MON, 4PM ET
QPR
AST
TUES, 3:45PM ET
SHR
CHE
TUES, 4PM ET
LIV
SWA
WED, 3:45PM ET
MCFC
NUFC
WED, 4PM ET
TOT
BRI
THURS, 3:45PM ET
VER
LAZ

Claims that Manchester City Bought the FA Cup Are Hypocritical

man city crest Claims that Manchester City Bought the FA Cup Are Hypocritical

Photo by ivan03

Manchester City have had an incredible season after qualifying for the Champions League, winning the FA Cup and finishing the season in third place, tied with second-place Chelsea on the same number of points. They finally got the monkey off their back by winning a piece of silverware, their first meaningful one since 1976.

However, it’s interesting to see what the reaction has been from some rival supporters. Rather than congratulating City on a well-deserved season, rival supporters have thumbed up their noses at Manchester City’s achievements. “You can’t buy history.” “They bought the FA Cup.” And so on. These are just a couple of the many similar comments made against City in recent days.

Rival supporters are trying to dismiss City’s achievements, to knock them down a peg or two. In their minds, anyone can buy a title if they have enough money, But while an infusion of cash into a club’s coffers definitely helps, it doesn’t guarantee success. It can help significantly, but the club still has to perform on the pitch to get the necessary results.

The “You can’t buy history” taunts are nothing new. When Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea, many supporters said the same thing about the Blues and dismissed their achievements by saying that club bought success too. However, the truth of the matter is that all English clubs buy success. Manchester United is a buying club. So too is Arsenal and Tottenham and Liverpool. The list goes on and on.

The claims that Manchester City “bought the FA Cup” often come from Man United supporters. But consider some of United’s stars this season:

  • Wayne Rooney – Bought from Everton
  • Edwin van der Sar – Bought from Fulham
  • Antonio Valencia - Bought from Wigan
  • Dimitar Berbatov – Bought from Tottenham
  • Chicharito – Bought from Chivas
  • Rio Ferdinand – Bought from Leeds
  • Etc.

Of the 11 Manchester United players who started against Blackpool this past Sunday, only Jonny Evans and Paul Scholes came through Manchester United’s youth system. Everyone else was bought.

Manchester City critics may argue that it’s the extent to how much City paid that makes the claim that “They bought the FA Cup” more real. Looking at this season’s wage bills for the clubs in the Premier League, Manchester City does have a bigger wage bill (£133m) than Man United (£131m), but only by £2 million. If City “bought the FA Cup,” then Man United “bought the Premier League title.” Looking more closely at the wage bills of the Premier League clubs, it’s Chelsea who has the worst wage bill at £174m. But as I said before, money doesn’t guarantee success. Chelsea finished the season empty handed.

So the next time when supporters start a banter about how your club bought their success, remember that all clubs buy success. Some more than others, yes. But we live in a day and age where all Premier League clubs are heavily involved in the transfer market as they try to get a competitive advantage over their opposition by procuring the best talent from England or anywhere else in the world. Manchester City isn’t the only club on this planet who spends a ton of money to help achieve their goals.

This entry was posted in General, Leagues: EPL. Bookmark the permalink.

About Christopher Harris

Founder and publisher of World Soccer Talk, Christopher Harris is the managing editor of the site. He has been interviewed by The New York Times, The Guardian and several other publications. Plus he has made appearances on NPR, BBC World, CBC, BBC Five Live, talkSPORT and beIN SPORT. Harris, who has lived in Florida since 1984, has supported Swansea City since 1979. He's also an expert on soccer in South Florida, and got engaged during half-time of a MLS game. Harris launched EPL Talk in 2005, which was rebranded as World Soccer Talk in 2013.
View all posts by Christopher Harris →

166 Responses to Claims that Manchester City Bought the FA Cup Are Hypocritical

  1. Earl Reed says:

    You mean Chicharito didn’t grow up in suburban Manchester? Color me surprised!!!

    • Troy says:

      You mean Earl Reed’s on here trolling another post that mentions United again? Color me surprised!!!

      • Earl Reed says:

        I’m sorry Troy, I’ve forgotten how fragile the egos at Old Trafford have become. It was just yesterday that I thought you guys were putting up a banner taking a dump on Liverpool, wasn’t it? I know, that wasn’t you guys, it must be some Kopite who just wants to soil the great Red Devil legacy of tolerance and love for all.

        • Troy says:

          You’re right. It was totally me that did that, in fact I made the banner myself and teleported over there to put it up (only United supporters get teleporters Earl, sorry). In case you were wondering, I’m also responsible for what every single other United supporter does anywhere in the world. So, the next time something that any other United supporter does bothers you, just let me know and I’ll make a phone call from Montana to get it taken care of.

  2. Carmello says:

    I agree with you Gaffer. The only reason nobody gets on United about how they’ve “bought trophies” is that they’ve been doing it longer. The new boy comes in to the league to upset the apple cart and everyone starts freaking out. Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine!

  3. Chris says:

    Before the January Transfer window Manchester City had spent 455 million pounds in 5 years while only selling 75 million pounds worth of players in that time. An average net spend of 76 million pounds a season. In the past 5 years Manchester United have spent 164 million pounds (4th in the league during the time period), while selling close to 151 million pounds worth of players, a net of 13 million pounds or an average of 2.5 million a season.

    Your argument that a team purchasing players can’t criticize another team for purchasing players is pretty flawed and elementary. Everyone is active in the transfer market, Blackpool buys players. Therefore they are on the same level as Manchester City? There is a difference between building a team gradually/developing a squad by adding one or two faces each season and spending nearly half a billion pounds in 3 seasons. Yes, Manchester city isn’t the only club who spends (profound point), but no one else in the league are spending nearly as much money in such a short time period.If you can’t see the difference you should get a different job.

    http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html

    • WINDY MILLER says:

      Yes Chris but Man Utd weren’t just adding a couple of players each season since the introduction of the Premiership were they? They were in the top three spenders each season since 1992. And you are trying to tell me that Man Utd haven’t bought their success? Man Utd drew up the blueprint…. Man City have merely continued it.

      • Shuggie says:

        5 years is a convenient timeline but is completeley misleading.

        try 10 or 15 years or even more that utd have been dominating the top division through their financial might.

        Utd also have more 30M plus players than City have had.

        Lots of stats to show Utd have bought their success but this is tiresome. Lets face it, clubs have to live within the constraints and dynamics that drive success in the prem. It is frankly money money money and anyone who suggests otherwise is seriously deluded.

        City didn’t invent the financial model that is the premier league. All they are doing is what it takes to break into what was in effect a cartel. City are now in that cartel and over the next 5 years, no doubt, will be able to spend less (like other cartel members) have built their established squads.

        What I object to is the FFP rules that in effect close the cartel and stop anybody else breaking into the market.

    • Grandsolo says:

      yes, but check with City after this summer transfer window to see the transactions completed once the excess players are sold. you only tell half the story.

    • Ian Cav says:

      Chris, your point being what?

      I take it you feel City have bought the cup? Utter rubbish, and so is your statement that it is different building a team ‘gradually’ by adding one or 2 players a season! Bottom line is that money rules football, and the problem is here to stay thanks to Sky TV and the cash it brings in. There is not a team in the land (United included) that would not do exactly as City have done over the last couple of years given the resources to do so in an effort to reach the lofty heights of the top four and the cash generation it brings.
      Don’t forget some of the sums United have paid for players – I seem to remember Rio costing something crazy like £27m how many years ago?
      It is your logic that is flawed Chris, I’m guessing biased because you supoort one of the ‘traditional’ top four clubs.

  4. James Dunmore says:

    I’m no united fan, and I liked the city fans (I’m actually a gooner), but they bought the cup…. your article misses the point… how many players out of united’s stars this season were bought this year, or last year? And out of those that were bought, how many were financed from rich benefactors and how many were bought from fans paying to see their club every week?

    Every club buys players, every club every season will have a couple of star players they just bought, but there is a difference between renovating an entire team in 2 or 3 seasons and slowly adding talent to a core of your team that you have been developing a long time.

    How many of the current city team have been there more than 3 years, compared to united?

    • tim says:

      So James what you are saying is that the elite teams should stay elite and the other 14 teams should stay feeder teams to the top 4-6 teams? Manchester City finished in 14th in 06-07. Bought a few cheap signings in 07-08 under Sven and played ok. Hughes bought Kompany, Jo and zab before the takeover. Manchester City was in terrible financial shape before they were bought out. weeks before the 08-09 season there was talk of the owner trying to sell Stephen Ireland because he had run out of cash. The team was in dire need of higher quality players and have shaken up the premier league.

      So your problem is they did it too fast, they should only want to improve modestly every season? To make money and to get a business functioning correctly you have to invest capital to get it done. In order to get more revenue, you have to finish higher in the Premier League, FA Cup, Carling Cup and play Champions League Football. City will now finish higher up and future signings will come from Football revenue and it will be ok with you. But to get to that point the team need heavy investment. Every team does it, i counted 5 players for United to 4 city players(in the squad) that had actually come up through the ranks when they played the FA Cup Final weekend/United won at Blackburn.

      • James Dunmore says:

        Your putting words in my mouth… I didn’t say that it was a bad thing, and if it happened to my club, I wouldn’t be upset – although lets me fair, there is nothing better than a local boy turned good.

        All I’m saying, is that city bought instant success. I’m not going into if that is a good or bad thing, etc. it’s just a fact, they did

        • Mike says:

          And so has everyone else so what’s your point? Just to let you know your logic is flawed but don’t let that stop you expressing your jealousy towards Man City. Shame you cannot reflect on your words.

          • James Dunmore says:

            Mike – you appears to be mostly illiterate!

            Let me say this again – Man City have bought the league. Well done to them. If Arsenal had done the same, well done to them. Chelsea bought the league, as did blackburn – well done to them all. But stop denying it.

            Yes – every successful team have “bought” their silver in one way or another – the difference is – city could have decided to invest all their money in youth and an academy, and waited 15years for the rewards, or buy success now…. as any sensible brand and business would, they bought success now.

            And it’s not hypocritical to say that they have done it – at least not from united and certainly not arsenal fans.

          • shuggie says:

            you missed a name. United also bought their trophies.

            Sadly that is the model that is the EPL

        • Keith says:

          Dude read what the guy said. You’re arguing past him.

    • 750mil n counting says:

      your comments are a bit green mate: In the old days(i.e.before chimps league)the owners of the top clubs where the richest,for instance liverpool before the 60s and moores money ,had never won nowt.as far as new players at city ? they had to buy because the others where crap,am not the least bit sorry for winning the f.a. cup because we had to beat teams to win it,as for your team of bottlers,how many of them came through the ranks,not many if any.get over it mate your finnished unless your club spends some cash ….keep filling your car because am loving it.

      • James Dunmore says:

        Again – words in mouth – I didn’t say it’s a bad thing, nor am I against it – it’s just a fact that city bought success. City have great fans and well done to them.

        No need for team of bottlers insult – to be fair, city with plenty of cash have bottled the champions league spot last season if your going to be like that.

        As for players through our ranks (and I’m not saying that all started at our club, but have been developing here for over 5 years)… yeah, cesc, RVP, theo, clichy, sagna, song, wilshere, bendtner, Djorou, Sczheny, (sorry for spelling here) ,eboue, diaby- thats a full first 11 in there, and none of those players cost more than a few million, and some are worth 50m+ now, so yes, we developed them, and yes city bought the FA CUP.

        End of!

    • Carlos says:

      I bet you’re crying out for Winger to spend this summer though arent you? Or do you want another 6 yrs trophy free? How much did you pay for the 16yr old Walcott by the way. Goons about right for you pal.

    • Brad says:

      Why does that matter? What’s the difference between spending 400 mil in 3 seasons and spending 400 mil in 15 seasons if the end results are the same? The article is correct. The Sheik could have built a team slowly, offering less funds for transfers each season and this would have gone unoticed by all other football fans; something that united have been getting away with for the last 2 decades but at the end of the day, city would have spent the same amount of money be just as successful if not more so. Compare how much money city have spent in the last 20 years compared to united where city have spent the best part of them living off 2 buttons and a match stick found in the chairmans coat pocket.

      Then also consider the inflation in the prices of players. I remember when 30 mil was a lot for rio ferdinand. Do you think ronaldo would have sold for 80mil 10 years ago?

  5. Andrew says:

    You’re missing one key difference. United and Chelsea both kept a strong core to their team that wasn’t purchased by a billionaire. United with the likes of Giggs, Scholes, Neville, O’Shea, Fletcher and others, and Chelsea kept a number of squad players who pre-dated Abramovich, and still keep Lampard and Terry.

    City, on the other hand, ripped out the entire core and heart of the team, and, in a very cold fashion told their club captain and best player of the last decade, Richard Dunne, that they didn’t give a sh*t about him and f**ked him off to Villa. He’s still a better defender than some of the morons they paid big money for, a far superior captain to Tevez, and he never should have been treated that way by a club that he stuck with throughout the bad years. Same with Stephen Ireland who was their reigning player of the year when they tossed him, although to be fair he is a nutcase and a liability at times.

    Either way, City had a solid base to build upon when the new owners took over, but they destroyed that base and replaced it with players who were interested in the money rather than the club. Now, I’m not one to criticize players for wanting to get huge contracts and play wherever pays them the most, I would do the same. But I feel that when a team does what City have done, you can’t say say the criticism that they “bought titles” is unfair.

    As a final note, while United have paid quite a bit of money for some of their players, like Berbatov, Rooney and Ferdinand, they’ve earned a reputation for getting some of the biggest bargains anyone has seen in the last decade. Hernandez and Smalling being the most recent, but Ronaldo, Vidic, Evra, VDS, Park, Rafael, and Fabio all went for small amounts of money compared to their actual worth. When City start utilizing a scouting system like United have, maybe the criticism will go away. In the meantime, they can continue wasting money on the likes of James Milner and Gareth Barry.

    • Why? says:

      ‘They’ve earned a reputation for getting some of the biggest bargains anyone has seen in the last decade. Hernandez and Smalling being the most recent, but Ronaldo, Vidic, Evra, VDS, Park, Rafael, and Fabio’

      Ronaldo cost practically as much as the city squad at the time and was poor for the first two Years, granted he came good in the end as will some underachievers at City.

      So you must think that Zebaletta (£6m) is not as good as smalling then (£8-£10m)???? Vidic (£12m) Kompany (£6m). Hernandez (£8-10m) Adam Johnson (£8m) VDS (£2m) Hart (£600k). Park, Rafael Fabio? FABIO????? You’re having a laugh pal Park and Rafael are simply ok. Yeah City can’t get any bargains can they!!

      Do Veron, May, Hargreves, Taibi, Manucho, Forlan, Kleberson, Djemba-Djemba, Bellion fit into these bargins?

  6. Nico says:

    I disagree with this almost entirely.

    First, that criticism isn’t hypocritical when it comes from more modest clubs and their fans. The mere fact that other clubs also are successful by buying doesn’t mute the fact that it is disgusting that City have gone and bought success. I love the EPL, but it is a shame that there is quite so much wealth disparity. Of the top 6, only Spurs had wages under 100m (they had 67), whereas the other clubs in the league were all around 50m.

    Second, there is a difference between becoming a wealthy club through years of success that has garnered award money, a huge fan base and lucrative sponsorships, and becoming a wealthy club through an external infusion of cash. While I do think that United’s massive wealth is a large part of their success, that wealth is the product of the club’s success. So while it is true that their championship was in part bought, it was bought with money they earned. Not true of City.

    Third, there is a difference between buying players (which all clubs do) and buying the top players in the world at premium price. It’s true that United went and bought Chicharito, but it’s not like that was an example of simply selecting the best striker in the world and paying whatever it cost. Other EPL clubs might have bought him, but United had the foresight to do so. That’s not how I would describe City’s transfers.

    It’s obviously true that money doesn’t absolutely ensure success, but it goes a very long way. And I don’t see why people shouldn’t be bothered by the manner of City’s success this year.

    • Earl Reed says:

      >>>The mere fact that other clubs also are successful by buying doesn’t mute the fact that it is disgusting that City have gone and bought success.

      Here’s the important sentence in this. It’s a direct territorial rival to United, so that’s the problem. It’s alright to be an overspending frontrunner as long as you wear red.

      • Nico says:

        I don’t really understand your response. I’m not a United fan. And I don’t disagree that United’s ability to spend is a large contributor to their success. And I think that this is bad too. But I think (1) merely saying that others a guilty too isn’t a defense, and (2) that the article glosses over a number of ways in which United buying the title was less disturbing than City buying the Cup and CL.

        • Troy says:

          Nico, don’t worry about old Reed here. He just takes every chance he can get to try to troll people whom he thinks are United supporters. Just the fact that mentioned United in your post was enough for him to hop into the troll-mobile.

        • Earl Reed says:

          Does it really matter? Really? I’d love to see parity and equity amongst the teams. But to do that will kill the talent level in the league.

          The thing is, you have to trust economics. So the Arab ownership has boatloads of money to spend. SO??? How did United get so far in debt? I know, they gave it all to the poor, fed the mouths of the homeless. Naw, they spent it on talent. So you’re mad that it happened in the last year or two. That’s their problem, it’s their money to spend, and if they get hurt by it with the Financial Fair Play rules, then that’s their loss.

          I hate having perennial winners. I’d love to see some smaller market teams win the league. But unless FIFA broadly puts caps on the financial outlay of every world club, it will unduly stifle the quality of competition in England compared to other countries. But to label Manchester City as worse than Manchester United or Chelsea is unfounded in my opinion.

          • Georgie B. says:

            Earl,

            How did United get so far in debt? It was DUMPED on us! Don’t you know that?! Our beloved owners bought the club by borrowing the money then dumped it on the club. We did not spend our way to debt.

            I’m sure Sir Alex is prepared to battle City for the Premiership. He’s done it with Chelski. Now he has to deal with Chelski, Arsenal, Liverpool and City. No one’s complaining. We’re just calling it as we see it.

            Too bad you don’t like to see perennial winners. Go watch American throwball.

          • Troy says:

            Georgie, throwball still has the Steelers and the Patriots. Earl might have to stop watching sports altogether.

          • Adam says:

            Earl I probably speak for more people than just myself here. I have been reading this thread for a while now and have come to the conclusion that you are a complete and utter idiot.

            P.s thanks for the laughs. :-)

        • Mike says:

          I hope we make you cry even more you big baby. It is hardly news that football has been big business for a long time. Gone are the days of Brian Clough et al. The more you delude yourself into believing otherwise merely reflects your ignorance and nothing more.
          It is so obvious you support a rival club and not surprisingly find any newcomers like City to be trouble i can understand the resentment but you are going to have to just get over it, if our team beats yours it is because they have performed better. Sad acts like you needing to create a ready made excuse? – Pathetic.

          • Nico says:

            Wow, was this tirade aimed at me? I’m not quite sure what I said that got you so riled up.

            I’m a Spurs supporter, so obviously I wish that City hadn’t displaced us from the CL. Do I resent it? Not really. We only have ourselves to blame for way too many home draws against bottom teams. But I do think that City are an example of something amiss in the game, and that this tarnishes their success somewhat. I think that City fans have less to be proud of than they otherwise would, for this reason. Maybe that’s where your defensive animosity is coming from.

          • Carlos says:

            Brian Clough??
            There’s another myth. Who was it who bought the first million pound footballer in England? Thats right, Brian Clough when Forest bought Trevor Francis so lets not get all dewy eyed and romantic about it. Forest chucked the cash about when they won the European Cup. Did they get accused of buying it?

        • wyted says:

          You’re correct, it is not a defence, but please explain why City fans – need – to defend ourselves? We have endured years of hurt in the wilderness of the English Football Leagues and have been the butt of all jokes for the majority of my life but for some unknown reason you feel we don’t deserve a bit of luck for a change.

          City, like most teams in English football, were stuck in a rut in which success was never attainable without success, hmm, a difficult issue to overcome. And all the time these teams spend trying to achieve the impossible the Big Four are getting progressively further away from the rest in terms of success and finances.

          So the only possible chance that any team had outside the Big Four to achieve success was with external investment. It just so happens that Manchester City were the lucky team.

          So what is it you’re really upset with? Is it the fact that finally, somebody has come along and upset the Big Four apple cart? Pretty sad if that’s the case.

    • Carlos says:

      Ferdinand 30 mill. Shrek 30 mill. What was his name? the one that looks like something off star trek 28 mill then sold to Chelsea for less than half that. Veron that was it. Tiabe 8 million haha Bebe 8 mllion haha.
      How much was Kompany? 6 million. Why no mention of him? Selective memories you lot. Fergies splashed the cash don’t you worry about that. Granted Winger hasnt, excpet for 14 million, was it? on the 16yr old Walcott but he hasnt won anything for 6 years has he? Jog on Gooner

    • Why? says:

      What money had UTD earned 1986 to 1992???????

    • somervillain says:

      It’s just bitter jealousy any way you slice it. The old establishment of United, Liverpool, and (I guess) Arsenal are upset to have yet another nouveau riche competitor in the Chelsea mold — making it five big clubs vying for four Champions League spots now.

      Interestingly, a rational supporter of one of the other clubs competing in what has long ago become the Premier League B shouldn’t really care too much about City’s graduation to Premier League A. It really doesn’t affect them too much and actually gives neutrals a more interesting Premier League than in the past — when the only drama was to see in what order the Sky Four would finish and then who would go down.

      Yet instead, a tour of Premier League message boards reveals almost universal spiteful envy of City. These people really are just upset it wasn’t their club whose lottery ticket came good. Is it common in England to fly into a rage at the news of your neighbor winning the lottery?

      Look at the treatment of City in the media. We’re told City are the ones distorting the transfer market, while Chelsea and Liverpool each exceed the previous English transfer fee record a few months back without suffering similar accusations.

      And City and their manager are derided as practitioners of negative catenaccio, while the media heap plaudits on Tottenham’s attractive game and scrappy Blackpool’s attacking football. Yet in the end, Boring, Boring City ended up easily outscoring both of those celebrated sides.

      But perhaps the most ludicrous thing of all was the way the anti-City crowd changed its tune from telling us how you can’t buy spirit/success/unity/desire, to knocking City for not winning the title and only having an FA Cup to show for this season after investing so much in the squad.

      Nobody’s telling you that you have to cheer City’s rise. Just at least be honest with yourself and the rest of us and admit it’s purely out of jealous spite instead of trying to couch it in dodgy arguments and hypocrisy.

  7. Chris says:

    j;lkj

  8. Chris says:

    Hey Fascists, why not let my comment go through? Was my 5 seconds of research too much for you to cope with?

  9. The Toast says:

    This year’s City club is the most expensive team ever assembled. Forget the wage bill; they’ve spent anywhere between 330 and 400 million-ish pounds on their current first team roster. And Manchester United may have only had two home grown players on the pitch on Sunday, but City only has three on their entire first team roster. Three years ago before they were bought and the money started rolling in, they finished 9th in the table. The year before that? 14th. The year before that? 15th.

    The fact is they did buy their title. Which is completely fine. It’s also completely fine for rival supporters to point out. You think Manchester United isn’t criticized by rival supporters for their success?

    And since you like player lists so much, here is a list of players bought by City since the summer of 2009:

    - Garreth Barry
    - Santa Cruz
    - Kolo Toure
    - Emmanuel Adebayor
    - Carlos Tevez
    - Joleon Lescott
    - Jerome Boateng
    - Toure Yaya
    - Kolarov
    - Mario Balotelli
    - James Milner
    - Edin Dzeko
    - Adam Johnson
    - David Silva
    - Stuart Taylor

    If you ask me, the criticism is justified.

  10. Chris Smalling £7m, Anders Lindegaard £3.5m, Luis Antonio Valencia £16m, Nani £14.7m, Michael Carrick £14m, Gabriel Obertan £3m, Mame Biram Diouf £3.52m, Zoran Toši? £8.5m, Adem Ljaji? £8.5m, Ritchie Ria Alfons De Laet £1.1m, Dimitar Ivanov Berbatov £30.75m, Manucho Alberto £1.32m, Fábio Pereira Da Silva £2.6m, Rafael Pereira Da Silva £2.6m, Owen Lee Hargreaves £17m, Luís Carlos Almeida da Cunha £14m, Carlos Alberto Tévez (loan) £12m, Kieran Edward Richardson £5m, Michael Carrick £18.6, Tomasz Miros?aw Kuszczak £2.1m, Rio Ferdinand £ 29.1m, Juan Veron £28.1m, Wayne Rooney £25.6m, Ruud Van Nistelrooy £19m, Anderson £17.3m, Dwight Yorke £12.6, Jaap Stam £10.75m, Andy Cole £7m, Roy Keane £3.75, Paul Ince £2.4m, Park Ji-Sung £4m, Javier Hernandez £6m, Gabriel Obertan £3m, Bebe £7.4m, Nemanja Vidic £7m, Ben foster £1m, Edwin Van Der Sar £7m, Eric Cantona £1.2m, Gary Pallister £2.3m, Mark Hughes £1.8m, Bryan Robson £1.5m, Gary Birtles £ 1.25m.

    That is only half of their list of acquired personnel amounting to a whopping £384.84 million since 1980, the other half are almost nearly players under the radar that amounted to being nothing but reserve players and players sold on due to failing to impress.

