Buying the league?

I had this row with some rag dickhead from Dukinfield years ago

He was spouting on about how we were buying this, that and the other. Obviously he never went to the games so I put him straight in a packed pub and named his first 11 from that very days game, all except 2 were bought.

I believe they won the league that season also.

Crock of shite
 
Saw someone post this on twitter and thought it perfect illustrated what's really going on.

'bought title' = don't like where money comes from

'no history' = weren't top 4 when Sky launched

'boring football' = they're almost perfect

'they cheated' = UEFA stitch up didn't work

'killing football' = stopping Utd/LFC from winning all the time
Click to expand...
 
Surely the rags are the only team who haven't " bought the league " due to their never ending supply of world class players which come through their outstanding youth team ?
 
Most teams in the Prem era have bought players to assist in winning it, that's football. Leicester are the notable exception, absolutely incredible. Wenger doesn't think he spent anything but they were buying players for fees we could only dream about. Funny that Jack Walker investing in Blackburn was seen as a lovely gesture (and good on him too!!)
 
All successful teams have bought their success, dating right back to 1888 when Preston outbid others for the best Scottish talent of the time. The amounts may change due to inflation, but in relative terms, compared to their rivals at the time, every successful pro team in every sport have usually "bought" their success. The only time it doesn't happen is those sports which have a salary cap.

Personally, I don't have an issue with it. It's the way pro sports, and the world in general, works.
 
Lupo said:
See my post on the Wolves thread Karen. They have stated that they aim to compete with the top clubs for top players this summer. They are the real deal and not prepared to stand still. This season was good but in their words, they didn't buy Wolves to finish 7th. This is just the start and they are already making big inroads into China (all our games are screened live there), Mexico as we signed Mexican national hero Raul Jimenez and of course, Portugal!

They are also investing heavily in the infrastructure of the club with big improvements to the training ground, laying replica pitches to the Molineux playing surfaces and plans to rebuild Molineux as a 50K seater. We have a waiting list of 5K for season tickets alone!
Click to expand...

But....you haven't got any history. You were crap in the 50's and no-one has ever heard of Billy Wright and Stan Cullis. In the 50's LFC were brilliant in Div. 2 and losing to Worcester in the FA Cup. Now, that's real history for you
 
I think it's just a case of old money v new money. Teams like United, Real, Arsenal etc have always been up their as top clubs and therefore they've always had the most money to spend. People are use to that so it doesn't ruffle any feathers. Then you have us, a team that went from bottom half/mid table finishes to winning the league in just a couple of seasons. Obviously spending a bit of money a long the way. We were basically a battering ram to what was the classic "big four". Of course they were never going to like that. It was very bold as well. Our performances and our results went up so much in such a short space of time I think it shocked a lot of people. Even after the takeover there most likely would of been people who believed that it wasn't going to last. When people realised that we were here to stay then the knifes were out so to speak. Then came the accusations of "buying the league" etc.
 
It's interesting if you take "football inflation" into account, we have spent less than Chelsea and Man Utd since 1994 (and possibly other clubs as well, I only worked out figures for those two and us). All the information is available from open sources:
Transfers
Football Inflation (1)
Football Inflation (2)

There's two links for football inflation because you can measure it different ways. It doesn't matter which way though, we've still spent less:
Man City: 2.8bn or 3.4bn
Man Utd: 3.1bn or 3.8bn
Chelsea: 4.1bn or 5.0bn

Bear in mind though that these are just facts, and so in no way would convince supporters of other clubs, journalists, or UEFA, where facts are just a slightly annoying inconvenience.
 
Silva&Silva said:
I think it's just a case of old money v new money. Teams like United, Real, Arsenal etc have always been up their as top clubs and therefore they've always had the most money to spend. People are use to that so it doesn't ruffle any feathers. Then you have us, a team that went from bottom half/mid table finishes to winning the league in just a couple of seasons. Obviously spending a bit of money a long the way. We were basically a battering ram to what was the classic "big four". Of course they were never going to like that. It was very bold as well. Our performances and our results went up so much in such a short space of time I think it shocked a lot of people. Even after the takeover there most likely would of been people who believed that it wasn't going to last. When people realised that we were here to stay then the knifes were out so to speak. Then came the accusations of "buying the league" etc.
Click to expand...

Another advantage the "old money" teams had was that there was nothing like the level of bitterness in the game from opposition fans, pundits, journos, you get now so anyone getting benefactor investment - no matter how big or small - was given a free pass, and it was pretty much accepted.

