Reflections on the "oil money" matter

[Ric]

In spite of Liverpool's dominance in the late 70's, thirteen different clubs won the First Division between 1960 and 1981, including the likes of Burnley, Ipswich, Forest and Derby.

There was a reason for this; the TV and gate money was split along fairly equitable lines. In terms of gate receipts, it was a system that had been in place since the 19th century and ensured that money was redistributed throughout the game in a manner that tried to create a level playing field, as much as possible.

Some clubs were uncomfortable with this. Some clubs thought it was unfair that 'smaller' clubs were benefitting from their larger supporter-base and so they took steps to address it. Five clubs in particular took it upon themselves to reshape the way that finances in football were distributed: united, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs and Arsenal. It started with Football League gate receipts in the early 80's, thereafter allowing home clubs to keep all of the receipts from ticket sales in league games (the old rules remaining in the FA Cup). This clearly benefitted the larger clubs with bigger capacities. The way that TV money was distributed was next, in terms of the terrestrial deal - more money would be kept by those at the top, at the expense of those at the bottom. However this didn't go far enough for some clubs and so a few years later a breakaway league was formed, The Premier League, with the top division keeping all their TV money to themselves. Throughout all those events, certain clubs threatened to go off on their own if their demands weren't met. Principally, the same five that made the moves around gate receipts, although tbf, other clubs, City included, were either compliant or acquiescent with the direction of travel. There was lots of money to be made, after all.

All these moves were designed by the 'top' clubs to concentrate more and more money at the top of the English game. It is concomitant of this approach, that those at the bottom would receive less, at least in relative terms. These clubs sought to enrich themselves by changing the rules to favour themselves, and it is undeniable that for them, it worked and enabled them to 'earn' their money 'the right way' for a sustained period.

More and more money flooded into the upper echelons of the English game, as a serendipitous cocktail of global media and technological advances conflated to create a perfect storm for those who were prescient enough to engineer their own good fortune at the right time. And it worked wonderfully for a number of years. The rich got even richer, on and off the pitch, whilst the rest of the game barely managed to keep its head above water. However, as the Premier League brand and the reflected glory that accompanies it continued to grow, people outside the party started to want a piece of the action. People like Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour. Why wouldn't they? I know I would if I had that sort of dough.

What we are seeing is quite simply the natural outcome of the decisions that were made in the early 80's. Create a sufficiently large honeypot and it will draw attention. Concentrate enough money in a particular area, then predators will circle and want a piece of it. It isn't particularly complicated or unexpected.

Perhaps if supporters of the foregoing 'Big 5' made the effort to research the subject, they would realise that it was their clubs' naked greed and own form of financial doping that created the landscape for the Sugar Daddies they decry to want to (and be able to) enter the fray. If they'd left well alone, and kept spreading the wealth around, the English game would still be wholesome and trophies would be spread out more evenly, which is something I'm sure they'd all greatly welcome - except they wouldn't, of course.

If you change the rules to suit yourself, don't expect that advantage to last forever.

And be careful what you wish for.

Tremendous post, wish I’d bothered reading that before I posted my rather simplistic equivalent. The curse of the “Ignore” function ;)

 

[FlemishDuck]

I bet the Flemish poster joining a month after KDB signed was a complete coincidence; these arguments go back 25 years an beyond.

Of course it was no coincidence, i became a fan when KDB joined, never was ashamed of it and never regretted it. I'm relativly new here compared to the veterans, all the same i have always felt welcome here, and i'm interrested in the history of it all too. Is there a point to this comment? City is likely going to get a load of new fans in the following years, and i hope so to.

Ill never be able to compete with the veteran fans, ive never been to the stadium yet lest alone on a cold rainy day against Stoke, i guess i'm a fan in a more modern international mold where more and more EPL teams are attracting fans and to some extend revenue from abroad, we don't invest just as much, but the numbers i presume make up for it.

I presume ill never root for another team though, KDB or not. I admit it must be different from fans who are manchester based, loyalty takes a deeper regional character than being mostly about the team you enjoy to watch and root for, or to which you came too following youre favourite player. Granted i never rooted for any other team than City. The world of football and the EPL is stuck with the added kind of fans like me, for better or for worse, media has made the nature of the fanbase changing, surely you can reflect on both the potentially positive and nevgative consequences of this reality? I can only be honest about it. Perhaps i'm a plastic fan (i do tend to wtch most matches, when i have the time) I presume there will be a day that plastic fans will be the norm rather than the exception ,that teams will earn significantly more from fans abroad than locally, it seems to be going that way. I don't think they will all be the same though, and i'd hope that when the day comes you rather recognise me as Flemishduck rather than plastic fan 102157.

