Arsenal Thread

Am I the only one who thinks Hazard is a little overrated? No doubt he is a great player. Talented, explosive, and relentless.

But all this hype is making it out as he is the next best thing. I think he will be successful wherever he ends up and will probably break in to the starting 11. But I don't believe he will create such a massive difference such as a (I know this is cliche) Messi or Ronaldo.

Do all these teams really believe Hazard will turn out to be such a prolific player that it will boost them clearly beyond their competitors?

For me, he is not better than Mata, who created such a less fuss during last transfer season. Even, I watched both Hazard and Axel Witsel twice against my home team last season. For me, Witsel was just as good if not even more talented, but I guess Witsel may have some concentration problems from what I sense about his attitude on the pitch.

In short, I think there are so many players who have a similar calibre that of Hazard, but they are transferred to much less reputable clubs with 1/10th of the competition and hype.
 
Last edited:
Well This year he had a break out season...he scored 20 goal and 15assist setting himself up from a tricky winger to a goalscorer and playmaker thats complete the final balls! I think he have great talent and only getting better and better!. TBH hes having a similar developpement as Ronaldo. Who begin hes ManU career as a tricky winger beating defenders to a club best goalscorer
 
Hazard can't play for united, chelsea or city... they have players in his position, if he thinks a lil' bit the best choice is arsenal. He will be in a few years one of the best in the world no doubt. I think the same with axel witsel and kevin de bruyne, belgium have a nice team... great players in all the positions.
 
Icaro said:
Hazard can't play for united, chelsea or city... they have players in his position, if he thinks a lil' bit the best choice is arsenal. He will be in a few years one of the best in the world no doubt. I think the same with axel witsel and kevin de bruyne, belgium have a nice team... great players in all the positions.
Click to expand...

That nice team just had another abysmal match against Montenegro: 2-2 in a home match (and one of their goals was blatant off-side although they got 2 perfectly valid goals disallowed too, but somehow this team does not seem to click).

Hazard will go to either Man Utd or Chelsea. Arsenal has never been in the picture, or else Arsenal played it very, very good because nobody suspected that they had a chance for Hazard.
 
gerd said:
That nice team just had another abysmal match against Montenegro: 2-2 in a home match (and one of their goals was blatant off-side although they got 2 perfectly valid goals disallowed too, but somehow this team does not seem to click).

Hazard will go to either Man Utd or Chelsea. Arsenal has never been in the picture, or else Arsenal played it very, very good because nobody suspected that they had a chance for Hazard.
Click to expand...

Yes i think the same... the DT can make a better team i think, really don't understand why nainggolan is out of the pitch, the same with de bruyne, kompany, vermaelen... or why he put de camargo :s the problem is the DT.

Any transfer news about arsenal today?
 
De Bruyne, Kompany and Vermaelen where all injured (like Dembele).
De Camargo is't such a bad choice IMO, Lukaku and Benteke could also play, but Lukaku has no match rhythm and although Benteke was the player in form in the Jupiler League, he is sometimes brilliant but also often clumsy. Benteke is a very good friend of Hazard and i guess we will see him play more often when Hazard becomes the leader of the team (which he isn't now).

We just have a new DT, the match against Montenegro was his first one...
About nainggolan, he is a player i scarcely see, he has played one match with the national team and that was a catastrophical one. You can't judge a player after one match, but we have Fellaini and Vertonghen as DMF, Witsel and Defour as CMF, De Bruyne and Hazard as AMF...IMO they are all better than Nainggolan (but i might be wrong).
 
Look like Hazard joined Chelsea...Im so disapoint of him... Did he really joined a Club like CHELSEA? anyway lets move on now ^=p
 
well... chelsea always do the same with us... mata, cahill, and now hazard, a shame for him, will be the most hated player in the EPL i think xd
 
To be honest I think it probably makes sense, they are in the champions league and they will definately be strengthening over the summer and spending alot of money doing so. Abramovich won't have liked Chelsea finishing 6th and will be doing all he can to change that.

Whereas I think Arsenal will strengthen, but there are still so many question marks as to what positions/players and if Van Persie stays etc and we of course won't spend as much as Chelsea can, so it makes Arsenal a less desirable choice....and he gets paid more at Chelsea.