On a similar note about present-day bitterness but regarding a different football topic, regarding perceived dodgy finances and the animosity towards City, I don't seem to recall anything like this same level of outrage 25 years ago when another English club were guilty (and admitted to being guilty) of making illegal payments to players and were punished accordingly. Sure, the punishment was quite harsh but Sugar later got some of it reduced when he went to arbitration, yet there were no lingering accusations of them being cheats or whatnot. Incidentally, 4 years earlier Swindon were promoted to the top flight after beating Sunderland in the play-off final but were relegated a few days later when being found guilty of something similar. In fact, IIRC they were originally demoted 2 divisions but got it reduced to 1 division on appeal, whereas Tottenham escaped relegation completely:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ion-over-illegal-payments-but-fa-1422815.html
 
M18CTID said:
Another advantage the "old money" teams had was that there was nothing like the level of bitterness in the game from opposition fans, pundits, journos, you get now so anyone getting benefactor investment - no matter how big or small - was given a free pass, and it was pretty much accepted.

On a similar note about present-day bitterness but regarding a different football topic, regarding perceived dodgy finances and the animosity towards City, I don't seem to recall anything like this same level of outrage 25 years ago when another English club were guilty (and admitted to being guilty) of making illegal payments to players and were punished accordingly. Sure, the punishment was quite harsh but Sugar later got some of it reduced when he went to arbitration, yet there were no lingering accusations of them being cheats or whatnot. Incidentally, 4 years earlier Swindon were promoted to the top flight after beating Sunderland in the play-off final but were relegated a few days later when being found guilty of something similar. In fact, IIRC they were originally demoted 2 divisions but got it reduced to 1 division on appeal, whereas Tottenham escaped relegation completely:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ion-over-illegal-payments-but-fa-1422815.html
Click to expand...



I`ve been say this for a while.

Well said
 
goalmole said:
Get ready for loads of shit coming your way if you start winning things, which would be great (the winning, not the shit) because that would mean another of the entitled clubs being pushed out. It would also mean that the league would be a lot more competitive which is exactly what the rag dipper journos don't want.
Click to expand...
And the ‘no history’ insults from all the jcl glory hunters that will be completely ignorant of wolves as a club and instead just view them as a threat to the glory club they chose to follow
 
Millwallawayveteran1988 said:
This treble has really riled people. They don't like it!
Click to expand...
Not just winning the treble , but beating the media darlings Liverpool to the league ...who lets not forget only lost one game all season and if extra points where awarded for shots from outside the area ... and if it was the old system of 2 points for a win and 1 for a draw and...and... should get a trophy for highest placed runners up...and Klopp ......and Virgil van Hype...and those famous magical European nights at Anfield..etc etc.. Its European royalty weve pipped to the title here people , not one of your run of the mill riff raff clubs , its like executing Bambi
 
ccr said:
Didn't Leicester out spend all the teams in the Championship to gain promotion ?
Click to expand...

Yep, made quite a few heavy losses:
Leicester City have agreed to pay the Football League £3.1m to settle the league’s long-running claim that the club breached financial fair play rules when they made a £21m loss in their 2013-14 season. Leicester won promotion from the Championship that season after their owner, Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, who owns Thailand’s duty-free company King Power, had invested more than £100m since his 2010 takeover, and subsequently they won their unlikely Premier League title in 2016.

The Football League’s then-new FFP rules, aimed at improving its clubs’ financial sustainability particularly in the Championship, set out sanctions including heavy fines for clubs which made losses greater than £8m in 2013-14. Leicester, spending heavily on players’ wages, made a £34m loss in 2012-13, then reduced it to £21m, partly due to receiving a large increase in income from a marketing deal signed with Trestellar Limited, a company run by the son of the former Premier League chairman Sir Dave Richards. That deal, under which Trestellar sold the sponsorship of the club’s shirt and stadium back to King Power, is understood to have been under investigation by the EFL when considering whether Leicester breached the rules.
 
Blue Feather said:
But....you haven't got any history. You were crap in the 50's and no-one has ever heard of Billy Wright and Stan Cullis. In the 50's LFC were brilliant in Div. 2 and losing to Worcester in the FA Cup. Now, that's real history for you
Click to expand...

But, but, Southern plastics tell me football didn't exist before 1992!
 
ancoats said:
i love the old chest nut buying the league hahahahahaha from the 1960s football change and rich owners invested their money into football and clubs, united and liverpool had a backer and money from outside of football louis edwards the butchers and liverpools littlewoods pools and all the top teams had a wealthy owner ??????

then we have the 1992 skysports premier league and manchester united they was a partnership hand in hand and printing money with a subscription fee every month, united knew they had cornered the market and nobody could touch them, they was being beamed into homes around the world every week forget everybody was treaded the same with live games that was bollocks and sky fucked over the other 19 clubs with broken promise of being on tv every week hahaha you had to be playing united if you was ever on live in their prime slots and super sunday

so fuck them and if they think football and revenues money being generated from gate figures is based on that they are puppets ??? all the top clubs in the premier could open the gates for free its that small the revenues club make today
Click to expand...
Arsenal did it in the late 1920s and went on to dominate the 1930s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top