Why have the media not slaughtered Spurs?

[Numptyed]

No player is worth that , and no sport can justify it , especially when others across the world are starving . quote]
I cant except this as argument when baconface splashed ont £50m on 2 sqad players last season, Nani and Anderson no one said jack shit! or even when Real Madrid offerd almost identical money for Ronaldo, 2 words, GREEN and ENVEY.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

Cos Redknapp has ensured that he is the media's best mate by toading up to everyone over a number of years.

Funnily enough, on a slightly different angle, the slimy toad is using exactly the same trick as Hughes and trying to make out that results and performances since he got there have fuck all to do with him and are solely the fault of players he inherited.

Both should be exposed and ridiculed for being so pathetic and refusing to accept any responsibility. Neither have been though.

 

[Darker shade of Blue]

What's ironic is that 3 of the 4 Spurs signings were all Spurs players .
Harry will gladly spend club money regardless of where he is . For me , a truly great manager is someone who can make the best of a bad squad , so is Harry really the great manager he is reputed to be .
Take a look at the current standings of previous clubs he has managed :o)

Regarding City ruining football , you have to admit that being prepared to offer ' well ' in access of £100 mill for 1 player , and 1/2 mill weekly wages is going to stir a few soups .

All I can say is thank heavens it didn't come off .
No player is worth that , and no sport can justify it , especially when others across the world are starving . It really wasn't a good move for the game , but just my opinion .

"....when others across the world are starving." - I don't know where to begin with this comment!

Anyway, do what no one else has managed to do and explain WHY the £90m and £250k pw wages (the correct figures rather than the tabloid ones) would be a bad thing for football.
I'm listening.........

I'll take your word on the figures , although if you care to document them in black and white from a copy of the unsigned contract I'll be interested in reading them .

So you pay £90 mill ( I'll go along ) and get 1 player , and then add 250k per week ( I'll go along ) which adds up to a further £13 mill per year ( over how many years ? ) what exactly do you expect to get for your money ?

The Prem title ?
Well in it's 16+ years , teams have some how managed to win the title without his services , so not necessarily a guarantee of success in the Prem .

Bums on seats ?
I'll let you do the ' exact ' maths regarding how many fans your stadium holds , versus the price of a ticket , but here's a rough guess :

49000 fans ( guess )

Ticket prices :
East / Colin Bell Stand Levels 1 & 3 Adult £34
East / Colin Bell Stand Levels 1 & 3 Under 16s £10
East / Colin Bell Stand Levels 1 & 3 Over 65s £23
East / Colin Bell Stand Levels 1 & 3 Disabled £24
Colin Bell Stand Level 2 Adult £36
Colin Bell Stand Level 2 Under 16s £10
Colin Bell Stand Level 2 Over 65s £36
North & South Stand Adult £29.50
North & South Stand Under 16s £10
North & South Stand Over 65s £17
North & South Stand Disabled £19

Let's take an average shall we ?

Average ticket price = £18.40 ( yes there will be more sales of certain priced tickets but go with me for a moment ) :o)

49000 x £18.40 = £901,600 ( if full every week )

Let's just take league matches :

£901,600 x 19 home matches = £17,130400

Now let's take the fee £90 mill + the wages £13mill and add it to a 5 year deal which gives £155 million over 5 years . ( Yes , you'll recoup some funds through shirt sales etc etc but go along with me )

Over 5 years £17,130400 x 5 = £85,652000 ticket revenue ( yes it would be more without the average price )

Anyone see a problem here ?

If you want bums on seats , you could give every fan free entry to every home game for 5 years , and still save money !!!
That's putting bums on seats :o)

Yes , the figures are wrong , but the principle isn't :o)

Your money , spend it how you like , but don't expect others not to make comment , as they will .

You still don't explain how the money paid to Kaka would've been damaging to football....or did you band that phrase around too easily like the rest of the footballing world?

I appreciate your maths, but City are in a totally unique position - you must understand that such monsterous finances are available without the need to borrow or secure against assets. Be it a good thing or a bad thing, no other club in the world is in such a fortunate position. Therefore, the price of a ticket has no impact on the financing of Kaka. Were you not aware of this?

You may be surprised to know that there are very strong rumours of a 20% season ticket reduction next season too.

Now, if you are able to offer an alternate argument as to why the proposed Kaka money would damage world football, then I will be willing to give you another shot.

The ticket reduction would be a nice gesture , but consider this :

What happens to the cost of any other transaction in world football should such an enormous fee be accepted as ...well .. acceptable ?
Does the next player who is a so called super star go for more , and let's face it , each generation improves talent in every sport , not just football , so there will be a player that will out shaddow Kaka guaranteed before long .
The costs of transfers will rise regardless , even in lower leagues .
Clubs that don't have the same funds will either go further into debt to get what they want , or do without . Their ticket prices ' will ' increase as a result .
The whole picture becomes a bigger financial headache , from club to fan to agent to Association , and something will have to give .
Leeds were a perfect example of what happens to clubs who invest too heavily in the hope of success .
How can it be a good thing for football if only a few teams will ever win anything , or be able to afford anything ?
And then what happens when the owners get bored , or die , and their heirs don't care for football ?
Already , the state of affairs in football is governed by big clubs , but it has to stop somewhere surely . There should be a cap on how much clubs can spend , as most clubs are running in the red already , and the future isn't economically bright :o)

 

[Numptyed]

"How can it be a good thing for football if only a few teams will ever win anything"

How many teams have won the league in the last 15 years?
And us buying Kaka and alike would make it 6 teams going for the Prem and would make it better surely.

 

[Darker shade of Blue]

"How can it be a good thing for football if only a few teams will ever win anything"

How many teams have won the league in the last 15 years?
And us buying Kaka and alike would make it 6 teams going for the Prem and would make it better surely.

If Kaka didn't cost what was attempted , then yes .

Wouldn't it be better if the league told the top 4 to stop spending so much money , so that all 20 had a chance ? :o)

If you win something , you gain revenue . Teams deserve to be able to spend that , but having a money man cut out the hard work ( and I'm not just picking on City ) should be stopped .

 

[Numptyed]

"How can it be a good thing for football if only a few teams will ever win anything"

How many teams have won the league in the last 15 years?
And us buying Kaka and alike would make it 6 teams going for the Prem and would make it better surely.

If Kaka didn't cost what was attempted , then yes .

Wouldn't it be better if the league told the top 4 to stop spending so much money , so that all 20 had a chance ? :o)

If you win something , you gain revenue . Teams deserve to be able to spend that , but having a money man cut out the hard work ( and I'm not just picking on City ) should be stopped .

Thats just totaly trashed your argument, if the ones that win get to spend the money only the winners will win.
I do grt were your coming from but thats capitalism for you.
On a different note DM aint doing so bad at your place to say the funds are limited.

 

[the armchair]

who gives a fuck what the media think? i know i dont.likewise im not arsed how much money other clubs spend.the media has always portrayed our club as the court jester ,and with our yo-yo exsistance have some times had a point.but as long as us blues like the way our club is being run and think were going in the right direction what does it matter to outsiders?i say fuck em

 

[Ghost in my house]

1. What happens to the cost of any other transaction in world football should such an enormous fee be accepted as ...well .. acceptable ? Does the next player who is a so called super star go for more , and let's face it , each generation improves talent in every sport , not just football , so there will be a player that will out shaddow Kaka guaranteed before long .
2. The costs of transfers will rise regardless , even in lower leagues .
3. Clubs that don't have the same funds will either go further into debt to get what they want , or do without . Their ticket prices ' will ' increase as a result .
4. The whole picture becomes a bigger financial headache , from club to fan to agent to Association , and something will have to give .
5. Leeds were a perfect example of what happens to clubs who invest too heavily in the hope of success .
6. How can it be a good thing for football if only a few teams will ever win anything , or be able to afford anything ?
7. And then what happens when the owners get bored , or die , and their heirs don't care for football ?

1. You are correct, folks will say that "if Kaka is worth £90m then <insert next big thing> must be worth in excess of that", but, and I hate to take this down to such basics, but a player is only worth what someone is willing to pay for him. You could value the next big thing at £90+, but if no one can afford it then the figures are redundant.
2. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
3. Why should City be blamed for their mis-management then?
4. That's a bit fluffy.
5. Leeds were a perfect example of mis-management. They borrowed, we don't have to. You are not comparing apples for apples.
6. We are trying to increase that small band of teams, surely you must agree that is a good thing?
7. Hypothetical claptrap, without any substance.

 

[Darker shade of Blue]

For the record , I actually like City .
We've always had a lot in common as teams , and had to work hard for what we have , whilst in the shaddows of our bigger sisters .
As a salesman for a company , I spent most of my day in and around Manchester for about 3 years out of 8 of that particular job , and drove past Maine Rd about 20 times daily . I spent 12 hours a day chatting to both red and blue be it customers or general banter , and never was I rediculed for being an Everton fan ; at least not nastily .

When City put one up United last year twice , I was thrilled ... honestly .

Yes , since the start of the prem , money has mattered , and it would be cool for another team to get amongst the pickings , but all I'm saying is simply how good it would be to be able to do it without going daft .
£30+ mill for Robby was bad enough , but other teams have spent that before you so not extortionate , but don't lose grip on reality by buying players like Kaka etc for rediculous sums . There are plenty of others that can win it for you .

Total cost of EFC about £26 mill :o)

 

[Ghost in my house]

If you win something , you gain revenue . Teams deserve to be able to spend that , but having a money man cut out the hard work ( and I'm not just picking on City ) should be stopped .

Football has never...ever....been idealistic in this way. It's starting to sound like you have a chip on your shoulder about the lack of finances at Goodison and would prefer that the rules were re-written to accomodate Everton....which, I'm sure, isn't the case.