City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[aguero93:20]

Oh I understand the concept well enough, it's just that you are talking bollocks , no matter what index you use , £50m is not comparable with £1.1bn

Really? Let's take it to an alternative sector that's experienced exponential growth. Facebook cost somewhere between $13m and $17m to set up in 2004/5. How much would it cost to set up a viable challenger now?

 

[FanchesterCity]

Oh I understand the concept well enough, it's just that you are talking bollocks , no matter what index you use , £50m is not comparable with £1.1bn

Using examples from 90 years ago is fucking desperate and you know it , you're an intelligent bloke.

The levels of delusion shown in this thread is frankly weird

It's not 50m vs 1.1bn though is it?
City's 1.1bn figure includes massive infrastructure spend too - so why not add Arsenal's infrastructure spend too?

Imagine this:

You have a formula 1 car, and you need one part to make your car a winner. That part is going to cost you 50m, but you don't have that money.
An investor offers you the 50m and that's enough to make you successful. Without it, you'd lose, with it you win.

30 years later, you have another formula 1 car, this time, to win you need 500m, a rich investor provides that 500m and you start winning.

Which is morally better? neither. Which was success bought with money, and which wasn't? they both were!
The values are not important, the principle is.

 

[dasblues]

Really? Let's take it to an alternative sector that's experienced exponential growth. Facebook cost somewhere between $13m and $17m to set up in 2004/5. How much would it cost to set up a viable challenger now?

Nice strawman, we're not talking about another sector though are we

Anyway there is no point labouring the same argument back and forth, let's just agree to disagree

 

[r.soleofsalford]

So in summary Danny Fiszmans £50m is completely compatible with our spending since 2008 (c£500m on transfer fees & £600m in wages)

And if it isn't , it doesn't matter because Arsenal cheated their way to division one 90 years ago

At least I live in the real world

at one time owners of football clubs were corner shop keeper who spent what they could of their money to help raise the team of their choice to a position of prominence. now its multi millionaires like kroenke, abramovich or owners of small wealthy states or sovereign state funds like qatar and abu dhabi, next will probably a rich chinese business man. as time goes by the money need to own a football club rises as do wages and transfers. its how the real world works mate.

 

[kalouk]

Oh I understand the concept well enough, it's just that you are talking bollocks , no matter what index you use , £50m is not comparable with £1.1bn

Using examples from 90 years ago is fucking desperate and you know it , you're an intelligent bloke.

The levels of delusion shown in this thread is frankly weird

It is simple really, Arsenal are critising us for something they themselves have done. The amounts don't matter the money invested in Arsenal wasn't earned by the club it was given in the same way as ours. Their whole argument centres around morals, why didn't they refuse the money given to them as a matter of principle? It was surely unfair on the teams below them. I suppose money did buy their class.

 

[Damocles]

Oh I understand the concept well enough, it's just that you are talking bollocks , no matter what index you use , £50m is not comparable with £1.1bn

Using examples from 90 years ago is fucking desperate and you know it , you're an intelligent bloke.

The levels of delusion shown in this thread is frankly weird

You're an accountant who doesn't understand the concept of market inflation.

My nephew is funnier than that and he mostly jokes about farting.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Going round in circles really.
We've done nothing wrong. We've been on the receiving end of not being able to afford players, now we're on the other end.
We've not forgotten when it's like for other clubs (and I hope we never do), but we'll enjoy a taste of the good life whilst we can.

There are other Sheiks in the world, clubs are welcome to get their own and blow us out of the water. We're all for competition, unlike many. All we ever wanted was a chance to compete, we never set out to dominate and put other clubs down. It just so happens our wealth now allows that, but we've never set to do it like others have.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Oh I understand the concept well enough, it's just that you are talking bollocks , no matter what index you use , £50m is not comparable with £1.1bn

You're the one who's talking bollocks. Utter, utter bollocks.

£50m over 20 years ago, when decent players cost around £3m is the equivalent of around £500m in today's football money, when decent players go for £30m. Platt & Bergkamp cost £12m between them and £6m for Petit & Vieira means he paid less than £20m for 4 very, very good players. We could end up paying £170m for three very good players if we get Sterling, Pogba & De Bruyne.

If West Brom's new owners put in £500m just for team building, you'd expect them to be looking at a top 6 spot as a minimum (assuming they ditched Pulis of course). Plus a lot of that £1bn put in by Sheikh Mansour was to buy the club itself and pay for infrastructure such as the CFA and South Stand extension. That takes care of probably half of that, meaning that Fiszman's £50m is very comparable to the investment in our team.

So stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[bigf42]

I think the point here is the cost of gaining incremental advantage is rising exponentially, the Moores family were able to bankroll Liverpool and Everton pre Heysal for not too much money, Scum part 1 tried with Sexton/Fat Ron, then succeeded with GPC, Walker at Blackburn cost more, it cost Fiszman more again, then scum part 3 took it to another level, then along comes Abramovich, then ADUG, PSG etc, and scum pt 4 well..... (some poetic license here ;))

Combine that with a diminishing talent pool, the size of the prize, and we get unsustainable madness, just glad we are lucky enough to be on the roller coaster.

As to the history bit, we had the opportunity in the 70s to become a major force, but blew it spectacularly. (Edit)I should add with an electrical shop owner from Altincham

 

[FanchesterCity]

In 1996, the world record transfer fee was 16m (Shearer), so for 50m you'd buy yourself at least 3 of those with change.
in 2013, the world record transfer fee was 85m (Bale), so that's 250m quid.

So that 50m is certain at LEAST 250m quid today by that crude reckoning.