Anyway hopefully Arsenal can prove people wrong by finally winning something next season and making some good buys over the summer...we will see :DD
 
arseblog calculated the whole expense of the deal to arround 80 million pounds (not euros)
i know it is not official yet and the numbers are estimates, BUT this is crazy! something has to be done about this. this is Zidane monney, a confirmed player when the price was paid for him.
i know other clubs have more money and will have and will spend more than us, but this is not envy or the sort, this is becoming a circus.
it's like the Barca and Real situations, getting bail out money from the Government whileSpain is in the gutter.

I'm not a socialist, but governments should keep to them selves and more fairness should be ensure in this market. otherwise trophies and achievements will be monopolized by a few mega-rich.

occupy the pitch! :)
 
Last edited:
According to Arseblog the transfer fee itself should be around £32m. With the 6% fee to his agent (the easiest money a man can make), plus his salary is rumoured to be £200K a week, in what could be a 4 year deal. These are Arseblog's assumptions which amounted to the total of £80m. Zidane's fee alone was something around £60? But anyway, Zidane is Zidane!

But I agree with the whole point, this is far beyond ridiculous. This kind of fee is similar to what Barcelona paid to have Fabregas back. Also, a kid of his age earning £200k a week? It's not good for his character, as a player. After this fat contract, where does he go from that. We don't know him personally, but If he's not down to earth, can you imagine what that money does to someone his age? Will he think he made the grade? Will it hurt his ambitions?
Even if he does brilliantly over there over 3 or 4 years, how will he be rewarded? A £400k a week contract maybe?
I mean, where does it all end?

At the moment Abramovich and Sheik Mansour see their clubs as an extension of their cocks - and they're on full on competition mode right now.

Arsenal is blown out of the water there, that's hardly news. But apparently so is Man Utd! Some 7 or 8 years ago none of us could entertain this thought, could we?

This is death of football in its course.
 
I agree with you rentboy, but on the other hand you are rather selective, the difference between Arsenal and the average Belgian or Dutch club is much bigger than the financial gap between Arsenal and Chelsea/Man City.

That is also unfair. I never heard you complain about that.

As for Hazard, would you say no to such a (ridiculous) salary? No you wouldn't, nobody would. Hazard is not to blame, even Mansour and Abramovich are not to blame. The traditional clubs are to blame, they formed a sort of cartel throughout Europe and make it extremely difficult for outside clubs. Having a rich sugar daddy is the only way to break through the glass ceiling. I have absolutely nothing against Chelsea or Man City, they are the logical consequence of what happened during the 90's and the 00's. And Arsenal is among the clubs to blame about that...(as are all the other traditional big clubs). Nobody can blame clubs like Chelsea and Man City to try and break in, that is the essence of sports.
You will say that they are acting unfair? Yes, but so did the traditional big clubs.

In short: everybody is against sugar daddies unless the sugar daddy puts his money in their favourite club.
 
gerd said:
I agree with you rentboy, but on the other hand you are rather selective, the difference between Arsenal and the average Belgian or Dutch club is much bigger than the financial gap between Arsenal and Chelsea/Man City.

That is also unfair. I never heard you complain about that.

As for Hazard, would you say no to such a (ridiculous) salary? No you wouldn't, nobody would. Hazard is not to blame, even Mansour and Abramovich are not to blame. The traditional clubs are to blame, they formed a sort of cartel throughout Europe and make it extremely difficult for outside clubs. Having a rich sugar daddy is the only way to break through the glass ceiling. I have absolutely nothing against Chelsea or Man City, they are the logical consequence of what happened during the 90's and the 00's. And Arsenal is among the clubs to blame about that...(as are all the other traditional big clubs). Nobody can blame clubs like Chelsea and Man City to try and break in, that is the essence of sports.
You will say that they are acting unfair? Yes, but so did the traditional big clubs.

In short: everybody is against sugar daddies unless the sugar daddy puts his money in their favourite club.
Click to expand...

That's a great post mate.

While the traditional monopoly was running, none of the rumblings were heard. I hate missing out on the big players too - however, it's a piece of humble pie some of the traditionalists have to eat.

Not so long ago, the 'big clubs' were mooting a supposed European Super League - of the supposed super clubs to breakaway from UEFA and have more control of money in the game, and robbing the public of watching these clubs in their domestic leagues - and possibly more money to be forked out to watch this fat-cat league.

Back in 1998 (i think) when this was was first discussed with the Milan based company 'Media Partners' the clubs consisted of 'then' Europe's leading football clubs, including Manchester United, Arsenal, Milan, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Juventus, Internazionale and Ajax.

Now fast forward to now - and Petro-Dollars have broken the door down and started their own party - Anzhi, Malaga, PSG, Man City and Chelsea are now on the front foot with financial backing the traditional teams cannot dream to have - esp buying players for 20-30 million and then writing them off when they look to buy others. Clubs of the ilk of Arsenal cannot outlay this money, nor afford to write off this amount when the player doesn't fit in anymore.

Ignorance was bliss when the traditionalists were on top.
 
Finally somebody has the guts to agree with me.
The day after Man City became champion some people (mostly United fans) also talked about the fact that it was unfair that Man City "bought" the title. There has always been a correlation between the wages spent and the rankingof the clubs (with teams like Arsenal, Villa and to a lesser degree Man Utd over-achieving), so the title has always been bought since the EPL came into life (and i guess before that too, but i only saw the stats of the EPL era).
That day, i made a similar post and nobody reacted.
This confirms what i suspect: that most fans only care about financial fair-play if their club is disadvantaged but don't mind if their club attracts a sugar daddy (and to be honest, i wouldn't mind a sheik for Racing Genk either).
 
Last edited:
gerd said:
I agree with you rentboy, but on the other hand you are rather selective, the difference between Arsenal and the average Belgian or Dutch club is much bigger than the financial gap between Arsenal and Chelsea/Man City.

That is also unfair. I never heard you complain about that.

As for Hazard, would you say no to such a (ridiculous) salary? No you wouldn't, nobody would. Hazard is not to blame, even Mansour and Abramovich are not to blame. The traditional clubs are to blame, they formed a sort of cartel throughout Europe and make it extremely difficult for outside clubs. Having a rich sugar daddy is the only way to break through the glass ceiling. I have absolutely nothing against Chelsea or Man City, they are the logical consequence of what happened during the 90's and the 00's. And Arsenal is among the clubs to blame about that...(as are all the other traditional big clubs). Nobody can blame clubs like Chelsea and Man City to try and break in, that is the essence of sports.
You will say that they are acting unfair? Yes, but so did the traditional big clubs.

In short: everybody is against sugar daddies unless the sugar daddy puts his money in their favourite club.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is rubbish.

To say arsenal and other traditional big clubs are to blame is rubbish mate.

The reason is because Teams like Arsenal and united was not created with millions of £££ thrown at the respective clubs back in the early 1900's

They started from nothing. A local pub team basically with no rich daddy owners throwning money at these clubs.

They have generated all the money and advertising based on there success on and off the pitch unlike city and chelsea.

Look at the amount of trophies arsenal and united have won, the amount of work they have done offline(charity events, ads etc etc) and you will see how they become the club they are today and where they got all that money from to outbid and outmuscle belgium teams and so on.

They earned it. i am pretty sure if a Belgium side had same success as united ie winning loads of trophies, CL, european cups, doing lots of advertising, charity work, traveling around the world to get there team exposed and playing fantastic football that people enjoy to watch as a netral, they would easily be as big as arsenal/united.

City and chelsea came out of nowhere, they undeservadly got thrown billions of cash infront of them and now can offer players 200k a week easy money.

They are ruining football and you are the only one that cant see that.

Before the salary and transfer cap was increasing yes but not as dramatic has it has when roman came along.

Hazrd for 200k this year and what next? Naymar for 300k next year? see where i am getting at.

you need to open your eyes Gerd and realise city and chelsea are ruining football to the point where unless you ave billions, you are not going to compete at all.
 
Beachryan wasn't the only one Abou.

Jonney, you are talking nonsense. The way you are talking about the palmares of Man Utd and Arsenal is like saying that Belgium and Argentina betweem them won 2 World Cups (Argentina won them both). Clubs like Anderlecht or Ajax or Porto have at least the same palmares as Arsenal. But that is not my point at all.

My point was that traditional big clubs (and not only Arsenal, look at the Iceman's post) created this sort of glass ceiling: they divided the money among themselves and left the other clubs out of their club. You want an example?

Ok.

Porto.

This is a club with a better palmares than Arsenal (2 CL's, Arsenal 0), yet they cannotr generate the same amount of money (Porto have roughly the same budget as Anderlecht). Under Mourinho they won the CL. A fair way to divide the television money would be that the club who wins (that plays most matches) gets most money, then the other team that plays the final, followed by both semi-finalists and so on. What happened? Of the 32 CL clubs Porto was not even in the top ten (if i remember well they were 16th or 18th). Is that fair? No, it isnt.

Now let's take your argument: a club that wins a lot deserve lots of money. So Porto should have earned most money that year and overall should always earn more money than Arsenal (because they have a bigger palmares).

What you refuse to see (and what Iceman does see) is the fact that the big clubs created the situation where clubs can only challenge if they have a sugar daddy. You also pretend that clubs like Chelsea and City were created by their sugar daddies. Both clubs have a huge tradition and i'm quite sure they also started out of pub teams.

Fans of the traditional big clubs should not cry wolf about the sugar daddy clubs because their own clubs created this situation...

I'm quite sure you will never agree with me, but i'm also quite adamant that in this discussion my opinion is the pure and honest truth.
 
Last edited:
Its crazy when you think about it, I thought QPR were going to be the new chels /MCity for awhile. I came to terms that Arsenal couldn`t compete w/ clubs . When the highest paid player is on £70m a wk.

That alone is a model where your best players will start to line themselves off. Arsenal over pays youth and they sell them for a good price ,but they won`t stay for the wage structure has a low ceiling and will be forced out.


To change that mindset is to get a new owner/Manager/model ,but seriously that model keeps the business flowing , why break it! Arsenal love the MCity/Chelsea`s financial boosting it`s their excuse why they lack silverware all imo ,but you know it makes sense. Oh by the way Arsenal has a sugardaddy owner :P
 
gerd said:
I agree with you rentboy, but on the other hand you are rather selective, the difference between Arsenal and the average Belgian or Dutch club is much bigger than the financial gap between Arsenal and Chelsea/Man City.

That is also unfair. I never heard you complain about that.

As for Hazard, would you say no to such a (ridiculous) salary? No you wouldn't, nobody would. Hazard is not to blame, even Mansour and Abramovich are not to blame. The traditional clubs are to blame, they formed a sort of cartel throughout Europe and make it extremely difficult for outside clubs. Having a rich sugar daddy is the only way to break through the glass ceiling. I have absolutely nothing against Chelsea or Man City, they are the logical consequence of what happened during the 90's and the 00's. And Arsenal is among the clubs to blame about that...(as are all the other traditional big clubs). Nobody can blame clubs like Chelsea and Man City to try and break in, that is the essence of sports.
You will say that they are acting unfair? Yes, but so did the traditional big clubs.

In short: everybody is against sugar daddies unless the sugar daddy puts his money in their favourite club.
Click to expand...


I see where you're coming from and I see your point, gerd. But it is not quite like that.

The gap between Arsenal and Belgian teams is largely due to the difference in appeal of the national Leagues they play in. If Jupiler League had as big a following worldwide as the Premier League (meaning TV broadcasting contracts, merchandise and sponsorship) the most traditional teams like Anderletch and Brugges would be fighting for the same players and for the same glory.

And if you consider how big the Premier League is and how the TV rights are divided fairly between English teams, then this "cartel" should be on its way to extinction. Have you read about how the Premier League TV rights were renegotiated back in 95 or 96? Before there was some sort of cartel indeed, with the biggest clubs getting bigger chunks of the TV deal. But from then on, the relegation teams have been earning almost as much as the top 4 on TV rights.
The Big clubs all tried to fight back - Arsenal, United and Liverpool have all shown interest in breaking away from this deal and negotiating their own TV deals individually. That is mainly because their fan base is massive and they know they are dividing the money their fans generate with the other clubs - these are mass clubs in England. Not by coincidence, they are the 3 teams which won the League the most: Arsenal (13 times), Liverpool (18) and United (19).

And that is precisely the point I wanted to reach. These are clubs with more than 100 years of history and who have gone through much hardship. United was relegated in the 70's, while Arsenal spent decades as a mid-table team, boring boring Arsenal. But through all that, they reached their status on their own steam, winning competitions, growing their fan base and slowly building on that. I'm not saying they are entitled to win more money than other clubs based on past glory. But they have the means to do it, and so they do as any organisation would.

City and Chelsea are very old and traditional too, as you pointed out, but so is Fulham or Nottingham Forest. The point is, before being taken over, neither Chelsea or City had shown any encouraging signs. They just happened to hit the jackpot, the lottery. There was no hard work through years, even decades, to get where they are. For all we know, in 5 years time Middlesbrough could be winning the Premier League and Champions League - if only the right billionaire comes along and decides to play Master League in real life.

The scenario that allowed such opportunities for clubs as Arsenal, United and Liverpool to set themselves apart was the source of the problem. As the sport became more professional, the greater possibilities to capitalise on their success and profile. And the ones who were doing it right, collected rewards. Hence the increased growth in financial power for these clubs in the end of the 80's and start of the 90's.

You can blame modern capitalism for allowing a certain monopoly/cartel to happen among a limited number of clubs. But well, this is only a reflection of the capitalist system, whereas we see Procter & Gamble, Nestlé, Pepsi Co et al, dominate the world.

In the end, football belongs inside this. It is entertainment, and as such, it's a business. Clubs have to be ran like a company, and have to be very well ran to survive. Not even a traditional club as Liverpool is immune to this. You see how they have been mismanaged and see how they would still finish outside the top 4, even if it weren't for City and Chelsea. And there's United, with the Glazers situation, with a massive debt, and they will be trying to keep up with this transfer madness, potentially accumulating even more debt.

All I'm saying is that there are logics behind it, which is business. But with the sugar daddy lottery it's like anarchism. It's random. No merit to get there. And the worst part is the little thing called stability. When it's one person behind it all, not a responsibly run organisation, then it can die at any moment. Abramovich could call it a day after winning the CL. And then what will be of Chelsea?

If they don't stop all these takeovers, I can see all 20 Premier League teams belonging to sugar daddies in 10 years time. I for one think of this Kroenke situation with Arsenal with great worry.

And then it all boils down to this: in times of recession, you see a 21 year old earning £170k a week. I'm not saying Arsenal are whiter than white. Salaries were already ridiculous before the sugar daddies came along. We have even Diabys and Djourous earning £40k a week. I want to make clear that I think it's a disgrace any player winning that amount of money per week!
But you see the billionaires' spending taking it to a completely different level and skewing the market so badly. It changes everything forever. Hired guns or mercenaries like Adebayor, who is a City reject and actually a very good forward, you see him helping Tottenham to 4th place with half his salary paid by Sheik Mansour. This disregard for money affects players contract renewals too, in a very bad way. Just think of Van Persie seeing Hazard getting £170k a week. And Arsenal trying to stay in touch with reality... RvP is having none of that! I'm sure he won't settle for less than £200k and that's why I think Arsenal is f*cked in regards to his renewal.

Of course I don't blame Hazard, Van Persie or any player in their position. They're not to blame, they have to seize the moment! What a time to be a professional footballer! :)

The ones to blame are the ones spending that kind of money. This will be the end of the game if they don't put a stop to this. No man is worth the money those guys have been paying.

Sorry about this huge post.
 
It is lottery for all clubs. You mention a club like Nottingham Forest. They missed out because "by chance" (that is not entirely correct of course) they were not long enough in the EPL when the big money was to be earned.