 

[fulabeer]

Just text any rags quoting Oil/Petrol money. "Just think, every tine you fill up your car, you're supporting City"...job done!

 

[mccity]

All these fans that say they couldn't support a club with our owners for whatever pathetic reason (Arabs, oil, plastic club etc etc) are fucking liars (Here's looking at you, Red Everton). I'm sure there were City fans who had a problem with Chelsea's owners spending and other clubs as such but they're still here. Because supporting City means supporting City, end of. So all these holier than thou, envious as fuck, bitter racist babies can do one.

And Colin Schindler too, he's obviously racist.

 

[Ric]

I'm sure there were City fans who had a problem with Chelsea's owners spending and other clubs as such but they're still here.

To be honest, I welcomed Chelsea’s investment at the time, even though we were shit, purely because it shook up the status quo and United and Arsenal’s tedious hegemony. For the same reason I like to see other clubs being given the resources to compete now. Better to embrace competition rather than cry-arsing that your cosy cartel is under threat.

 

[mccity]

To be honest, I welcomed Chelsea’s investment at the time, even though we were shit, purely because it shook up the status quo and United and Arsenal’s tedious hegemony. For the same reason I like to see other clubs being given the resources to compete now. Better to embrace competition rather than cry-arsing that your cosy cartel is under threat.

I mean I didn't care either. But somebody on here had to, right? Seems odd that there'd be no single City fan who had a problem. My point was that they're still here, and so would any fan of any other club if they were in the same boat despite their claims.

 

[fareastblue]

abolish transfer fees and put a cap on salaries - see if the cabal loves it

 

[jay laruja]

I for one love hearing them whine. It's not enough that we win. They have to be miserable in their loss.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

abolish transfer fees and put a cap on salaries - see if the cabal loves it

Or suggest revenue sharing for matchday revenue, merchandise sales and some commercial deals, like the NFL.

 

[JGL07]

I always find it hilarious when fans discuss the ethics of investment and corporate responsibility in football. You have every right to bleed for your club and sing chant from the tops of the trees.... but that doesn't give them some sort of fiduciary responsibility when flashing the cash. What did you buying that pint and a pie, suddenly make you a stockholder?! There is no large amounts of guilt free money invested into football. It don't exist. Those Turkish clubs who have arms dealers fund their transfers just don't have good bankers! The world was shocked when the Ranger's success was mostly funded by gigantic tax dodge. but if anything, I'll bet other clubs have gotten away with murder (they just didn't get caught.) Maybe there was a time when your club president was a banker who could fund purchases with carefully timed sales and investments, but that's gone. And it is like that in Europe, US and China, wherever. Bob Dylan put it best, "money doesn't talk. It shouts."

Not quite right.

Dylan wrote: 'Money doesn't talk it swears'.

City certainly needed substantial investment to move from being a mid-table to relegation threatened club into top-four contenders. In the early years of the Champions' League, the income generated from Europe for the top-for team was in line with what was made from domestic competition. This produced a distorted Premier League dominated by the then 'Big Four' of United, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Chelsea. They took top four positions in the Premier League every season from 2002-3 through to 2008-09 apart from 2004-05 when Everton scraped into 4th place ahead of Liverpool. It had no financial impact as Liverpool won the CL that season and were allowed in while Everton failed at the Playoff Round and failed to make the Group Stages. This situation was all about being in the right place at the right time. They were dominant at the time when the UEFA money started to flow and capitalised on this to sustain their position.

The cartel was only broken when the monumental incompetence of the Liverpool ownership allowed Spurs to make the top-four in 2009-10. City replaced Spurs a year later. Since then the top-four has been more competitive and City are the only team who have finished there every season since then. UEFA income is less significant recently due to the new Premier League TV deals.

The investment in City has been well rewarded. I suspect that the increase in the book value of the shareholding, not to mention the cash raised from the sale of a minority stake to the Chinese, has more than offset the initial years of losses.

The difference between the ownership situation of City and United is that ADUG are looking for fair return on their investment while the Glazer family are bleeding United white to prop up their failing chain of shopping malls. United could easily outspend City by a huge margin. Indeed they have marginally outspent City but not that wisely. Now they have the gall to cry 'foul' having outspent City from the late fifties onwards.