RBSC

**Sir X** · September 2, 2008, 09:19 AM

Spending Caps are coming fast.

**Lazie** · September 2, 2008, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by X View Post

Spending Caps are coming fast.

Before or after DIC tek over? I agree it is getting ridiculous ... 34 million fi Robinho? Rathid ... Fergie shoulda wait and get 28 million fi Saha.

**Sir X** · September 2, 2008, 09:37 AM

James Lawton: Why ask too many questions if at last the playing field is level?

</EM>
Tuesday, 2 September 2008

GETTY IMAGES
Manchester City manager, Joe Mercer holds the League Championship trophy aloft at Maine Road in 1968

enlarge

Related Articles

Print
Email

SearchSearch Go
Independent.co.uk Web Bookmark & Share

What are these?

Change font size: A | A | A

It was not so easy to believe yesterday but it is true and it happened when Manchester City didn't need the money of a philanthropist from Thailand pursued by a pack of human rights organisations or a Middle East property developer bearing the potential gift of Dimitar Berbatov.

They were one of the best teams in England, had just won the First Division title, the FA Cup, the European-Cup Winners' Cup and the League Cup, and when Joe Mercer, the manager, heard that City were under a takeover threat partly organised by his protégé Malcolm Allision, he declared, "How do you take over a club in full flight?"
What you did, comical as it may now appear, was drum up enough readies to buy out a key shareholder, something, believe it or not, in the region of £100,000, meet in the Cheshire mansion of the chief conspirator, a businessman named plain Joe Smith, and issue a secret code which identified those trusted by the takeover high command. The code was: "The Sun is Rising over Manchester City."
That was nearly 40 years ago and it's a long time to wait for a few shafts of sunlight.
Yesterday there was still another shadow over the Blues on an otherwise sunny day, relatively speaking, of course.
It came in the announcement that if the move of the Abu Dhabi United Group led by Dr Sulaiman Al-Fahim is successful, if he is proved to be a fit and proper person according to the Premier League, which means, roughly, that he can't be immediately indicted for genocide and large-scale fraud, due diligence is completed without killing impediments, and new investment indeed brings in the likes of Berbatov, the honorary president will be Thaksin Shinawatra.
You just wonder where some of these guys like the former and now hounded prime minister of Thailand get their nerve and how relentlessly they will continue to turn what is left of the English football community into a bunch of supplicants beyond even the foggiest recall of what a club like City used to be.
There is nothing to be done about it, of course. We want the best players and we want our clubs to be successful and if we are Chelsea we don't really care how scrupulous Roman Abramovich was when he got his hands on so much of the mineral wealth of a nation where anything even approaching true wealth is in the hands of a hideously small minority. If we are City we certainly don't demur at the arrival of Dr Al-Fahim, so laden with promise of great days and with business antecedents no more dubious than anyone else who retains fabulous wealth when much of the rest of the world is heading for financial Skid Row.
But Thaksin Shinawatra, honorary president of Manchester City: who would want to go into battle under such a banner?
Give the Manchester City that used to be the pride of the city when United were just scuffling along in the margins of the big time something of a break, you want to say.
But then perhaps it's a bit late to strike a moral stance on City's behalf. Maybe when Thaksin brought in Sven Goran Eriksson, rustled up £40m or so for the spending spree that brought some B-list stars and a spurt of entertaining football, and received something of a hero's welcome despite all the harping by people like Amnesty that any organisation with a conscience wouldn't touch him with an extremely long sampan pole, was when City announced what they really stood for, both in the boardroom and on the terraces.
It was, it is hard not to say, winning at any cost and with any stain.
Now, though, City can point across the city and say they are at last on a level playing field: their Middle Eastern money is surely as good as the American dollars and borrowed euros of United.
So to what does it come down? The ability of Mark Hughes, who laboured so well if frustratingly at Blackburn, the club made by a patron from another age, Sir Jack Walker, to make the money work. There is not much doubt that Hughes is capable of making a significant thrust at the challenge. He is a hard, practical football man and no more than anyone else in English football, from superstar coach to the most casual supporter, he long ago lost the chance to be any kind of moral arbiter of how football should be run. Hughes, like every City fan, will welcome the money that maybe brings the likes of United and Chelsea within reach.
So who really cares if Thaksin Shinawatra is the revered figurehead of Manchester City, a club which once had Sir Matt Busby as its captain and boasted of a triumvirate named Bell, Lee and Summerbee, who cost a combined total of £130,000 and made everyone feel that the sun would always rise over Manchester City? That was a time when you didn't have to take just anyone's money. When, however bizarre it was, there was something of a code.
Interesting? Click here to explore further

**Sir X** · September 2, 2008, 09:38 AM

Its not that they can spend 34 mill a season on one player , but they can assemble a team for the season at 34 million a piece.

That is ridiculous.

The Big Question: As the football transfer window closes, is spending out of control?

</EM>
Tuesday, 2 September 2008

Independent Graphics
Football crazy: How top flight clubs live beyond their means

enlarge

Related Articles

Print
Email

SearchSearch Go
Independent.co.uk Web Bookmark & Share

What are these?