Let's take the advantage of the relagated Man Utd in the 70's: the way the money is divided now, that would have been a financial catastrophe for United. What i'm saying is that their quite a few traditional big English clubs who have declined not because they are run bad, but because it happens that they are not in the EPL when the big money is to be earned. They loose out on the big money year after year and this becomes a viscious circle. The only way to break through the glass ceiling is by attracting a sugar daddy.

I never said that this is good for football, but it isn't worse than, what most other clubs do (let's not forget that most big European clubs aren't making profit, that isn't fair either...i might be wrong but apart from Bayern Munchen, the clubs who are dominating the CL the last years are having huge losses, whereas the clubs of the smaller countries make small profits).

You are talking about a capitalist system, in a capitalist system sooner or later those club will go bust.

And to be honest is Man Utd's situation with the Glazers much better than Chelsea's or Man City's? I don't think so.
 
gerd said:
Beachryan wasn't the only one Abou.

Jonney, you are talking nonsense. The way you are talking about the palmares of Man Utd and Arsenal is like saying that Belgium and Argentina betweem them won 2 World Cups (Argentina won them both). Clubs like Anderlecht or Ajax or Porto have at least the same palmares as Arsenal. But that is not my point at all.

My point was that traditional big clubs (and not only Arsenal, look at the Iceman's post) created this sort of glass ceiling: they divided the money among themselves and left the other clubs out of their club. You want an example?

Ok.

Porto.

This is a club with a better palmares than Arsenal (2 CL's, Arsenal 0), yet they cannotr generate the same amount of money (Porto have roughly the same budget as Anderlecht). Under Mourinho they won the CL. A fair way to divide the television money would be that the club who wins (that plays most matches) gets most money, then the other team that plays the final, followed by both semi-finalists and so on. What happened? Of the 32 CL clubs Porto was not even in the top ten (if i remember well they were 16th or 18th). Is that fair? No, it isnt.

Now let's take your argument: a club that wins a lot deserve lots of money. So Porto should have earned most money that year and overall should always earn more money than Arsenal (because they have a bigger palmares).

What you refuse to see (and what Iceman does see) is the fact that the big clubs created the situation where clubs can only challenge if they have a sugar daddy. You also pretend that clubs like Chelsea and City were created by their sugar daddies. Both clubs have a huge tradition and i'm quite sure they also started out of pub teams.

Fans of the traditional big clubs should not cry wolf about the sugar daddy clubs because their own clubs created this situation...

I'm quite sure you will never agree with me, but i'm also quite adamant that in this discussion my opinion is the pure and honest truth.
Click to expand...


You got facts and links to prove that? And just because you win one cup in a one off doesnt make your club the same level as united and arsenal unless you have a sheik runing thingss.

it takes years of hard work, promoting your team, winning back to bakc tropies and generaly getting your club in global map. THAT is how you become a united or arsenal without a Shiek.

i guarantee you that if Porto kept on even coming close to winning CL season after season after season, they WILL eventualy get to the same global status as united and co.

And you still have not answered my question in regards to HOW united and arsenal became succesful. Was they born a great global side?

no. far from it. they started out EXACTLY like city, chelsea and PSG. ie a pub club with next to no money.

Just because chelsea and the likes FAILED to reach the same success as arsenal and united in the early days of football is NOT united and arsenals fault now is it.

its a competition. Arsenal and united have BOTH worked HARD and have gain success legitametly from the ground up.

Sorry gerd but its you who is talking nonsense mate and we will just have to agree to disagree .
 
gerd said:
It is lottery for all clubs. You mention a club like Nottingham Forest. They missed out because "by chance" (that is not entirely correct of course) they were not long enough in the EPL when the big money was to be earned.

Let's take the advantage of the relagated Man Utd in the 70's: the way the money is divided now, that would have been a financial catastrophe for United. What i'm saying is that their quite a few traditional big English clubs who have declined not because they are run bad, but because it happens that they are not in the EPL when the big money is to be earned. They loose out on the big money year after year and this becomes a viscious circle. The only way to break through the glass ceiling is by attracting a sugar daddy.

I never said that this is good for football, but it isn't worse than, what most other clubs do (let's not forget that most big European clubs aren't making profit, that isn't fair either...i might be wrong but apart from Bayern Munchen, the clubs who are dominating the CL the last years are having huge losses, whereas the clubs of the smaller countries make small profits).

