Martin Samuel: The plot to shackle City & Chelsea

[TCIB]

He says fuck all in that, Patrick Barclay is lucky to have a job imo.

So is it good or bad Patrick.

This below is just rubbish, United and Arsenal were already inflating wages that stopped the Villas and Evertons cracking it.
I have never heard such fucking bollocks in a while.

"The riches with which Mansour or, before him, Roman Abramovich at Chelsea have built their empires are responsible for a salary inflation that not only disturbs United and Arsenal but destroys the chances of clubs otherwise eager to intensify competition at the top."

This was happening long before even Chelsea got money so do your fucking job or write a blog and weep all day you bitter moaning idiot.

 

[Berkovic_blue]

The riches with which Mansour or, before him, Roman Abramovich at Chelsea have built their empires are responsible for a salary inflation that not only disturbs United and Arsenal but destroys the chances of clubs otherwise eager to intensify competition at the top.

Revisionist bullshit. Were Shiekh Mansour or Roman Abramovich to blame when the rags kicked this all off by doubling Roy Keane's wages to £50k a week? No, thought not.

Exactly. That point by Barclay is one I often see parrotted by fans of other clubs as if it's fact. Surprisingly, no one ever provides a shred of evidence to support these claims.

 

[M18CTID]

The riches with which Mansour or, before him, Roman Abramovich at Chelsea have built their empires are responsible for a salary inflation that not only disturbs United and Arsenal but destroys the chances of clubs otherwise eager to intensify competition at the top.

Revisionist bullshit. Were Shiekh Mansour or Roman Abramovich to blame when the rags kicked this all off by doubling Roy Keane's wages to £50k a week? No, thought not.

Indeed.

I'm quite surprised with some of what Barclay has said there - not just because it's revisionist crap but also because I've read a few of his columns in The Times in the past and he's generally spoken quite well of City and our owner, while he's never been afraid to criticise United or Ferguson.

 

[Manx Blue]

Basically, United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs were sat at the poker table and enjoying themselves.

Along came City and Chelsea with a shed load more chips to play with...and they don't like it.

Ever since SM took over in 2008, we've been derided as mercinaries, a club lacking in spirit whilst riddled with disharmony. A sideshow for the others to laugh at.

Now we've actually won a few trophies, our peers are shit scared of us. We actually represent a very large problem for their cartel.

I for one hope every club, whether it be the PL or the Championship sees through this bullshit. Every honest football supporter has a dream to see their team, whether it be City, Peterborough or Fleetwood, be the very best they can be.

IF FFP begins to take hold, we will never see a Blackburn Rovers, or an Everton of the 80's offer a realistic challenge to the cartel.

I'm proud City have done, and want to see more clubs do the same. If it means we don't win things as regularly, fine. But lets get away from what our game has become...a sterile non-entity of a competition.

Three clubs to realistically win the title after 12 games is not the way forward, and shackling clubs with FFP will not offer others a realistic chance of competeing, merely participating.

 

[Berkovic_blue]

Paddy Barclay's retort. Utter shite in my unbiased opinion.

Why I support the plot to stop Manchester City and their sheikh's millions ruling the game

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/sport-comment/patrick-barclay-why-i-support-the-plot-to-stop-manchester-city-and-their-sheikhs-millions-ruling-the-game-8450384.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/sport-c ... 50384.html</a>

He's in favour of our owners

Could've fooled me!

 

[M18CTID]

He says fuck all in that, Patrick Barclay is lucky to have a job imo.

So is it good or bad Patrick.

This below is just rubbish, United and Arsenal were already inflating wages that stopped the Villas and Evertons cracking it.
I have never heard such fucking bollocks in a while.

"The riches with which Mansour or, before him, Roman Abramovich at Chelsea have built their empires are responsible for a salary inflation that not only disturbs United and Arsenal but destroys the chances of clubs otherwise eager to intensify competition at the top."

This was happening long before even Chelsea got money so do your fucking job or write a blog and weep all day you bitter moaning idiot.

Yep - the previously mentioned 50k a week deal for Roy Keane at United was signed in 1999 and Sol Campbell became Britain's first 100k a week player when he signed for Arsenal in 2001, contracts that were agreed 4 and 2 years before Abramovich pitched up at Chelsea. And before any of the mouth-breathing element of United and Arsenal's support claim that their clubs could do it as they were "established" or some other shitty excuse, it wasn't just the big clubs that were at it - Bradford were paying Carbone 40k a week in 2000, a decision that contributed to them going into financial meltdown.

 

[waspish]

Re: Martin Samuel: The plot to shackle City & Chelsea

Paddy Barclay's retort. Utter shite in my unbiased opinion.



<a class="postlink" href="http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/sport-comment/patrick-barclay-why-i-support-the-plot-to-stop-manchester-city-and-their-sheikhs-millions-ruling-the-game-8450384.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/sport-c ... 50384.html</a>

He's in favour of our owners

Could've fooled me!

I mean in what we are doing with our academy and infrastructure around the ground

 

[waspish]

Re: Martin Samuel: The plot to shackle City & Chelsea

Think it's just less trophies to go around now that there is proper competition from more clubs that worries them also

 

[halfcenturyup]

He is trying to suggest that City's academy plans are only as a result of the FFP regulations, when any sane person knows that this was always part of the owner's "10 year plan". Poor piece of journalism rushed out as a response to a hot topic they missed out on it seems to me. We can all have an off day I suppose.

He's in favour of our owners

Could've fooled me!

I mean in what we are doing with our academy and infrastructure around the ground

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I think Martin Samuel underestimates the cynicism of the four clubs involved in this letter. City and Chelsea are their main targets though I think the income of both clubs is probably too large for them to be effectively shackled. The kind of rules they are talking about would, however, stuff forever other potential rivals, such as Everton and Villa.

What have these clubs got in common? Well, they were all part of the “Big Five” of the early 90s, all part of the “football is an entertainment industry” group and all part of the prime movers to allow sponsorship and keep all the gate money. But now three of them are owned by Yanks who have added these “franchises” to their sporting portfolios and now want to operate in an “American” (ie rigged) market.

The Glazers need United's profits to subsidise their ailing ventures. Stan Kroenke says he wants to take money out of Arsenal and not put it in. He tells Arsenal fans bluntly that they could compete for the best players, but profits would suffer. And then there's the Fenway group, who dilly dally about the stadium and have got fed up of investing in players. So they want to force all owners to follow the “American way of life” - no investment allowed! It will be OK for American companies to put money into clubs through sponsorship – but only in carefully controlled sums at other clubs – and presumably influence club policy decisions, but not owners and shareholders. It will be OK to screw supporters through ticket prices, which the closure of the route to success for other clubs will mean their supporters won't pay. And it will mean other teams can't pay the wages to attract decent players. But it will mean the CL revenues are kept safe for Uncle Sam's teams. Villa and Everton will be ruined, along with Fulham and Wigan for starters (all of whom are losing money and would have to sell players to break even) along with others. Fenway seem to think their team is good enough to allow them to break even next year – as do Arsenal – with most of the competition nobbled. As for Spurs... But, of course, leveraged takeovers would be allowed... Debt would be OK – well as long as you're used to being in debt.

This is necessary because the Sheikh and Roman do what they do for “football reasons”. They actually want a successful (and self sustaining, in the case of the Sheikh) club. This is a disgraceful aberration. Good (American owners) know that everyone should want to leech money out of the game.