Change font size: A | A | A

Why are we asking this now?
At midnight last night, football's summer transfer window – a period in which players can be bought and sold – closed worldwide until 1 January, when it will reopen for a further month. Also yesterday, one Premier League club, Manchester City, was sold to the Abu Dhabi United Group, which promised to spend £30m on a single star player.
What is the point of a transfer window?
Until six years ago, there was simply a deadline towards the end of each season after which no transfer could take place. This prevented teams at the top or bottom of the league making short-term purchases to buy their way to a championship or to avoid relegation. By reducing the period in which players could be bought and sold to three months in the summer (1 June to 31 August), and then from 1 to 31 January, the intention was that clubs should do the bulk of their trading in the European closed-season, then rely on the wits and skill of their managers and coaches to work with what they had, and allowing one further window in January – when far fewer deals are normally done – for any adjustments by the way. Many in the sport feel, however, that this is an artificial innovation which merely creates panic-buying, brinkmanship and uncertainty, especially right at the end of each window.
How much do top players cost these days?
There was an outcry in 1905 when the first fee of £1,000 was paid by Middlesbrough for Sunderland's Alf Common, and again when each new landmark was reached: £100,000 in 1961, £1m in 1975 and so on. The world record is £46m paid by Real Madrid for Zinedine Zidane in 2001. Had AC Milan been prepared to sell the Brazilian midfielder Kaka – the World Player of the Year – this summer, a new high would undoubtedly have been reached, but the Italians resisted Chelsea's overtures.
The British record of £30m, paid by Chelsea for another AC Milan player, Andriy Shevchenko, was regarded as a spectacular waste and he has now returned to Italy at what will be a huge loss. But players like Manchester United's Cristiano Ronaldo would be worth more than that, Tottenham have been holding out for £30m for their Bulgarian forward Dimitar Berbatov, and Real Madrid want at least that amount for their Brazilian forward Robinho.
How can clubs afford these fees and wages?
The formation of the Premier League in 1992 brought the first of several lucrative television deals, the latest of which was worth £1.7bn in Britain and £625m overseas. This enabled leading clubs to pay for the all-seater stadia demanded after the 1989 Hillsborough disaster and, in turn, to increase admission charges as spectators flocked back in vast numbers. The success of the Premier League also led to valuable new sponsorship deals and increased sales of replica shirts. The 20 Premier League clubs are each effectively guaranteed a minimum of £30m a year from television contracts and a sliding scale based on where they finish in the league. Last season, the champions Manchester United received £49.8m from these sources alone. The biggest clubs, especially in London, now charge up to £94 for the best seats at ground such as Arsenal's Emirates Stadium (believed to be worth £10m in naming rights) which holds 60,000 people. A clever manager like Arsène Wenger or Arsenal can make as much money selling players at the right time as he spends on new ones. Then there are wealthy investors, such as Chelsea's Roman Abramovich, who buy ownership of clubs for motives ranging from local pride through to prestige and investment potential. Eight of the 20 Premier League clubs have been sold to foreign owners, all of whom accept the need to spend large sums on new players. None are short of a few dollars, or roubles. In the lower divisions, however – there are more than 70 other professional clubs in England alone – finances are very different. Most of them make a loss, several have been forced into administration and others survive only by selling their best players and buying much cheaper ones.
Why do they buy so many players from abroad?
Essentially because most clubs believe the best British players are too expensive, whereas bargains can still be had abroad, especially from poorer countries and clubs in Eastern Europe, South America and Africa. Any player with a European Commission passport is entitled to join a British club. Those from outside the EC have to obtain a work permit – the onus being on the purchasing club to prove that they cannot find a player of equal quality at the same price. A set formula is generally used, based on him playing regularly for his country. With only a third of all Premier League players eligible to represent the English national side, the football authorities are keen to have the sport exempted from EC labour laws, which Brussels is currently resisting.
Can value be measured?
When Liverpool narrowly beat the Belgian team Standard Liège last week in a qualifying match for the lucrative Champions League, Dirk Kuyt scored their winning goal in the last minute. Kuyt cost Liverpool a fee of £10m plus significant wages, but that one goal could be worth up to £20m, which is the amount a successful English club makes by competing in the Champions League. Liverpool were also delighted with last season's most expensive purchase, the Spanish forward Fernando Torres, who cost £22m but scored a remarkable 33 goals. On the other hand, supporters of every club could name a player who justified the terrace chant "What a waste of money". Having cost £30m, Shevchenko would certainly fall into that category.
Why don't clubs just develop their own young players?
Some clubs, like Manchester City, Middlesbrough and West Ham, have a well-earned reputation for doing just that. Coaching of boys is done from a very young age and Premier League clubs run their own academies for youngsters at a cost of about £1m a year. But the pressure on managers to achieve instant results or face the sack means the temptation is always to buy a proven player, rather than wait for a home-grown one to mature.
Where will it all end?
At the top end, British football is strong enough to withstand the credit crunch, although many of the smaller clubs will feel the pinch even more painfully. Transfer money paid to other British clubs continues to circulate throughout the sport; it is the vast sums paid to agents and in players' wages that are a cause of greater concern. The other most worrying possibility for individual clubs is what would happen if a mega-rich backer such as Abramovich decided to cut his losses and go elsewhere.
Have transfer fees reached absurd levels?
Yes
* Historically they have far outstripped inflation
* 2 Clubs over-reach themselves financially in paying such huge sums
* 3 Every transfer is a gamble on a player's form and fitness
No
*They are simply a matter of supply and demand
* Players can be signed for nothing when their contract runs out
* Many signings pay their way by selling shirts and helping to win trophies
Interesting? Click here to explore further

RBSC

Announcement

Manchester City's new owner boasts he'll buy United

Manchester City's new owner boasts he'll buy United

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment