UK time is: 09:44:18
Vital Login
Social Login

Choose your club

Other Sites

Network Navigation

Vital Partners

'If It's Football, It's Vital'

Kamikaze Spending?

Vital Manchester City received the following article from member, BitterBlue.

Looking back through the previous Premier League champions; other than United (11 titles), who else has have been crowned champions?

Blackburn (1), Arsenal (1), Chelsea (3).

There's one common theme and that is spending power. With the possible exception of Arsenals single title, how did Blackburn and Chelsea achieve success?

As to kamikaze spending...

How did Manchester United achieve and maintain their success? Is it a coincidence that they've been breaking British transfer records as far back as Dennis Law?

Look at some of their current squad: - Hargreaves (£17m), Ferdinand (£30m+ transfer record), Anderson (£17m), Berbatov (£24m), Rooney (£26m at 18, transfer record for an under 20), Carrick (18m), Nani (£14m+), Valencia (£16m).

Then look at their much glorified youth system since the golden generation (Giggs, and Scholes et al), that have now broken into the current first team squad:- Smalling (bought aged 20), De Silva brothers (bought aged 17), O'Shea (bought aged 17), Evans (bought aged 18), Obertan (bought aged 20), Macheda (bought aged 17), Gibson (bought aged 18), De Laet, (bought aged 20), Corry Evans (bought aged 19), Bebe (bought aged 20).

I have no personal axe to grind with United - honest! In Fergie they have probably the best manager of all time (or certainly of my generation), and their trophy cabinet is the only example needed to portray the clubs great success over decades.

I rightly acknowledge their record of success (through gritted teeth mind) as it's good to have your benchmark for success as a local rival. As I say, this is no personal dig at United; it's just that our local rivals also happen to be the most successful club over the last few decades. As to other current contenders for the top 4...

Liverpool has spent massively, as have Aston Villa, and in particular Tottenham whose current squad has cost an estimated £197m.

One final point missed by much of the media is the fact that as of next season, all transfers will have an impact on their qualification to European competitions following Platinis' ridiculous new financial restrictions; which again will only benefit the currently successful clubs who already share a position on the Euro top table.

By spending a lot now, especially as it's generally cash paid in a lump sum, we are positioning ourselves to be in a very strong position once these rules are in place. Kamikaze spending or considered and thought-out planning for our future?






Use your social login to comment on front page articles. Login using you Facebook, Twitter, Google or LinkedIn accounts and have your say!



Click here to join in the debate on the club forum.

