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.

[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.

[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.

[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.