You are talking about a capitalist system, in a capitalist system sooner or later those club will go bust.

And to be honest is Man Utd's situation with the Glazers much better than Chelsea's or Man City's? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

You are right about one thing. The timing of the transformation of the English League into a lucrative Premier League was crucial for many clubs. In that sense, Nottingham Forest missed out on the big TV rights money, as well as the possibility to be taken over by a sugar daddy owner, as they prefer top division clubs.

But what happened after the inception of Premier League is still down to how teams were managed. Blackburn won the League in 95, but did they really build anything from there? Newcastle too, was a force in the 90's. But they had been below par for some 10 or 15 years before this last season.

Arsenal and Manchester United were fighting for the league head to head, because they were by a mile the best managed clubs. For the sake of the league as a whole, it wasn't good, not as much exciting. But the development of those clubs happened in a natural way. What more can you say?

Now, with the billionaires, people are quick to applaud the most exciting Premier League season yet. But let's not get ahead of ourselves, and wait and see. If it carries on that way, City and Chelsea will make up the two horse race for the title, but with a much bigger gap behind them.

When you have the likes of United and Arsenal being so easily out muscled financially, I find it very alarming.

The Glazers aren't exactly the type of owners to be compared with Abramovich and Mansour. I don't think they are sugar daddies, as those guys actually take money from the club too.

As for the "normal" clubs you mentioned, which are operating on loss, they are accumulating debt and will indeed go bust. This is only natural, this is within capitalism nature. The bubble will explode, much like what happened with Banks.
None of that will affect City or Chelsea though, will it? They are the only ones who can operate on £100m losses year after year. They function apart from this system, those rules don't apply to them.
If anything, it will widen the gap. The clubs will go bust like Rangers and they will have to auction their best players and decrease dramatically their spending. This will allow the sugar daddy owners to spend less (if they want to) while still keeping their rivals at arm's length. In other words, the domination will go on.

I just can't compare City and Chelsea's dynasty to the one we saw with Arsenal and United. This current one feels dirty, like cheating really. Money that came from God knows where, injected industrially and systematically into these clubs. Where as the former case was more like money from Football invested into Football.
 
Wahey, my favourite topic. No point in rehashing everything for the umpteenth time, but this is the difference between a sugar daddy club, and teams that have built themselves organically:

Organic team:
• Leverages ‘natural’ advantage, be it fanbase, history, tv deal, local hero player whatever
• Is well run, has a healthy revenue/ wage ratio and if tomorrow their owner died, would continue to exist happily
• Brings young players into the team, and doesn’t grow wages significantly year on year
• Makes club record signing once every 3 years or so, to augment existing squad. Rarely signs more than 4 players a season

Sugar daddy team:
• Leverages ‘unlimited’ wealth to have ‘dart board’ approach to spending – often upwards of 10 players a season
• Often gobbles up all of the mid-level teams talent in the league, which de-stabilises the lower level European places (see Duff, Barry, Milner, Given etc
• Then writes off losses and causes massive transfer and wage inflation
• Posts record losses, digging club into an unsustainable position
• Is completely dependent on the sugar daddy for the clubs very survival

I believe we all want the same thing – a league where there aren’t just two teams that win it for a decade. It’s not a league, that’s absurd. Small periods of dominance are natural in any sport – 3 years or so – but the best part of 20 years means something is wrong.

But the answer to that can’t be to exacerbate the problem, rather than look to fix it. The answer isn’t for 1 club to suddenly be literally able to outspend the entire league for years on end. The answer to United’s dominance isn’t to let City spend until they overcome them. The answer is to introduce revenue sharing, salary caps and more distribution-minded tv deals so that everyone benefits.

I wish that we had a football league where Chelsea or City could win without completely destabilizing the sport, but we don’t. The FA should work on that rather than just waving in any rich prick with a prick complex.
 
Salary cap is needed in european football... thats plain and simple...

In America...most league have salary cap except of baseball(MLB) which also is a big sugar daddy league...

But that would never happen...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom