News: [R] 2010-11 English Football Thread (Prem, Champ, L1, L2) :: Crew Forums

I don't know if I agree with this. I understand part of their situation with the owners lend to every top player in the world being every top player is linked to them but they are spending a ton of money each year. They are going to continue to buy players with high price tags.

I looked up Man. City's dealings since the new ownership took over in '08. All amounts are in pounds

08' - Purchased - 127,700,00
08- Sold- 9,800.00
08' Difference- -117,900,000

09' Purchased- 125,000,000
09' Sold- 26,000,000
09 Difference- 99,000,000

10 Purchased - 154,750,000
10 Sold- 28,250,000
10 Difference -126,500,000

I went back further when looking at Chelski

For time purposes here is the difference between bought and sold.
03- -153,350,000
04- -47,150,000
05- -91,100,000
06- +3,800,000
07- -7,500,000
08- +10,800,000
09- -17,500,000
10- -87,300,000

Looking at the transfer amounts would suggest City is actually buying at the same rate as Chelsea. Chelsea from 06-08 actually made money off of selling players.

 

Answer: They're both shite.

 

Quoted because you ended up being 100% correct.

 

Well, I was quite clear in stating that Man City are spending bucketfulls of cash in order to achieve success. The difference between them and Chelsea is that their owner is somewhat rational and has some modicum of patience. The sacking of Ancelotti indicates, at least to me, that Abramovich is simply insane.

What's wrong with Manchester City?

No, seriously. They're a club with tremendous support, a fanbase that endured them being relegated twice in the space of f few years yet continued to turn up by the tens of thousands for every match. If I'm not mistaken, attendance actually went up after one relegation. Why shouldn't they get their turn? If you want to start complaining about how rich clubs are ruining the sport, you should have started about 20 years ago, around the time Sky invented football.

 

Stopped clocks. Twice a day. Yada yada...

 

Funny how Crew fans are desperate to buy a big name talent yet clubs like Chelsea that do buy big named talent are the raked over the coals.

You just wish Fulham would spend a little cash.

 

Nah, for better or worse, I've always preferred the underdog.

 

As long as the underdog has little or no chance of ever achieving success. Isn't that hairshirt a tad uncomfortable while standing in the terraces?

 

On occasion, but it just makes those times that your team does the unexpected feel special. See also:

Crew: 2008 Supporter's Shield and MLS Cup

Fulham: 2009/10 Europa League finalists


I wonder how many ManU fans will be "disappointed" if they don't top Barca and "only" win the league this season...

 

There is a certain amount of disappointment when your team hits the field and loses, especially in a cup game. I wouldn't expect Man U fans to be celebrating a loss.

I expect Chelsea to bring in some new blood and get rid of the chaff from this season. Anyone want Anelka?

 

Man U is no different from Chelsea or Man City. Nani, Hernandez, Van der Sar, Vidic, Evra, Ronaldo, Berbatov, Anderson something tells me that those names didnt go through the Man U academy.

 

Malouda MUST go. If only one player can be sold, he would be my choice with no hesitation.

This team is lacking wingers. The only semblance of one in the squad is Zhirkov. Maybe that was just Carlo's style, but I doubt it.

 

Well actually Man U has roughly spend 190,000,000 pounds more than they have sold since 1993. During that same Chelsea and Man City have a deficit of about 490,000,000 pounds.

300 million is a significant amount of investment into the squad.

 

No one's going to argue that Chelsea hasn't spent a lot. Until the Torres buy, however, they really hadn't spent any more extravagantly than other major clubs in a few seasons.

 

I agree that Man U isnt as bad as Chelsea or Man City in terms of spending but they are not the english Ajax or Porto. They buy championships they are just wiser with their investments.

 

I agree 100% with you here. I just wanted to show the difference in these teams in terms of spending. Chelsea and Man City have spent roughly the same amount since 93 which is strange to think.

Little side note since 93 Arsenal have only spent $42,000,000 more than they have sold.

 

Is that it? Only $42 million? Is that in GBP or USD ($84 million)? Well, for God's sake, no wonder their barely able to keep up....

 

Sorry those are pounds. All the figures I have put out today are pounds.

 

The difference between Manu and Arsenal, and Man City and Chelsea, is that they are working within their means.

Arsenal have tightened the purse strings for whatever reason and have basically lucked out with a manager that has an eye for talent at a young age and can bring them through. Man U are a global brand that make shit loads of cash from the Middle East and Asian markets. Two tours of North America in two years seems that they are focusing on this market too now. Also, Fergie is buying wiser now, picking up a young Mexican talent before his stock rises, same with the other young non-english players.

Chelsea and Man City are putting in private investment to buy players. They are going marketing traction for being big, but can not compare with the history and reach of the Manchester United brand.

 

United lost 79 million pounds in 09-10
Chelsea lost 78 million pounds in 09-10

United- "United's gross debt has fallen to £477.7m, although this is thought to be a direct result of a conversion to sterling of money owed in dollars, which is weak against the pound."

Chelsea- "According to the latest accounts of Chelsea Limited, the company which owns the football club, Chelsea owed £736m to all its creditors. United's (Manchester) accounts, also recently filed at Companies House, showed total creditors at £764m. Those unprecedented figures will fuel concern that at this time of English football's greatest club triumph its clubs are carrying too much debt."

Also 578 million of Chelsea's debt comes from Abramovich so compared to United's debt being from outside lenders. Which basically means United pay roughly 80 mill in interest every season while Chelsea can use that money on players since Abramovich is not charging himself interest.

The Financial Fair Play rules will unlikely exclude either team from Europe. Both teams are carrying huge debt.

 

I do not understand these headlines about "the race to sign Friedel."

What?

 

He's out of contract, and Liverpool and (I think) Spurs want to sign him as a backup. Also, maybe Schalke.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/24/football-transfer-rumours-liverpool

 

I love Brad Friedel. Dude was hero to me when I was plying my trade as a HS/College GK. So, I feel I can say this with objectivity.

Will Friedel's ego allow him to be a backup?

 

While I have no dog in the fight, if I were a Spurs fan, the thought of Brad Friedel backing up that train wreck of a keeper they have would seem laughable. He'd be a backup for about all of the first 5 minutes of preseason drills.

 

If Liverpool pays him a ton of money, sure, why not?