Financial fair play my arse.

[Letters]

What did people expect exactly? Stuff like this was always going to happen people who thought any different must have been the ones saying Chelsea wil be f*cked when Abrahmovic leaves, hasn't left yet and doesn't appear to have any intention to.

Chelsea would have been f*cked had Abrahmovic left. The fact he didn't doesn't invalidate that.

Would you like us to be a billionaire's plaything too? Screw that.
If football is just about who has the biggest chequebook (and it increasingly is) then it's no longer a sport I'd want to follow (and it increasingly isn't).

If you're happy to cheer silverware bought with a billionaire's money like the knuckly draggers at City and Chelsea then good luck to you. It's as empty as buying a degree off the internet and then putting the framed certificate on your wall.

[IBK]

Chelsea would have been f*cked had Abrahmovic left. The fact he didn't doesn't invalidate that.

Would you like us to be a billionaire's plaything too? Screw that.
If football is just about who has the biggest chequebook (and it increasingly is) then it's no longer a sport I'd want to follow (and it increasingly isn't).

If you're happy to cheer silverware bought with a billionaire's money like the knuckly draggers at City and Chelsea then good luck to you. It's as empty as buying a degree off the internet and then putting the framed certificate on your wall.

Yup. That just about sums it up! Despite the viewing figures, football's dying on its arse. Its losing what makes it such a draw - the atmosphere; the loyalties; the heritage. Fans are putting up with it for now - but I see the financial doping; and mercenary approach by players going only one way - and that is to make ever growing numbers of ordinary ticket buying fans like us feel increasingly like you describe. I reckon I care 50% less about my team than I did 10 years ago - and that's not just getting older - its just that all the bullshit squeezes the enthusiasm out of you...

[AKBapologist]

Would rather billionaires payed for success than fans paying for... Not an awful lot really. Just saying.

[KSE Comedy Club]

Chelsea would have been f*cked had Abrahmovic left. The fact he didn't doesn't invalidate that.

Would you like us to be a billionaire's plaything too? Screw that.
If football is just about who has the biggest chequebook (and it increasingly is) then it's no longer a sport I'd want to follow (and it increasingly isn't).

If you're happy to cheer silverware bought with a billionaire's money like the knuckly draggers at City and Chelsea then good luck to you. It's as empty as buying a degree off the internet and then putting the framed certificate on your wall.

Whilst I do agree with you there letters, I wouldnt say it was quite as easy as that.

At the end of the day, a billionaire can come in and buy all the best players in the world to try and win the PL, CL etc, but unless they have the most points after 38 games they will walk away with nothing. Even though Citeh are scummy cunts, they have only managed an FA cup win and a CL spot for a princely sum of £230 odd million and rising.

The players still have to turn up and turn it on each week to get anywhere near winning. I used to think the same with Chelsea, but they still had to put the work in to win anything. Of course they wouldnt be where they are now without the money, but, it is what it is.

Thats the rub I suppose. Most people wanted the PL to be more competitive, rather than being a top 2 or top 4. Now we have a possible top 5 or 6 - mainly because of the extra money.

Its a real shame that its going that way, but it seems like its the only way we can get there now.

[Niall_Quinn]

Would rather billionaires payed for success than fans paying for... Not an awful lot really. Just saying.

Exactly right. Otherwise why are they involved in the game at all? Just to make a profit? In which case, how can their presence be good for the club? In football terms? Also there are many degrees between buying success and what we currently do, avoid investment in the playing side at all costs. Some people are asking for the rich guy to dig in his pocket and make a few key signings that will fill the gaping holes in the team. For example, it's high time we had a defence, every other team has one and I don't think it's unreasonable for the fans of Arsenal to want one too. But when it's suggested we match our spending to our ambitions, run a smart transfer policy, play to the realities of the league we are in rather than wander off on some idealistic Spanish fantasy, the rehearsed response from the ostriches is to roll out Abramovich and proclaim we don't want his sort here.

[Master Splinter]

Chelsea would have been f*cked had Abrahmovic left. The fact he didn't doesn't invalidate that.

Would you like us to be a billionaire's plaything too? Screw that.
If football is just about who has the biggest chequebook (and it increasingly is) then it's no longer a sport I'd want to follow (and it increasingly isn't).

If you're happy to cheer silverware bought with a billionaire's money like the knuckly draggers at City and Chelsea then good luck to you. It's as empty as buying a degree off the internet and then putting the framed certificate on your wall.

Although it's time for you to retire the "buying a degree off the internet line". It's become the new "Free market fundamentalists" tbh.

[Letters]

Exactly right. Otherwise why are they involved in the game at all? Just to make a profit? In which case, how can their presence be good for the club? In football terms? Also there are many degrees between buying success and what we currently do, avoid investment in the playing side at all costs. Some people are asking for the rich guy to dig in his pocket and make a few key signings that will fill the gaping holes in the team. For example, it's high time we had a defence, every other team has one and I don't think it's unreasonable for the fans of Arsenal to want one too. But when it's suggested we match our spending to our ambitions, run a smart transfer policy, play to the realities of the league we are in rather than wander off on some idealistic Spanish fantasy, the rehearsed response from the ostriches is to roll out Abramovich and proclaim we don't want his sort here.

You were doing well till the last bit which is rubbish.
EVERYONE on here thinks Wenger could and should have spent more. I've not seen a single person argue differently.
As for the defence, IMO the problem there is coaching, not the players. The way we concede goals (long straight balls, set pieces) shows poor defensive organisation, I don't think signing big would improve that.
And the assertion that we "avoid investment in the playing side at all costs", don't we have one of the highest wage bills in the country? Isn't that investing in the playing side? But as I said, pretty much everyone thinks we should have spent more in the transfer market too.

[Özim]

Chelsea would have been f*cked had Abrahmovic left. The fact he didn't doesn't invalidate that.

Would you like us to be a billionaire's plaything too? Screw that.
If football is just about who has the biggest chequebook (and it increasingly is) then it's no longer a sport I'd want to follow (and it increasingly isn't).

If you're happy to cheer silverware bought with a billionaire's money like the knuckly draggers at City and Chelsea then good luck to you. It's as empty as buying a degree off the internet and then putting the framed certificate on your wall.

That's true but it never happened.

As for a billionaire's play thing, as someone said it's better for an owner to pay up than the fans, right now the fans are paying for the privilege of making the board richer and richer whilst getting very little back.

If a fan came in who happened to have a lot of money I'm not sure it would be worse than what we put up with, which includes being belittled and patronised by the manager and the board.

Abrahmovic hasn't done a bad job (you won't find many Chelsea fans complaining), Chelsea do have respect from most in the football world nowadays and he's still there trying to keep them at the top.

I'm not saying it would be my chosen route, but don't delude yourself into thinking we're better off because we have taken the morally superior route whilst getting screwed over by a board not interested in success and yet willing to charge the highest prices around whilst investing next to nothing.

It's all very good taking this route if there is some sort of sensible plan to compete (and it can't be done without spending 50 million on a player), fact is the club manager and board take the fans for granted and treat them like nobodies whilst bleeding them dry, more fool you if you think this is a good way to run a football club.

[Boss]

Arsene Wenger believes Manchester City's new sponsorship deal threatens to undermine the credibility of UEFA's Financial Fair Play plan.

UEFA president Michel Platini is bringing in rules to prevent clubs spending beyond their means and limiting the contributions of wealthy owners, and it was felt that City - who lack the marketing appeal of the likes of Real Madrid and Manchester United - would struggle to comply with the regulations.

However, City have been boosted by their the record sponsorship deal with Etihad Airlines, which sees the stadium renamed, the shirt sponsorship extended, and the company given input into a forthcoming training centre close to the ground close to the stadium.

Reports have put the value of the deal between £300 million and £400 million. With Etihad being Abu Dhabi's airline, and City owner Sheikh Mansour coming from the capital of the United Arab Emirates, some have suggested the figure has been artificially inflated.

Arsenal agreed a far inferior sponsorship deal with Emirates airline in 2004, and Wenger believes the apparent enormity of City's agreement indicates an attempt to get around the UEFA regulations.

"It raises the real question about the credibility of the Financial Fair Play," he said. "They give us the message that they can get around it by doing what they want. The difficulty and the credibility of the Financial Fair Play is at stake.

"If Financial Fair Play is to have a chance, the sponsorship has to be at the market price. It cannot be doubled, tripled or quadrupled. If they bring the rules in they have to be respected.

"He [Platini] is very strongly determined on that. He is not stupid, he knows that some clubs will try to get around that.

"At the moment I believe they are studying, behind closed doors, how they can really strongly check it. That is his big test."

A City spokesman has since denied the deal is as valuable as claimed and dismissed Wenger's remarks as "unfounded and regrettable".

"The financial details of the comprehensive agreement announced last week between Manchester City and Etihad Airways remain confidential and figures being speculated about are not accurate," a club spokesman said.

"Manchester City is a pro-active member of the European Clubs Association and is working actively and with transparency with regard to Financial Fair Play. In light of these facts, recent comments about the partnership by some observers are unfounded and regrettable."

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...bility?cc=4716

[AKBapologist]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...gulations.html