Reflections on the "oil money" matter

[sheepskin_tearaway]

2009 - 'they're all mercenaries, money can't buy team spirit'.
13/5/2012 - 'they've bought the title'.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

2009 - 'they're all mercenaries, money can't buy team spirit'.
13/5/2012 - 'they've bought the title'.

From the dressing room antics of recent weeks, and the poignant pics with the 21LVA shirts after Spurs, I’d say we’ve managed to buy a bit of team spirit, too!

And....who cares what other people say? NOTHING is going to stop morons being morons or making people educate themselves on the history and context of the Blue Moon Rising.

 

[goater555]

 

[sir baconface]

You don’t smash a cartel if you’re boracic. I feel privileged but not in the least bit ashamed.

 

[dips66]

I wonder if there are loads of Newcastle fans screaming No No No to the Oil Money coming in with that Amanda Staveley and her groups attempted takeover?
Or are they counting their chickens and hoping they turn into City Mk II ?

 

[jrb]

For any lurking (Red Cafe) Rags.

Ask yourself, how many times did you say this word when talking about Sheikh Mansour and Manchester City Football Club?

bored1
bɔːd/
adjective

1. feeling weary and impatient because one is unoccupied or lacks interest in one's current activity.

 

[Academica]

As the Sheikh buys shares for every £1 he puts in, according to the accounts he's put in £1.3bn since the takeover but about £300m will have been for the CFA & SS3.

The most accurate valuation of City alone is around £2bn so he's made a tidy little return.

Thanks for the reply.
One person who really pisses me off it that clown Simon Jorden who gets brought onto talksport to tell the world how to run a football club. He constantly says things about our finances and gets in his snide digs about our owners. From the figures you have stated above it does not seem that our owners have made such a bad investment yet tw-ts like him thinks he can give financial advice to someone who could buy and sell him billions of times over. Having never had to run a business myself even I can understand that if you invest x amount of money into a business and said business is now worth x+y I have made y profit. One day soon these so called experts will come to realise that we are not just a rich man's play thing but a monster of a financial institution who just happen to play football of the gods. We are not going away any time soon and I for one am going to enjoy every minute of every pundit, journalists, fans of other clubs worst nightmare coming to fruition. Let them hurt and hate more every day its our time, I'm getting on now just wish I was 40 years younger to see just how far this club is going to go. 50 years a blue and never regretted one second of it but must admit I never thought I was going to see the football we are playing now.
CTID the best team in the land and all the world.


Unless we do a city and it all turns to shit, night blues.

 

[citizenyank76]

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.

Good post. Well put.

 

[Ric]

The very notion that other clubs have “earned” their wealth, or are somehow more ethically funded than City, is frankly laughable. Fans of United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and Everton, who instigated this rampant commercialisation back in the early 90s by forming the Premier League, should take a long look at themselves. You reap what you sow, and all that.

 

[aguero93:20]

The very notion that other clubs have “earned” their wealth, or are somehow more ethically funded than City, is frankly laughable. Fans of United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs and Everton, who instigated this rampant commercialisation back in the early 90s by forming the Premier League, should take a long look at themselves. You reap what you sow, and all that.

If Guardiola renews his contract, the increase in oil money comments is going to be fucking brilliant.