The journalist

Writer: BitterBlue Mail feedback, articles or suggestions

Date:Tuesday August 24 2010

Time: 9:53AM

Your Comments

So which owners are more Kamikaze? The Shiekh or the Glazers? Hmmmmmm.
Spooks
Tick..tock...rags.
Johnny Baguette
Berbatov was £32m
Saleblue
Berbaflop cost £30.5m surely? But But But, the rags earned the right to spend all that money, honest guvnor!
fifthcolumnblue
£13 million spent by Taggart in Summer 1989...
Johnny Baguette
hi guyz congrats on a gr8 victory,looking forward to us (chelsea) vs u guyz at ur home ground,last year we got a hiding from u people on both home and away..lets see how we do this time,you people are genuine title contenders
kishaloy_nag_blue
The earned the right argument being put forward by the Rags is laughable, if they earned that money then why the MASSIVE debt?
Bluedub
Er no - Le Arse have won the Premiership four times, havent they? What am i missing?
OLASAL
Arsenal have won the premiership 3 times, not once.
Paul Calf
Why the need to defend your spending? that's the fastest way to reach the top. Real are only famous because they bought all the best players in the world together in the 50's. United have consistently outspent others to maintain top spot. Chelsea are considered one of Europe's best now.... and we all know how they got there.
maka4chelsea
Criticizing other clubs for spending shows a jealous mentality. Basically what they are saying is... we used to be great but we don't have the means to stay there anymore so can you please also not spend so that we stay above you.
maka4chelsea
And have we forgotten the massive, the fabulous, thw world beating JUAN SEBASTIAN VERON? And ..... Poborski?
pedmachine
Sadly the gulf between the top and bottom of the Premiership is all down to the amount of readies available to any given club. That said you still need to buy the right players and it does look as though Roberto is doing well on that score. People forget that Utd have been spending for generations as they have done so on a regular basis by topping up an already quality side. Only difference between them and the likes of you and Chelsea persay is the fact you had to spend large in one hit to try to catch up.
SFC Forever
surely u should do the slightest bit of research before writing an article. i see what ur saying tho.
black-messi
Spurs always spend Heavy and aint wont a fat lot have they ??? , The argument with City's Spending is , The Wages not the Transfer Fee's , Man utd and Chelsea could afford whatever Man city pay for a player but City will just say , We will pay you an extra 50k a week , bonuses galore and probably your own private jet lol , unfortunately , its what every fan at every club would want , but you lose a lot of admirers etc or should i say gain a lot of people not liking your club for how its done , Still in the long run cant see you breaking the top 2 though , Liverpool are very pour travellers , They never scored against us last year at Molineux yet you lot scored 3 lol , Still cant believe you let Bellamy go n brought in Silva , Bellamy is preimership class !!!
ODDJOB79
Spurs have always balanced the books,sell then spend,it generally balances out at the end,and sure haven't won much in the last twenty years but still have won something,no-one outside the so called Big Four has really won much since the creation of the Premier league now have they?You have to spend just to keep in touch.
CoxintheBox
you people make me laugh...so yeah i remember when chelsea came around spent alot of money to win their titles but i do remember that united were still able to buy as: 1- chelsea did not increase the prices as you lot have (which i sort of understand since no one wanted to come to man city without the increased wages or extra transfer fees) 2- the wage structure that you lot offer no one else can match in this league...and that was never ever the case for united, chelsea, arsenal....as high as united offered others were able to match (other big teams mind you) 3- chelsea didn't seem to go about buying hat seems to be every top player on the market but for the most part of the past two seasons it seems that that is what you lot have done (though you might have a point about it being more calculated than what it seems like...only time will tell) 4- Sir Alex never critisized you lot for spending big on one or two players which is normal but to pay such high prices for so many players all in the same transfer season is a bit extreme (though i will admit you lot need to since you won't be able to compete otherwise) my point is your spending is extreme, but if you were to match the owner's expectations then you needed too....every body knew there is nothing wrong with a sugardaddy...but everybody also knew if you threw money in ppls faces it will make everyone hates you...just like chelsea initially when they spent alot they were the most hated team in england but again it was necessary for them to achieve the titles last point although united have spent big over the years it has always been spread out it is a very rare occassion (but it has happened) when united threw alot of cash on a number of players but again that is because united are already established unlike you
ibrahiy
Manure and thaeir manager have always spent, true. But they consistently use underhand tactics to get the players they want (kidnapping people at the airport anyone?), such as tapping up, offering incentives to player's parents etc. Taggart has a whole family of skeletons in his cupboard, and the Magnier and McManus affair revealed quite a few of them to United PLC, but not to the public as a whole. Check out this blog: http://anotherarsenalblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/fergies-red-herring-and-truth-behind.html
fifthcolumnblue
Ibrahiy - point no.4, City only payed above market value on Milner this summer, that is understandable as you have to take into account the England international premium and also the fact that Villa(quite rightly) dug their heels in. It could be argued we payed slightly over the odds for Kolarov, but when taken into account that Real were chasing the same player, his fee was always going to be high. The rest were bought at market value.
Bluedub
i'm not saying i'm against city spending Bluedub but i don't agree that Milner is the only player overvalued by City. Yaya toure wasn't worth 27mil and definitely didn't deserve to be the highest Earner in the BPL ... as great a player as he is. Kolarov wasn't worth 18mil either. On the other hand... given how much Valencia were quoting for Silva.... 22mil wasn't all that much. But i said before and i'll say it again...Pointless article as You shouldn't have to defend your clubs spending nor worry about whether you overpaid. It's the player's duty to show his worth.
maka4chelsea
ODDJOB thinks we cant break the top 2, Mourinho thinks we can win the title, hmmm..
me_innit
Maka, Yaya didnt cost 27mil but sthg like 24, Kolarov not 18 mil but 16.
me_innit
Maka - I don't know for a fact how much City spent on Yaya, however what I do know is Sandro Rosell was quoted in Spanish media as saying he had 21.5 million Euro(£18mil) from the sale of Yaya. Now I realise there would have been a signing on fee, but it would have to be massive to come anywhere near what the media are suggesting City paid. As for his wages, more media speculation, the City press office denied he is getting the wage that's been reported, yet no media outlet ran that story, wonder why?. Which ties into my last point, which is I have to disagree with you on your argument that this article is pointless, if City fan sites don't highlight the lies and sensationalism, then who else is going to redress the balance?
Bluedub
my point is.... you shouldn't have to.... Why should you care what rival fans think.... They would berate you even if you'd got the players for free simply because they do envy the quality of the lads. Having been in the same situation you are in now.... i can empathize
maka4chelsea
ME_innit , Just my opinion , You was impressive monday but against a poor Liverpool Team , Your alllllllllllllll going on about how much players Cost , Thats not what Ferguson and Jose and most of are going on about , 130 Million is half of what Real Madrid spent that 1 season lol , Its the wages , As your paying players a lot more than they are worth and if doesn't work out for them , You cant sell them as no other team will pay the wages they will expect !
ODDJOB79
Oh yeah n Arsenal won 3 titles not 1 !!!!!!!
ODDJOB79
 

Have Your Say

Log in...
with your social network     OR     with your Vital account

Recent Manchester City Articles

Stats: Man City v Swansea (Saturday November 22 2014)

Team News: City v Swansea City (Friday November 21 2014)

Pellegrini Sets New Year Target (Friday November 21 2014)

Kompany Boost For City (Thursday November 20 2014)

Fernando Expects Chelsea Slip (Wednesday November 19 2014)

Frustrated Sinclair Just Wants To Play (Wednesday November 19 2014)

French Interest In Guidetti? (Wednesday November 19 2014)

Nastasic Out, Messi In? (Tuesday November 18 2014)

Hart Break (Sunday November 16 2014)

Archived Manchester City Articles

List All VMC Articles
Have your say
Click here to suggest an article
Click here to suggest a poll

Vital Members League (view all)

League Results (view all)

Latest Results
Man City 2 - 1 Swansea
Q.P.R. 2 - 2 Man City
Man City 1 - 0 Man Utd
West Ham 2 - 1 Man City
Man City 4 - 1 Spurs
Aston Villa 0 - 2 Man City

League Table (view table)

Team P W D L GD Pts
1. Chelsea 12 10 2 0 +19 32
2. Southampton 11 8 1 2 +18 25
3. Man City 12 7 3 2 +11 24
4. Man Utd 12 5 4 3 +4 19
5. Newcastle 12 5 4 3 -1 19
6. West Ham 12 5 3 4 +4 18
7. Swansea 12 5 3 4 +3 18

Breaking League News

The First Goal Matters
» Arsenal : 22/11/2014 22:28:00
Rate The Players: Manchester City 2-1 Swansea City
» Swansea : 22/11/2014 20:54:00
Bojan wins October goal of the month
» Stoke : 22/11/2014 20:54:00
Pellegrini Praises Swansea City After Win
» Swansea : 22/11/2014 20:40:00
Monk Disappointed Not To Get a Point at Man City
» Swansea : 22/11/2014 20:32:00

Current Site Poll (view all polls)

Your Favourite Kun Goal From The QPR Horror Show?
Suggested By:  The Headshaker Ritual
Agüero 32′ 45%
Agüero 83′ 55%