Skashion said:
SWP's back said:
You won't win Ska, he has a degree ;)
Shit, I might as well leave it then... What I want is a market rational argument for City having 28,000 average attendance in the second division. Free markets are free because competition regulates them rather than governments but an element of competition is removed when supporting a football club. Choosing Panasonic over Sony is not the same as choosing City over the rags. I'd honestly dare any true football fan to suggest any different. I could never support the rags under any circumstances and I doubt many blues would.
That's not what the market is - football clubs aren't like manufacturing companies.
Free markets are driven by demand and supply - competition is a part of that, but not the full picture. Competition based football markets would suggest fans go to see the club that has the cheapest tickets. Demand and supply means however different profit possibilities for a single club depending on the clubs image, reputation and aspirations. Crowds are only a small proportion of that - the greater question is, what are fans willing to pay for the same seat under different circumstances, what affiliated companies are willing to spend to be associated with the club, what networks are willing to pay to show games (less applicable to premier league, but it still adds up).
It's still demand & supply that co-ordinates the salaries our club or any other pays for its stars. Do you think the salary & transfer fee negotiations are just pulled from thin air? A footballer is to a club what a restaurant would be for McDonald's - there is clever calculations going on about how much increased revenue signing of a player can bring to the club on and off the pitch. Transfer fees and wages are both based on this, just as McDonald's would consider purchasing a property based on its market value and running costs compared to promised revenue.
Mammulty, Arsenal are a case of a risk-evasive business in terms of player/asset acquisition. The whole move to Emirates was done in a similar fashion, covering all bases before making the move. As I'm sure it's obvious, the less risky the investment, the less deviation from target value.
The strategy of risk-evasive investment is good when you're at the top - but to make up ground or go through great shifts, any organisation needs to look at options with higher risk but a greater promised return on investment. That's where you get your City's and Chelsea's. And yes, we get it wrong some times -Robinho perhaps an example - but that risk needs to be taken to grow business at vast speeds.