas, Man Uniteds etc have all had immense spending power, look through their histories and I think it will be fair to say that they have not all exactly been true football fairness ideologies.

I mean everyone raves about Mourhinio, yet every club he has gone to has been the strongest at that time in terms of spending powers in the respective club leagues.....yet this rarely gets mentioned.

Sport is built on a fair competive basis, yet I struggle to find a league in the world where financial clout does not effect the balance of this fairness......and again I am talking back decades upon decades.

Let's stop sucking lemons and try ourselves to use whatever abilities we have within this club to reach our summit...perhaps than we will see our manager and players battling again with their hearts and that is the most any fan of any club can ask for.

[Xhaka Can’t]

No one is saying we should not make full use of our resources. In fact it is our unwillingness to do that that pisses me off more.

[KSE Comedy Club]

And still, people cannot see the difference between being rich and having unlimited funds with no consequences.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I think they do see it, they'd have to be incredibly stupid not to.

[Özim]

I think you'd have to be incredibly stupid not to realise that we're getting played by the board as well, our policies are despicable in all honesty. Other clubs fans seem to get much better value for money than our lot and yet's it's considered OK...if football isn't about people coming in and spending lots, it's not about business either....you can't have it both ways.

If you want football as it should be then profit shouldn't be the primary aim and sugar daddies shouldn't be allowed, it seems like making a large profit every year is "OK" in a general sense, but spending big amounts of money isn't, kinda odd.

Would you rather pay less and get a better product, or pay more and get an inferior one? I would have thought that's easy to answer.

[Letters]

Missing the point as always.

Sport, competition. When it's massively skewed in favour of a couple of competitors in detriment to the rest then the sport and competition is diminished. The achievement is diminished.

Outside of sport and competition, people can do what the fuck they want with their money. Can't they? Or at least they can do what they want with half of it after the government has taken a big chunk.
:gp:

Spot on.

Football is a sport. Well, it used to be.
Now it's pretty much all about who has the richest owner. Chelsea won the title when they did because they had the richest owner. All their subsequent achievements are a direct result of that. Now City have the richest owner and now they've 'won' the title. That and all subsequent 'achievements' are tarnished by how they achieved it.

To be fair that's pretty much the only way of achieving success at the top level of football these days.
And that's not City's fault, or Chelsea's.
But don't expect me to like how the sport I once loved has gone.

And yes yes, there have always been haves and have nots. Success and money in football have always been related to a degree. But never have the differences between the haves and have nots been so massive, never have the amounts of money been so obscene.

City spent 114% of their income on wages last year. Just on wages. Forget all the transfer fees and other expenses. They recorded the biggest loss in football history. And they're champions. Well done them :rolleyes:. What a great 'achievement'.

[Özim]

Surely love for football has got to do with the club you support, other clubs are an irrelevance if you're happy with what's happening at the club. People make excuses about how it's other clubs that are the problem, I'd point to the bizarre happenings in the last 6 years as a significant reason for the loss of interest...I've certainly lost interest, mainly because nothing seems to really change and we're seeing a board who are happy as things are and a manager who alos feels that way.

Is it enjoyable to see a repeat of pretty much the same rubbish every season, is it fun to watch other clubs sign players whilst you sell your best players whilst not replacing them adequately, is it fun having a manager who refuses to acknowledge his team defficiencies and praises them at every turn, is it fun to see similar problems with the team season after season? I think not.

[Letters]

If you want football as it should be then profit shouldn't be the primary aim and sugar daddies shouldn't be allowed, it seems like making a large profit every year is "OK" in a general sense, but spending big amounts of money isn't, kinda odd.
I'm not sure anyone on here thinks Arsenal making a huge profit every year at the expense of spending more in the transfer market is 'OK'. We all agree that we should be using our resources better to be more competitive.
If they're using that profit to pay off the stadium debt quicker, looking longer term, then I guess that's not such a terrible thing although I do think we've been far too cautious.

But yes, football shouldn't be about who has the most money, who spends the most or who makes the most profit.
The playing field will never be completely level. Arsenal have a bigger ground than, say, Barnet. We're going to attract more fans, more sponsors, more prize and TV money. You can't do anything about that although you can make the differences less between the PL and 'the rest', you can make the CL for champions only as it should be to stop a little group of teams forming in each league with far more money than 'the rest' and maybe you can do something about the ridiculous player salaries. It's all got way out of hand and unless people en masse stop going to games, stop subscribing to Sky, stop buying the merchandise, stop watching then there's no reason any of it will change.
I go to Arsenal because dad wants to keep going and it's an important part of our relationship. If he didn't want to keep going then I'd stop (although I have to say I do enjoy it at times, there were some great moments last season). As for football in general I'm pretty much done with it. I pretty much never watch non-Arsenal games these days.

[Niall_Quinn]

What exactly is it that these clubs have done to make them evil? What wrong/crime am I supposed to be forgiving? Automatically being rich with cash makes you evil by default? This is the snobbish attitude I'm talking about. And I'll believe the super league idea when I see it.

Evil as in the opposite of good, as a figure of speech and not in a religious sense. For example, "See no evil...", is not a religious statement. There's precisely nothing snobbish about being opposed to the degradation of traditional sport and the rise of commercialism posing as sport. The "I'll believe it when I see it", statement is a further indication of complacency. Basically your argument is to let a few people decide how the game will develop and then accept their decision as inevitability. And to be quiet as it all unfolds. Fine, but why is it snobbery to refuse this silence? It's really odd all the various claims coming out from those who believe dumping as much money as it takes to achieve an objective constitutes sport in it's traditional sense. I hear I am a snob, bitter, jealous, a racist even. All I'm saying is, in my opinion, it's a bad place the game is heading and that's a shame in my eyes because it's a game I have grown up with and loved as far back as my memories go. You want me to place the victory of clubs run by the endlessly wealthy in the same context as the achievements of clubs who operated on at least a somewhat level playing field? I refuse, what of it?

[Xhaka Can’t]

Surely love for football has got to do with the club you support, other clubs are an irrelevance if you're happy with what's happening at the club. People make excuses about how it's other clubs that are the problem, I'd point to the bizarre happenings in the last 6 years as a significant reason for the loss of interest...I've certainly lost interest, mainly because nothing seems to really change and we're seeing a board who are happy as things are and a manager who alos feels that way.

Is it enjoyable to see a repeat of pretty much the same rubbish every season, is it fun to watch other clubs sign players whilst you sell your best players whilst not replacing them adequately, is it fun having a manager who refuses to acknowledge his team defficiencies and praises them at every turn, is it fun to see similar problems with the team season after season? I think not.

I'm on the phone so cutting and pasting your post is hard. I'm only referring to people making excuses it is other clubs is the problem. I don't think people are doing that, certainly I'm not. There isn't a problem there rarely is. There are problems. I am more frustrated by how our Club fails to make effective use of the resources it generates through us than anything else. If we do that and don't gain success then fair enough, we've done what we can. But we haven't done even that.

As for what is going on elsewhere, I cannot comprehend how anyone thinking clubs being able to throw unlimited amounts of money around repeatedly until it eventually works out for them without any consequences no matter how often they get it wrong - to the extent they are paying 100k towards the salary of another top 4 club isn't a problem. Albeit another problem

[Niall_Quinn]

I think you'd have to be incredibly stupid not to realise that we're getting played by the board as well, our policies are despicable in all honesty. Other clubs fans seem to get much better value for money than our lot and yet's it's considered OK...if football isn't about people coming in and spending lots, it's not about business either....you can't have it both ways.

If you want football as it should be then profit shouldn't be the primary aim and sugar daddies shouldn't be allowed, it seems like making a large profit every year is "OK" in a general sense, but spending big amounts of money isn't, kinda odd.

Would you rather pay less and get a better product, or pay more and get an inferior one? I would have thought that's easy to answer.

Fair points. In my mind our board is as bad a city's, it reduces the game to a financial equation constructed for personal gain. The aim of certain individuals with very shady pasts that own chelsea and city seems to be legitimacy. They have "obtained" all the money they can ever use, now they want to distract from the methods they used to obtain it. I guess having 50,000 scream their support drowns out the noise of millions screaming their protests, provided you can get the former on TV and keep the latter off it. Our board members are only filthy rich at the moment, mere babes by comparison. So I guess they have to play it at at a lower level and keep on sucking. Maybe one day they too will be as admirable as Roman Abramovich. Mind you, we have our own nasty, vicious, criminal thug waiting in the wings. The real test of peoples' attitudes in this debate will be how they respond if that odious swine gets control and starts pumping in the cash. The apologists for city claim we'll all be jumping for joy. I won't because football will be pretty much dead by that point and I never wanted to see that.

[Letters]

I hope the people spouting nonsense on here do realise the league has only become more competitive as a result of this 'financial doping' and we've probably seen the best title race in years this season. In the past only us or United could realistically win the league.
And last year it was only Utd or City. From a month in it was clear one of the two would win it.
Yes, Chelsea will probably be in the mix next year as they're buying their way in so it'll be a case of which billionaire wins it.
Competitive. Yaay.

Football does pre-date the late nineties you know. Back in the 60s and 70s you'd have a different clubs winning it most years, The year we won the Double in '71 Everton finished 14th. The previous season they'd been champions and we'd finished 12th. Surely it's better in a sport where at the start of a season you just don't know what's going to happen and there's always hope your team could do something - and that hope extends to fans of many clubs. There weren't these huge gaps between the haves and have nots.

Now it's down to 2 or 3 teams. More competitive than the late 90s and early noughties, maybe. Less competitive than at pretty much any time prior to that though.

[Özim]

I'm on the phone so cutting and pasting your post is hard. I'm only referring to people making excuses it is other clubs is the problem. I don't think people are doing that, certainly I'm not. There isn't a problem there rarely is. There are problems. I am more frustrated by how our Club fails to make effective use of the resources it generates through us than anything else. If we do that and don't gain success then fair enough, we've done what we can. But we haven't done even that.

As for what is going on elsewhere, I cannot comprehend how anyone thinking clubs being able to throw unlimited amounts of money around repeatedly until it eventually works out for them without any consequences no matter how often they get it wrong - to the extent they are paying 100k towards the salary of another top 4 club isn't a problem. Albeit another problem
I agree with you, that having owners who can spend unlimited amounts isn't great for the game, however I don't believe that it completely stops clubs competing, Man U basically had the title sewn up before an inexplicable collapse, this without having a particularly good team.

We can't stop other clubs having huge amounts to spend, I refuse to believe we can't compete though, the problem is that we've decided we don't want to and that's incredibly frustrating.

[Özim]

Fair points. In my mind our board is as bad a city's, it reduces the game to a financial equation constructed for personal gain. The aim of certain individuals with very shady pasts that own chelsea and city seems to be legitimacy. They have "obtained" all the money they can ever use, now they want to distract from the methods they used to obtain it. I guess having 50,000 scream their support drowns out the noise of millions screaming their protests, provided you can get the former on TV and keep the latter off it. Our board members are only filthy rich at the moment, mere babes by comparison. So I guess they have to play it at at a lower level and keep on sucking. Maybe one day they too will be as admirable as Roman Abramovich. Mind you, we have our own nasty, vicious, criminal thug waiting in the wings. The real test of peoples' attitudes in this debate will be how they respond if that odious swine gets control and starts pumping in the cash. The apologists for city claim we'll all be jumping for joy. I won't because football will be pretty much dead by that point and I never wanted to see that.
I can understand your point of view, but then what is the answer, to sit there an put up with what is an undesirable situation? I want to see top players like we use to see at Arsenal, I want to feel excited about the new season and feel that we have a chance of winning something, I really don't enjoy seeing us being happy to get 3rd/4th every season, that doesn't replace that feeling you get when you see your club lift a trophy, the only thing it does do is swell the bank balance, something we don't use (it might be different if we did)

[Özim]

And last year it was only Utd or City. From a month in it was clear one of the two would win it.
Yes, Chelsea will probably be in the mix next year as they're buying their way in so it'll be a case of which billionaire wins it.
Competitive. Yaay.

Football does pre-date the late nineties you know. Back in the 60s and 70s you'd have a different clubs winning it most years, The year we won the Double in '71 Everton finished 14th. The previous season they'd been champions and we'd finished 12th. Surely it's better in a sport where at the start of a season you just don't know what's going to happen and there's always hope your team could do something - and that hope extends to fans of many clubs. There weren't these huge gaps between the haves and have nots.

Now it's down to 2 or 3 teams. More competitive than the late 90s and early noughties, maybe. Less competitive than at pretty much any time prior to that though.
Are you saying you didnt' enjoy the late nineties and early noughties when we were one of the two teams though? The problem here is the fact we're never one of the genuine competitors, we're always outside that group and never seemingly moving forward or even trying to.

Having a team you believe in, who have some steel about them and whom you feel can deliver on the biggest stage is hugely enjoyable (even if you don't win). When we had our best teams there were some huge highs and huge lows, but the reason we had those lows is because we were genuinely disappointed when we lost, now we expect it so the disappointment is minimal, certainly for me, when we lose it's disappointing but not to the extent it once was, I dont really think we have a hope of winning anything and thus when we fail I'm already prepared for this.

[Kano]

What a great 'achievement'.
it was by the players, definitely yes.

[fakeyank]

:yawn:

Board is at fault? Wenger is at fault? Blah blah blah.. we have been reading the same shit over n over again. In fact, I have typed the same shit over n over again.. so what on earth do we do about it? What is the solution? Sick of hearing what the freaking problem is tbh...

[fakeyank]

And you are Joey Barton's retarded brother.

Tbh, Barton at least 'seems' somewhat intelligent on twitter. Not something you can say about any of your posts.

[Tipsychubbs]

There's precisely nothing snobbish about being opposed to the degradation of traditional sport and the rise of commercialism posing as sport.

Football clubs are already a business, so the commercialism and sport factor is a dual one that goes hand in hand. After al we are paying for tickets to see our clubs, and paying a subscription fee/tv licence to watch/listen to them on tv and radio that goes into the running of the business of football. A grand don't come for free. Commercialism has been there ever since the clubs stopped being community clubs and started charging tickets.

Do Man U do their asian tours for the good of the game? Do Sky/UEFA pay all those tv rights to clubs merely for the good of the game? Arsenal are doing a match in Nigeria soon, again for the good of the game? Africa and especially Nigeria as its most populous county is one of the biggest and fastest growing fanbases in the world. Do Real Madrid signed Beckham without having an eye on the commercial revenue he would bring through shirt sales and exposure, likewise L.A. Galaxy? Wealth is being shared out, rights to broadcast sport are being paid for, and commercial opportunities are being exploited, this is nothing new, and it was happening before sugar daddies. Football clubs have had boards and shareholders for decades, people investing and then profiting from the clubs long before there were any sugar daddies (in the modern, bottomless pockets sense).



The "I'll believe it when I see it", statement is a further indication of complacency. Basically your argument is to let a few people decide how the game will develop and then accept their decision as inevitability. And to be quiet as it all unfolds. Fine, but why is it snobbery to refuse this silence?

There hasn't been any super league yet so you're simply projecting and worrying about something that hasn't happened and is unlikely to happen. Its a strawman argument that can't be used as an argument against the main point of sugar daddies. In fact, the idea was proposed by a lot of top clubs in various countries, it wasn't started by the sugar daddy clubs, and proposals have been rejected to far, so why are we even talking about it?


It's really odd all the various claims coming out from those who believe dumping as much money as it takes to achieve an objective constitutes sport in it's traditional sense. I hear I am a snob, bitter, jealous, a racist even. All I'm saying is, in my opinion, it's a bad place the game is heading and that's a shame in my eyes because it's a game I have grown up with and loved as far back as my memories go.

And where exactly is the game heading? There have always been rich clubs around, and now some are even richer? Can these even richer clubs with bottomless pockets buy every single player and render competition meaningless? Ask Montpellier.


You want me to place the victory of clubs run by the endlessly wealthy in the same context as the achievements of clubs who operated on at least a somewhat level playing field? I refuse, what of it?

On a personal level, obviously you don't have to love it or like it. But since it is official, it is in the record books, nothing illegal has happened then why all the fuss?

We could go to the authorities with a legal document highlighting the crimes against football that have been committed.

But we can't, because there haven't been any. Last time I checked, it is not illegal to be rich, and it is not illegal to have bottomless pockets against those other wealthy clubs who don't.

Unfair to the sport? The clubs that are sitting on their hands, not maximising their own resources and being the complacent ones will think so. Newcastle almost broke into the top four through wise acquisitions and good management. Montpellier have just won the league in a 3 team title race, and even Manchester United have been wildly successful, and they are wealthy but don't have bottomless pockets In fact the clubs who have sprung up with sugar daddies are increasing the competitiveness. If we buck our ideas up, we could have four teams challenging for the PL (but I'm not holding my breath on Arsenal, obviously).

If FFP is enforced in a tighter way or if wage/transfer caps are introduced then cool if the authorities want to change the rules in a financial sense if they want more parity as to the pay scale, but as I said until then, so far it simply looks as if a jealous, bitter contingent are rabble rousing in the name of a misguided, elitist and snobbish 'purity of the sport' angle. If football was so pure then people like Titus Bramble and Joey Barton would not be earning 10s of thousands of pounds a week, before you talk of sugar daddies.

[Niall_Quinn]

You're still trying to equate what's gone on in the past with this brand new phenomena of the infinitely rich club. And your response seems to be just accept it and let it roll from one extreme to the next. Then you discount the possibility of these super rich guys carving up football for their own benefit. And only snobs would disagree with you, you suggest.

Why didn't the money argument come up last time Utd won it?

[Tipsychubbs]

You're still trying to equate what's gone on in the past with this brand new phenomena of the infinitely rich club.

But you're also trying to imagine the past as some sort of daisy chain paradise where all was fair in love and war and rich clubs never existed as if everything was equal.


And your response seems to be just accept it and let it roll from one extreme to the next.

What is the next extreme that will spell the death knell of football? Ask Lille and Montpellier if the infinitely rich PSG prevented them from competing and winning the title. I am not that bothered about it, even though I think if ffp was enforced more fiercely and if there was some sort of wage/transfer cap then you could make things interesting for those wanting more financial parity. But I'm not holding my breath and I'm not losing sleep over it. It is what it is for now, as I keep saying over and over again as long as its not illegal to have infinite funds, then why can't we just get on with it?


Then you discount the possibility of these super rich guys carving up football for their own benefit.

And why wouldn't they, since they've invested hundreds of millions. Every club works for its own benefit, its no more heinous just because you are infinitely rich. What that benefit is varies from club to club, whether it is to simply stay in the PL, to make profits or to win titles.


Why didn't the money argument come up last time Utd won it?

Exactly, so why is it coming up now? To Norwich City/Swansea City and smaller clubs like those Man U may as well have bottomless pockets, because their transfer funds and wages will be higher than anything they'll be able to afford for a long time, unless they start winning titles, trophies and getting regular CL income.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I agree with you, that having owners who can spend unlimited amounts isn't great for the game, however I don't believe that it completely stops clubs competing, Man U basically had the title sewn up before an inexplicable collapse, this without having a particularly good team.

We can't stop other clubs having huge amounts to spend, I refuse to believe we can't compete though, the problem is that we've decided we don't want to and that's incredibly frustrating.

I'm not sure where you got that from my post. My number one frustration lies with what Arsenal do with the organic resources they generate. We'd be able to compete if we did. We probably wouldn't win even then but at least we'd have a prospect of being competitive. A prospect we don't have now before a ball is even kicked next season.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Tbh, Barton at least 'seems' somewhat intelligent on twitter. Not something you can say about any of your posts.

Coming from you it is a compliment because you cannot even comprehend the insult you received.

[KSE Comedy Club]

But you're also trying to imagine the past as some sort of daisy chain paradise where all was fair in love and war and rich clubs never existed as if everything was equal.What is the next extreme that will spell the death knell of football? Ask Lille and Montpellier if the infinitely rich PSG prevented them from competing and winning the title. I am not that bothered about it, even though I think if ffp was enforced more fiercely and if there was some sort of wage/transfer cap then you could make things interesting for those wanting more financial parity. But I'm not holding my breath and I'm not losing sleep over it. It is what it is for now, as I keep saying over and over again as long as its not illegal to have infinite funds, then why can't we just get on with it?And why wouldn't they, since they've invested hundreds of millions. Every club works for its own benefit, its no more heinous just because you are infinitely rich. What that benefit is varies from club to club, whether it is to simply stay in the PL, to make profits or to win titles.Exactly, so why is it coming up now? To Norwich City/Swansea City and smaller clubs like those Man U may as well have bottomless pockets, because their transfer funds and wages will be higher than anything they'll be able to afford for a long time, unless they start winning titles, trophies and getting regular CL income. PSG will probably win the title next season tbh.

None of The billionaire owned clubs won the title at the first attempt.

[fakeyank]

Coming from you it is a compliment because you cannot even comprehend the insult you received.

It wasnt retarded enough for me tbh..

[Tipsychubbs]

PSG will probably win the title next season tbh.

None of The billionaire owned clubs won the title at the first attempt.

But will it stop other clubs from being competitive, so there'll be no title race next season at all? Is it a cast-iron guarantee that they'll walk the title with 50 points to spare? If the other clubs maximise their resources and do their best, they won't make it easy for PSG, something that applies to any league with a sugar daddy team/s.

[Xhaka Can’t]

PSG will probably win the title next season tbh.

None of The billionaire owned clubs won the title at the first attempt.

It was a refreshing result, but it won't last.

[Özim]

I'm not sure where you got that from my post. My number one frustration lies with what Arsenal do with the organic resources they generate. We'd be able to compete if we did. We probably wouldn't win even then but at least we'd have a prospect of being competitive. A prospect we don't have now before a ball is even kicked next season.
You talked about how clubs can use unlimited amounts not being a good thing, which I agree. Ok you didn't say specifically we couldn't compete but it's what a lot of people on here seem to think.

Not a view I subscribe to however, put a decent squad together of players who want to win and mix it with some top quality talent and you've got a good chance providing, the tactics and dynamics are right.

[Özim]

PSG will probably win the title next season tbh.

None of The billionaire owned clubs won the title at the first attempt.
Possibly, but it's also got to do with the calibre of manager they attract, the wrong manager can fail miserably.

If other clubs have forward thinking managers who believe they can compete and are willing to do what it takes to compete there's no guarantee a rich club will win. Man U should have won the title this season let's face it, only a collapse on their part denied them, they handed it to City and that's there own fault.

[Xhaka Can’t]

You talked about how clubs can use unlimited amounts not being a good thing, which I agree. Ok you didn't say specifically we couldn't compete but it's what a lot of people on here seem to think.

Not a view I subscribe to however, put a decent squad together of players who want to win and mix it with some top quality talent and you've got a good chance providing, the tactics and dynamics are right.

Under the current setup, that is very unlikely to happen. I don't have confidence in the Manager to take those steps, nor do I have much confidence that the Board would pick a successor that would want to take such a fundamental change in approach. Very often the question is raised here as to who could replace Wenger. The answer is, that there are a good few Managers, but I think the question that should be considered is who do you think this Board would consider as a successor to Wenger.

I fear they could be looking for someone to replicate the approach of Wenger and unfortunately I don't think there are any Managers of comparable quality that would be willing to work in such a way.

[Letters]

Are you saying you didnt' enjoy the late nineties and early noughties when we were one of the two teams though?
Of course I enjoyed the style of football (finally shaking off the boring boring Arsenal tag) and the sack of trophies. It was brilliant. But I also remember expressing some concern that it was always us or Utd and that football was becoming more predictable. And that was before the CL became really big, the transfer fees and wages became so obscene and the billionaires stuck their noses in and started spending money in a way which no-one had before.

As NQ and others have said, it's not just that they spend big on players to strengthen their squads, they spend big to stop other clubs strengthening too - signing players so their rivals don't get them and either sticking them on the bench or loaning them out to teams who aren't their direct rivals.

I agree with much of the rest of your post btw about having a team you can believe in and that is something which has been sadly lacking over the last few years. The season just gone there were some positive signs but even then we only just stumbled over the line on the last day having seemingly sewn up 3rd place with a few games to go.

[Kano]

are clubs with 'unlimited resources' really such a new thing, at least when it comes to perceptions? city and chelsea owners have collateral in real terms yet barca and madrid have had this safety net as their debts would never be called in.

back in the years when vieira was courted every summer and for many years during the nineties the italian and spanish teams were bankrolled to the hilt creating super teams. the wages and transfer fees were astronomical relative to the the time. what has happened is that due to the money we've pumped in via sky we've created our own super clubs able to control the flow of the market. the issue is now on our doorstep but it is a phenomena new only to this country, where a select few are in the driving seat every year. if we had wanted to stay a plucky isle with a merseyside team turning up and running riot in europe we would've stayed on a different road but everyone wanted to eat at the big table in europe, stand shoulder to shoulder instead of being the underdog, so after a while our league follows a similar format.

[selassie]

Under the current setup, that is very unlikely to happen. I don't have confidence in the Manager to take those steps, nor do I have much confidence that the Board would pick a successor that would want to take such a fundamental change in approach. Very often the question is raised here as to who could replace Wenger. The answer is, that there are a good few Managers, but I think the question that should be considered is who do you think this Board would consider as a successor to Wenger.

I fear they could be looking for someone to replicate the approach of Wenger and unfortunately I don't think there are any Managers of comparable quality that would be willing to work in such a way.

I gotta say I do agree with this. I think the issue is not so much about finding a manager who is tactically on Wenger's level, but more a case of finding a successor who is prepared to juggle a number of hats. I'm not for one minute suggesting that a new manager will come in with as much influence as Wenger but he will need to be able to be shrewd in the market and have an eye for cheaper/moderately priced talent.

The situation we our in regarding Wenger's successor is actually quite messy due to the fact he (Wenger) appears to have so much control and influence.

[Niall_Quinn]

Under the current setup, that is very unlikely to happen. I don't have confidence in the Manager to take those steps, nor do I have much confidence that the Board would pick a successor that would want to take such a fundamental change in approach. Very often the question is raised here as to who could replace Wenger. The answer is, that there are a good few Managers, but I think the question that should be considered is who do you think this Board would consider as a successor to Wenger.

I fear they could be looking for someone to replicate the approach of Wenger and unfortunately I don't think there are any Managers of comparable quality that would be willing to work in such a way.

If I had to bet on it I'd guess things will be considerably worse than our very worst estimates. I can picture some yank baseball coach coming in once Stan hits full stride and changing the pies to hot dogs. That will be that. We'll have players running down the touchlines trying to get to the corner flags every time the opposition goalie kicks it out. And our shooting will be perfect for the new model, just over the crossbar each time. And we'll all get Peter Cech headgear, I hope they at least keep it red instead of changing it to blue.

Stan has already said he loves the way the club is run and won't be changing anything. Hasn't he? Highest prices, money pouring in and nothing going out, a manager that can generate cash in the transfer windows and keep us in the big cash competition. What's not to love and why would any owner want to kill that golden goose?

[21_GOONER_SALUTE]

As was aptly shown last year Chelseas spending was not our undoing last year, neither was Citys. Man U were the only top 6 team that beat us home and away. You can argue that Chelsea ahad an ubcharacteristically bad year in the league, but we were not there to capitalise because of our own shortcomings. it is the nature of unsuccesful people to always blame others for thier own shortcomings. indulge me me please

1. is it Chelseas fault that we have 1 young excellent keeper and 3 hapless clowns

2. Is it Citys fault that we have 1 dent RB, 1 average LB and Djorou as back up CB, with the god awful Squillaci taking up a squad place

3. Was it SAF that forced Wenger to play Wilshere into a literal grave 2 seasons ago, knowing full well what the implications could be long term

4. Who was making all those mind bogging sunstitutions and playing a clearly out of sorts Ramsey for 70% of last season.

2 seasons ago, it was reported that RVP literally begged Wenger to sign VDV who eventually went to the spuds, evidently Wenger must have not known where to play him aor maybe that would have 'killed" Walcott. Afellay is apparently available now, another player that RVP swears by. If your best players dont believe in your stategy, you will fail

We lost last season to mind boggling defeats to Blackburn, Wigan, Swansea et al and poor displays when there was no one on the bench to change the game, add to that an infuriating incapability to defend on the break. These are sysytemic and endemic deficiencies that have little to do with money and all to do with tactics and training. Our wage bill is not reflective of the quality of our players. Money is not our problem, we are stupid in the way we spend it. We buy shit, caress shit, maintain shit, indulge shit and finally wonder why we look like shit.

A lot of good sensible posts here (shout out at my dawgs Tipsy and the Boss Ricky Ross), but this is still my favourite :gp:

[Fist of Lehmann]

Some of our supporters are behaving in precisely that way, praising our "self sustainable" model of not spending beyond our means, as if this short term sacrifice is necessary and crucial to maintain our long term financial health. This ignores that the fact that we're a football club first and foremost, and securing financial returns should not be the only goal of a football club.

I don't know how many people on GW praise the model of self-sustainability.

This has always been the unified stance of Arsenal's senior management in the face of calls for squad investment. We always spend within our means.

And yet despite the fact that our board contained some of the wealthiest men in Britain, none saw fit to help the club with it's stadium debt. Soft loans or a rights issue could have generated free cash for the club. But the former requires them to put their hands in their own pockets while the latter would perhaps have diluted their shareholding, and consequently their power.

So while beating the "self-sustainability" drum might seem like taking the moral high ground, for all intents and purposes it's more a convinient pretext to raise ticket prices and generate profit from player sales.

With Kroenke now having acquired the board's shares this is unlikely to change, in fact, expect to see the little man squeezed even harder.

And as for that last sentence - securing financial returns should not be the goal of a football club full stop. Financial returns should be a means to an end.

Does it matter if those financial returns come from the footballing business or another business altogether? Outside investment in football is nothing new, but when a club does not have to live with the consequence of it's financial mistakes it can happily throw any amount of money at the problem.

Before the uber-rich, every club had to live within it's means to a degree because no-one had unlimited outside funding. Beyond that it was skill, talent and hard work, all the things you needed to cultivate to succeed. Now success can now simply be bought, just like any commodity. Just like the Premier League trophy.

[Niall_Quinn]

I don't know how many people on GW praise the model of self-sustainability.

This has always been the unified stance of Arsenal's senior management in the face of calls for squad investment. We always spend within our means.

And yet despite the fact that our board contained some of the wealthiest men in Britain, none have saw fit to help the club with it's stadium debt. Soft loans or a rights issue could have generated free cash for the club. But the former requires them to put their hands in their own pockets while the latter would perhaps have diluted their shareholding, and consequently their power.

So while beating the "self-sustainability" drum might seem like taking the moral high ground, for all intents and purposes it's more a convinient pretext to raise ticket prices and generate profit from player sales.

With Kroenke now having acquired the board's shares this is unlikely to change, in fact, expect to see the little man squeezed even harder.

And as for that last sentence - securing financial returns should not be the goal of a football club full stop. Financial returns should be a means to an end.

Does it matter if those financial returns come from the footballing business or another business altogether? Outside investment in football is nothing new, but when a club does not have to live with the consequence of it's financial mistakes it can happily throw any amount of money at the problem.

Before the uber-rich, every club had to live within it's means. Beyond that it was skill, talent and hard work, all the things you need to cultivate to succeed. Now success can now simply be bought, just like any commodity. Just like the Premier League trophy.

:gp:

[Kano]

I don't know how many people on GW praise the model of self-sustainability.

This has always been the unified stance of Arsenal's senior management in the face of calls for squad investment. We always spend within our means.

And yet despite the fact that our board contained some of the wealthiest men in Britain, none saw fit to help the club with it's stadium debt. Soft loans or a rights issue could have generated free cash for the club. But the former requires them to put their hands in their own pockets while the latter would perhaps have diluted their shareholding, and consequently their power.

So while beating the "self-sustainability" drum might seem like taking the moral high ground, for all intents and purposes it's more a convinient pretext to raise ticket prices and generate profit from player sales.

With Kroenke now having acquired the board's shares this is unlikely to change, in fact, expect to see the little man squeezed even harder.

And as for that last sentence - securing financial returns should not be the goal of a football club full stop. Financial returns should be a means to an end.

Does it matter if those financial returns come from the footballing business or another business altogether? Outside investment in football is nothing new, but when a club does not have to live with the consequence of it's financial mistakes it can happily throw any amount of money at the problem.

Before the uber-rich, every club had to live within it's means to a degree because no-one had unlimited outside funding. Beyond that it was skill, talent and hard work, all the things you needed to cultivate to succeed. Now success can now simply be bought, just like any commodity. Just like the Premier League trophy.

Barca and real Madrid have surely lived outside of these financial parameters you mention above for quite some time?

Weren’t the Italians doing the same thing in the the 80s/90s – Lazio, Parma, Fiorentina and of course the traditional big 3?

The difference now is that it has finally arrived on our doorsteps and we finally have to face up to the reality of what it means.

[IBK]

From my reading of this thread it seems that 3 questions are being confused.

1. Are people who lament the kind of spending that the Chavs and Manure are doing snobs?

IMO people who think yes are making a few wrong assumptions. The first that its sour grapes to oppose what the oligarchs are doing, and that we would love it if we were in the same position. I don't think that is right at all. No Gooner would turn his/her nose up at silverware - but most people would agree that something 'earnt' rather than just bought is a lot more satisfying. Does the athlete who dopes feel the same satisfaction of winning gold when he knows that he was unfairly stacking the odds in his favour, than one who wins clean?

And that's ignoring the effect that the Chavs'/Citeh's approach is having on the essence of the game. Noone is saying that they are the first to tip the playing field or gain an advantage over other clubs. Its the extent to which they are doing so that is sapping the essence of the game in a way that has not happened before. If we want to see the top football teams as the EPL's version of the Haarlem Globetrotters - where the point is not competition but simply showcasing the world's best talent then fine - but that's not the game that most people know and love.

2. Is it Citeh's/the Chav's fault that we haven't won stuff? No its not, its our's. But referring to our results against the top 4 teams/or highlighting the other reasons why we haven't won trophies is a bit of a sideshow, really. For me there are 2 questions to be asked. Have the mega bucks made it more difficult for us to compete? Of course they have. Have the affected our ability to compete? Well losing our best players year on year to much richer clubs, and having disaffected players because their agents know that they can refer to the nonsensical wages paid by the likes of Citeh/the Chavs has clearly had a prejudicial effect on AFC.

And whatever Montpellier-style anomalies can be teased out the simple fact is that more £ = more titles. It has been the case over the lifetime of the EPL, incuding when we were in the ascendancy - and it will continue self-evidently to be the case - hence the (correct) charge of buying the league.

3. Are we hypocrites in criticising the moneybags?

On the one hand, yes, because when we were one of those with most muscle, no Gooners looked at the likes of Everton; Sunderland or Bolton and felt that we had benefitted from an unfair advantage. But on the other you do have to look at degree and not just principle. We didn't distort the market like the rich clubs are doing now, and we were still subject to the vagaries of injury; loss of form and pure chance in a way that the rich teams have almost eliminated these days. We were the athletes with the state of the art training facilities; the coaching and the psychiatric conditioning - an advantage for sure. But what we didn't do was dope to guarantee success - which is what is happening now.

[Kano]

From my reading of this thread it seems that 3 questions are being confused.

1. Are people who lament the kind of spending that the Chavs and Manure are doing snobs?

IMO people who think yes are making a few wrong assumptions. The first that its sour grapes to oppose what the oligarchs are doing, and that we would love it if we were in the same position. I don't think that is right at all. No Gooner would turn his/her nose up at silverware - but most people would agree that something 'earnt' rather than just bought is a lot more satisfying. Does the athlete who dopes feel the same satisfaction of winning gold when he knows that he was unfairly stacking the odds in his favour, than one who wins clean?

And that's ignoring the effect that the Chavs'/Citeh's approach is having on the essence of the game. Noone is saying that they are the first to tip the playing field or gain an advantage over other clubs. Its the extent to which they are doing so that is sapping the essence of the game in a way that has not happened before. If we want to see the top football teams as the EPL's version of the Haarlem Globetrotters - where the point is not competition but simply showcasing the world's best talent then fine - but that's not the game that most people know and love.

2. Is it Citeh's/the Chav's fault that we haven't won stuff? No its not, its our's. But referring to our results against the top 4 teams/or highlighting the other reasons why we haven't won trophies is a bit of a sideshow, really. For me there are 2 questions to be asked. Have the mega bucks made it more difficult for us to compete? Of course they have. Have the affected our ability to compete? Well losing our best players year on year to much richer clubs, and having disaffected players because their agents know that they can refer to the nonsensical wages paid by the likes of Citeh/the Chavs has clearly had a prejudicial effect on AFC.

And whatever Montpellier-style anomalies can be teased out the simple fact is that more £ = more titles. It has been the case over the lifetime of the EPL, incuding when we were in the ascendancy - and it will continue self-evidently to be the case - hence the (correct) charge of buying the league.

3. Are we hypocrites in criticising the moneybags?

On the one hand, yes, because when we were one of those with most muscle, no Gooners looked at the likes of Everton; Sunderland or Bolton and felt that we had benefitted from an unfair advantage. But on the other you do have to look at degree and not just principle. We didn't distort the market like the rich clubs are doing now, and we were still subject to the vagaries of injury; loss of form and pure chance in a way that the rich teams have almost eliminated these days. We were the athletes with the state of the art training facilities; the coaching and the psychiatric conditioning - an advantage for sure. But what we didn't do was dope to guarantee success - which is what is happening now.
again, wasn't the market absolute ruined back in the 90s when the italians splurged as much money as possible - wasn't that when transfer fees went out of all proportion?

and i still don't understand this ideal of 'earning' the trophy. the squad at man city have certainly earned their medals, given their effort over the course of a season and are arsenal in any better moral position than city or chelsea really? is it better to 'honestly' market the brand like a whore everywhere possible looking to increase spend per head or 'dishonestly' pump in hundreds of millions - aren't they both horrible means to the same ends?

[Fist of Lehmann]

When considering how money has distorted the player transfer market it's important to bear in mind the one other major contributory factor - the 1995 Bosman Ruling.

Prior to this the movement of players was restricted by owning clubs. Forcing a transfer was impossible, because the owning club could refuse to release a players registration even if the contract had expired.

The Bosman Ruling placed the power, and the money, firmly back in the players hands. So after this, with nothing to limit movement, the most sought after players naturally began ending up at the richest clubs. The super rich clubs of the late 90's and noughties are really the first to capitalise on this unrestricted polarisation.

With players now controlling the market, and money now controlling the players, the significance of being able to pay higher wages than anyone else has only been exaggerated.

We're now in something of a vicious circle. The greed of players and their parasitic agents drive up wages, and 'ambitious' clubs willing to pay the premium drive up greed.

[Kano]

When considering how money has distorted the player transfer market it's important to bear in mind the one other major contributory factor - the 1995 Bosman Ruling.

Prior to this the movement of players was restricted by owning clubs. Forcing a transfer was impossible, because the owning club could refuse to release a players registration even if the contract had expired.

The Bosman Ruling placed the power, and the money, firmly back in the players hands. So after this, with nothing to limit movement, the most sought after players naturally began ending up at the richest clubs. The super rich clubs of the late 90's and noughties are really the first to capitalise on this unrestricted polarisation.

With players now controlling the market, and money now controlling the players, the significance of being able to pay higher wages than anyone else has only been exaggerated.

We're now in something of a vicious circle. The greed of players and their parasitic agents drive up wages, and 'ambitious' clubs willing to pay the premium drive up greed.

I wouldn't isolate it to only players and agents, as they are more opportunists making the most of an affluent industry. bankers were doing the same not too long ago, so the greed is a reflection of society at large, not something born and breed within the game.

you are right about bosman as it 'freed' up transfer money that didn't need to spent on fees, to be put onto wages. by the late 90s the top players were probably on 40/50k a week, which is what a squad player in the prem may earn now. its hard to find a middle ground for clubs and players to feel they have a level of control, the nature of the business almost makes that impossible, thus we get these swings between the two.

whether hazard (as an example) is on 100k after tax or 20k, the amount doesn't really matter. big clubs will always be able to pay more than anyone else and he would always have ended up at one of the biggest payers.

[Fist of Lehmann]

big clubs will always be able to pay more than anyone else and he would always have ended up at one of the biggest payers.Well this is the point I was making, and the real effect of the Bosman Ruling. Rich clubs have always been able to afford the best players, but haven't always been able procure them, because the system precluded it.

Now the richest most unscupulous clubs can acquire or cynically unsettle any player anywhere simply by waving a giant cheque. The selling club must eventually accept it because the power of free movement, to move when and where they want, is now firmly in the hands of the players. And what does anyone do with power? Most often, they use it to feather their own nests.

[Power n Glory]

I don't think we have a leg to stand on with this argument. We do exactly the same with young players or the kids that still hadn't signed a professional contract with their home clubs. We pay higher wages and fees for these kids because we can and it's what convinces them to move.

[Coney]

Up till the Bosman ruling, the price of players was pretty well in the hands of the clubs and they naturally didn't fall over themselves to put the price up. Once Bosman had happened, then top flight football became more obviously a part of the entertainment business. It always was - at least it was for the best part of the last 100 years. So the stars of the entertainment business were freed from the shackles of the club owners and were able to get loadsamoney. In this day and age, 'stars' earnings are massive thanks to agents leaning on employers. As long as audiences turn up and pay for the performances, the stars will continue to be able to claim what they do. It is basic market forces. I don't blame players for accepting what the agents negotiate - would anyone on GW turn down the offer of a pay rise to 100,000 a week? Like hell.

I would like the fair play rule to be workable and be enforced so that at least clubs have to finance themselves by the gate receipts, sponsorship, shirt sales, etc. so that there would be some relation to the level of support. However, with TV distorting the market, we are never going to see what we used to see before. Once upon a time, if you wanted to watch the Arsenal playing a full match (other than a European game or the FA Cup final and semi-final, you had to get off your fat arse and go to the match. Then there was some degree of correlation between the club and the local area - even manu had to work roughly along those lines. Now that the top clubs are more divorced from their local fans than ever before, it is not surprising that the traditional fans are beginning to be priced out of the market and that the clubs are less concerned about pissing off some of the fan base.

[Fist of Lehmann]

I don't think we have a leg to stand on with this argument. We do exactly the same with young players or the kids that still hadn't signed a professional contract with their home clubs. We pay higher wages and fees for these kids because we can and it's what convinces them to move.Maybe not if I were trying to argue that Arsenal are whiter than white.

But that also is not the point. We are exploiting an entirely different rule, that of the minimum age a young player can sign professional terms. The 30k a week we pay the kid doesn't distort the wage market, all it does is hurt us and our ability to move them on afterwards.

Thankfully there seems to be some admission from Gazelleface this week that we've been doing it wrong.

[Kano]

Well this is the point I was making, and the real effect of the Bosman Ruling. Rich clubs have always been able to afford the best players, but haven't always been able procure them, because the system precluded it.

Now the richest most unscupulous clubs can acquire or cynically unsettle any player anywhere simply by waving a giant cheque. The selling club must eventually accept it because the power of free movement, to move when and where they want, is now firmly in the hands of the players. And what does anyone do with power? Most often, they use it to feather their own nests.
we also need to look back at how clubs would operate pre bosman, at how much unequal power they held over players and their careers. granted the shoe is on the other foot but let’s not kid ourselves that clubs weren't just as unsavoury in how they controlled contracts and minimised wages, so that was always going to change at some point – the problem is no one had enough foresight to provide the new legislation with more balance. looking back at the effect on the power shift in the league, the variance of winners has remained quite static since the 80’s, with four different clubs winning the title in that decade, the nineties and three in the 00’s. already this decade there have been two, so how much difference is all this money really making to the domination of those at the top?

strangely enough, the most important area of a club seems to go completely ungoverned as managers can simply walk out on clubs as and when they want.

[Fist of Lehmann]

we also need to look back at how clubs would operate pre bosman, at how much unequal power they held over players and their careers. granted the shoe is on the other foot but let’s not kid ourselves that clubs weren't just as unsavoury in how they controlled contracts and minimised wages, so that was always going to change at some point – the problem is no one had enough foresight to provide the new legislation with more balance. looking back at the effect on the power shift in the league, the variance of winners has remained quite static since the 80’s, with four different clubs winning the title in that decade, the nineties and three in the 00’s. already this decade there have been two, so how much difference is all this money really making to the domination of those at the top?

strangely enough, the most important area of a club seems to go completely ungoverned as managers can simply walk out on clubs as and when they want.UEFA are currently looking at rebalancing the legislation.

And are managers the most important area? It's an article of faith, something that's not really questioned. But the correlation between player wage bill and league position suggests a different picture.

[Power n Glory]

Maybe not if I were trying to argue that Arsenal are whiter than white.

But that also is not the point. We are exploiting an entirely different rule, that of the minimum age a young player can sign professional terms. The 30k a week we pay the kid doesn't distort the wage market, all it does is hurt us and our ability to move them on afterwards.

Thankfully there seems to be some admission from Gazelleface this week that we've been doing it wrong.

It would distort the wage market if what we were doing was actually successful.

[Fist of Lehmann]

It would distort the wage market if what we were doing was actually successful.In other words, what's the difference between Man City inflating wages at the upper level, and us inflating wages at a lower one?

The difference is this. Man City are operating an inflated wage bill, we are operating a normalised one. Like most clubs we still have to balance the books, so if we overpay at the the lower end, we have to underpay at the upper ("underpay" that is, relative to the prevailing wage market).

The only way we could possibly distort the wage market would be to normalise it, which would actually be healthy thing.

It's impossible for this to happen however because market forces always reassert themselves, or, to put it another way, underpaid workers who receive a better offer usually leave.

Our wage structure leaves us vulnerable to poachers because our top players know they could earn 3-4 times more elsewhere. And in few other industries are high performing employees so aggressively head-hunted.

So even if we were successful, the uber-rich would be tapping up our players. And we would spend every summer desperately fighting off wolves and trying to replace the players we would inevitably lose.

Sound familiar? It's already the position our wage structure places us in (minus the success).

[Power n Glory]

In other words, what's the difference between Man City inflating wages at the upper level, and us inflating wages at a lower one?

The difference is this. Man City are operating an inflated wage bill, we are operating a normalised one. Like most clubs we still have to balance the books, so if we overpay at the the lower end, we have to underpay at the upper ("underpay" that is, relative to the prevailing wage market).

The only way we could possibly distort the wage market would be to normalise it, which would actually be healthy thing.

It's impossible for this to happen however because market forces always reassert themselves, or, to put it another way, underpaid workers who receive a better offer usually leave.

Our wage structure leaves us vulnerable to poachers because our top players know they could earn 3-4 times more elsewhere. And in few other industries are high performing employees so aggressively head-hunted.

So even if we were successful, the uber-rich would be tapping up our players. And we would spend every summer desperately fighting off wolves and trying to replace the players we would inevitably lose.

Sound familiar? It's already the position our wage structure places us in (minus the success).

We're not operating on a 'normal' scale compared to the smaller clubs and the only way they'd be able to keep their best players would be through a sugar daddy takeover like City and Chelsea. It's vicious cycle. This isn't new to football. A bigger fish has no entered the pond and we're now feeling a lot smaller.

[Fist of Lehmann]

We're not operating on a 'normal' scale compared to the smaller clubs and the only way they'd be able to keep their best players would be through a sugar daddy takeover like City and Chelsea. It's vicious cycle. This isn't new to football. A bigger fish has no entered the pond and we're now feeling a lot smaller.Not sure what are you talking about. I mean "normalised" as in the disparity between highest and lowest is smaller than usual.

And I mean "distorted" as in changing the naturally occurring shape of the wage market, (i.e the gradient you get when you plot player wage vs player quality).

Trying to portray City or Chelsea as just another layer on top of the food chain is ignoring the fact that they do not have to observe any kind of prudence or operate under the same business rules as anyone else, due to the sheer scale of their wealth. City could buy van Persie, dip him in platinum and drop him off a pier, just to remove him from a rival* team. It wouldn't make the slightest dent in their wealth.

Spending money to most clubs is a risk because it is a finite resource, when you effectively remove the limits you remove the risk. Where is the sport in that?

*Rival in that we took points off them, not rival for the league obv.

[Power n Glory]

Not sure what are you talking about. I mean "normalised" as in the disparity between highest and lowest is smaller than usual.

And I mean "distorted" as in changing the naturally occurring shape of the wage market, (i.e the gradient you get when you plot player wage vs player quality).

Trying to portray City or Chelsea as just another layer on top of the food chain is ignoring the fact that they do not have to observe any kind of prudence or operate under the same business rules as anyone else, due to the sheer scale of their wealth. City could buy van Persie, dip him in platinum and drop him off a pier, just to remove him from a rival* team. It wouldn't make the slightest dent in their wealth.

Spending money to most clubs is a risk because it is a finite resource, when you effectively remove the limits you remove the risk. Where is the sport in that?

*Rival in that we took points off them, not rival for the league obv.

There is no natural occurring shape of the wage market. That's determined by whose willing to pay what and the richest clubs set the bar. Real Madrid set the bar a long time ago during their 'Galactico' phase. From then on it got silly and the gap between the rich clubs and poor widened. City and Chelsea are a symptom of the problem. There is no way for the smaller clubs to compete with the elites because the bigger clubs have always been able to poach their players and set wage fees and transfers way above what they can afford. Where is the sport in that? The system has been unfair for years but we're more vocal now because it feels like we're in a hopeless situation where we can't compete.

[Letters]

There is no natural occurring shape of the wage market. That's determined by whose willing to pay what and the richest clubs set the bar. Real Madrid set the bar a long time ago during their 'Galactico' phase. From then on it got silly and the gap between the rich clubs and poor widened. City and Chelsea are a symptom of the problem. There is no way for the smaller clubs to compete with the elites because the bigger clubs have always been able to poach their players and set wage fees and transfers way above what they can afford. Where is the sport in that? The system has been unfair for years but we're more vocal now because it feels like we're in a hopeless situation where we can't compete.
You say this has 'always' been the case. To an extent, but the differences between the haves and have nots has grown exponentially. Especially since the advent of the Premier League and the rise and rise of the Champions League.

1965 and 1967, Utd were champions. They won the European Cup in 1968. In 1974 they were relegated.
Utd's final positions in the years from 67 to 74 were:
1st, 2nd, 11th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 18th, 21st.

The champions each year were
67 Utd
68 City
69 Leeds
70 Everton
71 Arsenal
72 Derby County
73 Liverpool
74 Leeds

Note that only Leeds won it twice, every other year there was a different champion. There have always been haves and have nots but the gaps between them were such that it was far easier to better oneself as a club, and possible to fall from grace pretty quickly. These days the only way to do it is to do what Chelsea and now City have done. That isn't those clubs' fault but it's a pretty sorry state of affairs. It makes football all too predictable. In the era I'm talking about you didn't know what was going to happen at the start of the season. Now the top 3 for next year is pretty much certain to be the two Manchester clubs and Chelsea. I don't know the order of course but it's a bit sad that before a ball is kicked the top 3 is all but known.

[Power n Glory]

Obviously not always, Letters. But if we have to go that far back to see so many different title holders, then it's obvious this didn't just happen over night with the emergence of Chelsea and City. Let's just say the Premier League era then. Around the mid 90s. It is a sad state of affairs, but then again it isn't. If it wasn't for City and Chelsea, we'd only ever see two teams compete for the title each season.

[Özim]

I've got no problem with a few teams being in and around the top, it's been happening for many years (since the 80's) and as long as we're up there it doesn't really matter.

The problem is that we're really disinterested in being up there, our excuse is "we can't compete"

[AKBapologist]

A few things.

The financial gap between the top 36 teams that are not in the champions league places has shrunk considerably.

- The championship is awash with cash
- Within the EPL, and unlike la ligua, revenue is distributed pretty evenly, due to balanced TV rights and parachute payments to relegated EPL clubs.
- The champions league spaces however, distort the balance not just in TV revenue, but in sponsorship deals, prize money and (more games @ class A) ticket revenue.
- People complain about Real and Barca, but they still have dept, and have vastly reduced there yearly spending over the last year or so.

Really, this all began with Chelsea, now we have random teams like Malaga offering £200k per week contracts like candy. EVEN if players choose clubs for footballing reasons, this massive wage inflation will persist and influence clubs at all levels in the EPL and below.

[Niall_Quinn]

Obviously not always, Letters. But if we have to go that far back to see so many different title holders, then it's obvious this didn't just happen over night with the emergence of Chelsea and City. Let's just say the Premier League era then. Around the mid 90s. It is a sad state of affairs, but then again it isn't. If it wasn't for City and Chelsea, we'd only ever see two teams compete for the title each season.

That's about right. Each time a new level of elitism has been introduced the competition has declined, the playing field has tipped more in favour of the few. There was nothing wrong with the old 4 division system. It was changed so our game could be gradually brought into line with the European leagues. Then the Champions League replaced the Euro Cup (again there was nothing wrong with the European Cup). Next will be the exclusive and locked down Euro League that finally sees the death of our old Division #1 and English football as we remember it.

Who has benefited?

1. The clubs.
2. The players.
3. The agents.
4. TV companies.
5. Corrupt football authorities.

Who is missing from the list?

If I wasn't such an optimist I'd say we are delighted with an unbroken string of CL appearances because it's our ticket to the big time, a hateful, hateful Euro league where there's no promotion or relegation. This is what some of the greedy few have already been pressing for isn't it? This was the threat that provoked the thin end of the wedge in the shape of the PL.

Commercialism never improved anything, but it always ends up killing everything. "They" say it's the way it has to be, modern world an all that shit and they present this inevitability as if all of human history beforehand doesn't fly right in the face of their bullshit. The more money you let into the game the worse it will get. Let unlimited cash in and it will be infinitely fucked up in the end.

[Letters]

I've got no problem with a few teams being in and around the top, it's been happening for many years (since the 80's) and as long as we're up there it doesn't really matter.
That's a bit like the fat cats saying that the system might not be 'right' but they're all right, Jack, so what does it matter?


The problem is that we're really disinterested in being up there, our excuse is "we can't compete"
Why would we be disinterested in being up there? Even if you think that our board is only interested in money, being "up there" generates money and we've just finished 3rd again.

[Power n Glory]

A few things.

The financial gap between the top 36 teams that are not in the champions league places has shrunk considerably.

- The championship is awash with cash
- Within the EPL, and unlike la ligua, revenue is distributed pretty evenly, due to balanced TV rights and parachute payments to relegated EPL clubs.
- The champions league spaces however, distort the balance not just in TV revenue, but in sponsorship deals, prize money and (more games @ class A) ticket revenue.
- People complain about Real and Barca, but they still have dept, and have vastly reduced there yearly spending over the last year or so.

Really, this all began with Chelsea, now we have random teams like Malaga offering £200k per week contracts like candy. EVEN if players choose clubs for footballing reasons, this massive wage inflation will persist and influence clubs at all levels in the EPL and below.

The day Malaga win the Spanish league and Champions League is the day when Fifa and UEFA will clamp down on this. As soon as it starts to effect their beloved institutionalised clubs they'll cry foul because it's effecting the establishment. When in truth, this issue should have been looked into years ago.

[Niall_Quinn]

Don't forget the Russian and Arab big-shots have milked entire nations to bag their loot. Our lot may be robbing one set of fans blind but they have some way to go before they grab the wealth of a nation and call it their own. Our lot are shady money grabbing fucks but if we cut to the chase and gave them all our money, our homes and possessions I don't imagine they'd have a problem giving a bit back in terms of investment so they could pretend they were the good guys.

[Niall_Quinn]

The day Malaga win the Spanish league and Champions League is the day when Fifa and UEFA will clamp down on this. As soon as it starts to effect their beloved institutionalised clubs they'll cry foul because it's effecting the establishment. When in truth, this issue should have been looked into years ago.

The day Man Utd stuck two fingers up to the FA Cup and ran off chasing money is when this should have been clamped down on. That was about as big a signal as you could get to predict what was going to happen next.

You might be surprised at how quickly Malaga could buy legitimacy. City have done it.

[Kano]

You say this has 'always' been the case. To an extent, but the differences between the haves and have nots has grown exponentially. Especially since the advent of the Premier League and the rise and rise of the Champions League.

1965 and 1967, Utd were champions. They won the European Cup in 1968. In 1974 they were relegated.
Utd's final positions in the years from 67 to 74 were:
1st, 2nd, 11th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 18th, 21st.

The champions each year were
67 Utd
68 City
69 Leeds
70 Everton
71 Arsenal
72 Derby County
73 Liverpool
74 Leeds

Note that only Leeds won it twice, every other year there was a different champion. There have always been haves and have nots but the gaps between them were such that it was far easier to better oneself as a club, and possible to fall from grace pretty quickly. These days the only way to do it is to do what Chelsea and now City have done. That isn't those clubs' fault but it's a pretty sorry state of affairs. It makes football all too predictable. In the era I'm talking about you didn't know what was going to happen at the start of the season. Now the top 3 for next year is pretty much certain to be the two Manchester clubs and Chelsea. I don't know the order of course but it's a bit sad that before a ball is kicked the top 3 is all but known.

it's interesting that you choose that specific period as a counterpoint example to today's situation. From what I can see 4 teams won in the 80's, 4 in the 90's, 3 in the 00's and 3 so far in this decade - will that mean 8 years of man u, chelsea and city winning the league, before only two win it from 2020 onwards?

there seems to be a trend in those figures but club domination is symptomatic of the competitive nature of sport when given the opportunity to use whatever available legal tools exist. like you said, there have always been haves and have nots and there will always be a cycle where the gap grows to an unsustainable level before it has to regroup and start all over again. the journey on the road to the citys and chelseas started when the leagues were first formed and only when the bubble bursts will there be any degree of across the field parity again.

[Kano]

Don't forget the Russian and Arab big-shots have milked entire nations to bag their loot. Our lot may be robbing one set of fans blind but they have some way to go before they grab the wealth of a nation and call it their own. Our lot are shady money grabbing fucks but if we cut to the chase and gave them all our money, our homes and possessions I don't imagine they'd have a problem giving a bit back in terms of investment so they could pretend they were the good guys.
wouldn't that be worse, smile whilst holding your arm behind your back? i'm sure you'd agree, it's all a level of degrees when it comes to the money hungry, how far they'd be willing to go to make more. yet, is it only legislation that stops not only the brand 'thought leaders' at our club but those across every big team from reaching the esteemed heights these billionaire owners have managed to secure? i can't separate the two, so i have to box them together in a place where i can watch them, aware that their intentions do not match mine when it comes to football so i can concentrate on the game between 22 guys doing all they can to win a very simple game.

[Kano]

That's about right. Each time a new level of elitism has been introduced the competition has declined, the playing field has tipped more in favour of the few. There was nothing wrong with the old 4 division system. It was changed so our game could be gradually brought into line with the European leagues. Then the Champions League replaced the Euro Cup (again there was nothing wrong with the European Cup). Next will be the exclusive and locked down Euro League that finally sees the death of our old Division #1 and English football as we remember it.

Who has benefited?

1. The clubs.
2. The players.
3. The agents.
4. TV companies.
5. Corrupt football authorities.

Who is missing from the list?

If I wasn't such an optimist I'd say we are delighted with an unbroken string of CL appearances because it's our ticket to the big time, a hateful, hateful Euro league where there's no promotion or relegation. This is what some of the greedy few have already been pressing for isn't it? This was the threat that provoked the thin end of the wedge in the shape of the PL.

Commercialism never improved anything, but it always ends up killing everything. "They" say it's the way it has to be, modern world an all that shit and they present this inevitability as if all of human history beforehand doesn't fly right in the face of their bullshit. The more money you let into the game the worse it will get. Let unlimited cash in and it will be infinitely fucked up in the end.
i'm not convinced a euro league will take place, as the money will always flow to the top, so despite no relegation a disparity between teams in that league will develop over time. money is one thing but ego is another, so why would an owner of a euro league team that finished last want to pitch up at a post season conference with the other 19 other owners in a better position? money and ego go hand in hand, so being part of an exclusive club is nice for a while but if you can be the king of a smaller patch on a big wallet, how many would twist?

from a sponsors perspective i also think there is more incentive to pay more for exclusivity in a particular country, branding across the chest/hoarding/managers jacket of a champion from that league, or with one of the other big teams there. if you are nike for example, you would pay more to the champs of a euro league than you would a team that doesn't win it for a few years. seeing as it would be a league across the europe region, the target audience for the sponsors would have to be more specific, which would be reflected in their payments looking for a return.

[Fist of Lehmann]

There is no natural occurring shape of the wage market. That's determined by whose willing to pay what and the richest clubs set the bar. Real Madrid set the bar a long time ago during their 'Galactico' phase. From then on it got silly and the gap between the rich clubs and poor widened. City and Chelsea are a symptom of the problem. There is no way for the smaller clubs to compete with the elites because the bigger clubs have always been able to poach their players and set wage fees and transfers way above what they can afford. Where is the sport in that? The system has been unfair for years but we're more vocal now because it feels like we're in a hopeless situation where we can't compete.By "naturally occurring" I mean the way in which players tend to get paid what they're worth. Considering the correlation between wage bill and final league position the natural conclusion is that overall wage bill is a very good indicator of squad quality, and that squad quality is the deciding factor in where you finish.

This is possible because the conditions for an efficient wage market are all there.

Transparency, i.e. football players conduct their business in full view of millions, everyone can see how good a player you are, and players and agents pretty much know how much their peers earn.

Transferability, i.e. their are lots of buyers and sellers, and players are able to move freely between clubs.

Therefore if a player performs above his wages he will either agitate for a wage increase or agitate for a transfer (on higher wages).
If a player performs at a level below where his wages suggest, he will tend to fall out of the team, be sold or agitate for a move elsewhere.

In this way players "naturally" will tend to gravitate to their proper wage and, we know this happens because otherwise the correlation could not exist.

A distortion then would if you overpaid players relative to their abilities.

Oh what is the point.

[Power n Glory]

By "naturally occurring" I mean the way in which players tend to get paid what they're worth. Considering the correlation between wage bill and final league position the natural conclusion is that overall wage bill is a very good indicator of squad quality, and that squad quality is the deciding factor in where you finish.

This is possible because the conditions for an efficient wage market are all there.

Transparency, i.e. football players conduct their business in full view of millions, everyone can see how good a player you are, and players and agents pretty much know how much their peers earn.

Transferability, i.e. their are lots of buyers and sellers, and players are able to move freely between clubs.

Therefore if a player performs above his wages he will either agitate for a wage increase or agitate for a transfer (on higher wages).
If a player performs at a level below where his wages suggest, he will tend to fall out of the team, be sold or agitate for a move elsewhere.

In this way players "naturally" will tend to gravitate to their proper wage and, we know this happens because otherwise the correlation could not exist.

A distortion then would if you overpaid players relative to their abilities.

Oh what is the point.

But we overpay our young players and it's based on potential while also trying to ward off poachers so I disagree with that. It has nothing to do with our league position, their worth or talent. It's all based on potential and bribery if we can call it that. That's what City are doing now. They pay higher wages because it convinces players that would normally go to Real Madrid to join them. There is nothing natural about the market and you can't blame everything on City for that. Before City and Chelsea came on the scene, we'd get into disputes with our players over our wage structure. Vieira, Pires, Henry and co weren't earning anywhere near as much as their counterparts at Man United and that used to piss them off. The fact that we have a wage structure in place defeats this whole idea of 'natural wage shape' anyway.

[Fist of Lehmann]

But we overpay our young players and it's based on potential while also trying to ward off poachers so I disagree with that. It has nothing to do with our league position, their worth or talent. It's all based on potential and bribery if we can call it that. That's what City are doing now. They pay higher wages because it convinces players that would normally go to Real Madrid to join them. There is nothing natural about the market and you can't blame everything on City for that. Before City and Chelsea came on the scene, we'd get into disputes with our players over our wage structure. Vieira, Pires, Henry and co weren't earning anywhere near as much as their counterparts at Man United and that used to piss them off. The fact that we have a wage structure in place defeats this whole idea of 'natural wage shape' anyway.Sorry PnG. You're not really getting it and I'm starting to bore even myself so I'm not going to respond to that.