    James Dunmore, unlike you I cannot stand the sight or sound of Arsenal fans and I am a City fan, you Arsenal fans are two faced, say one thing but think another.

    Arsenal are also guilty as sin buying trophies or atleast trying to buy trophies since the departures of Henry, Berkhamp and Vieira, all the youth your club currently have are poached from other European clubs and you all claim that your club is well run lmao, youre even more of a joke than United are and that is saying something.

  11. Chris Smalling £7m, Anders Lindegaard £3.5m, Luis Antonio Valencia £16m, Nani £14.7m, Michael Carrick £14m, Gabriel Obertan £3m, Mame Biram Diouf £3.52m, Zoran Toši? £8.5m, Adem Ljaji? £8.5m, Ritchie Ria Alfons De Laet £1.1m, Dimitar Ivanov Berbatov £30.75m, Manucho Alberto £1.32m, Fábio Pereira Da Silva £2.6m, Rafael Pereira Da Silva £2.6m, Owen Lee Hargreaves £17m, Luís Carlos Almeida da Cunha £14m, Carlos Alberto Tévez (loan) £12m, Kieran Edward Richardson £5m, Michael Carrick £18.6, Tomasz Miros?aw Kuszczak £2.1m, Rio Ferdinand £ 29.1m, Juan Veron £28.1m, Wayne Rooney £25.6m, Ruud Van Nistelrooy £19m, Anderson £17.3m, Dwight Yorke £12.6, Jaap Stam £10.75m, Andy Cole £7m, Roy Keane £3.75, Paul Ince £2.4m, Park Ji-Sung £4m, Javier Hernandez £6m, Gabriel Obertan £3m, Bebe £7.4m, Nemanja Vidic £7m, Ben foster £1m, Edwin Van Der Sar £7m, Eric Cantona £1.2m, Gary Pallister £2.3m, Mark Hughes £1.8m, Bryan Robson £1.5m, Gary Birtles £ 1.25m.

    That is only half of their list of acquired personnel amounting to a whopping £384.84 million since 1980, the other half are almost nearly players under the radar that amounted to being nothing but reserve players and players sold on due to failing to impress.

    James Dunmore, unlike you I cannot stand the sight or sound of Arsenal fans and I am a City fan, you Arsenal fans are two faced, say one thing but think another.

    Arsenal are also guilty as sin buying trophies or atleast trying to buy trophies since the departures of Henry, Berkhamp and Vieira, all the youth your club currently have are poached from other European clubs and you all claim that your club is well run lmao, youre even more of a joke than United are and that is saying something.

    • The Toast says:

      384.84M spread out over 31 years is a bit different than 350+ spread out over 3.

      • Blueape says:

        City aren’t paying the prices they want to pay for the players they buy so they are paying much more than the true value for most of our players. We are also buying young and mainly english players so it doesnt affect the english game in the way Arsenals policy of buying young foreign players does.

        If Wenger had 100 million he would rather spent it on 10 £10m players but surely if he had bought 5 £20m players he would have been buying experienced players capable of winning silverware regardless of the way they pass the ball.

        Arsenal fans are currently protesting about this exact fact.

        We may spend a lot of cash but we are buying top players with years to grow like Kompany 24 @ £6m or De Jong 25 @ £18m Hart 23 @ £500,000 Balotelli 20 @ £20m (voted young european player of the year) Yaya Toure 24 @ £24m, D.Silva 25 @ £24m (off the top of my head).

        The point im making is this: all the buys are young players at the top of the game and in their first real year together as a team they have succeeded in winning the fa cup and getting joint second in the premier league.

        The criticism is pure jealousy!

        • James Dunmore says:

          Arsenal fans are categorically NOT protesting over Wenger spending not spending 50million on one player – we are protesting over him not buying 3 or 4 15million players.

        • Zach says:

          Jealousy of…. winning the FA Cup instead of the league?

          If winning the league cost us the FA Cup every single year, I’d gladly pay that price.

          • Why? says:

            Note to Zach you didn’t win anything though so what does ‘instead of the league’ mean?

          • Zach says:

            Whoops, should have pointed out that I’m a United fan there..

          • Zach says:

            I was taking the jealousy comment back in response to the first posts in this little sub-thread, not relating it Blueape’s Arsenal comments. Fumble on my part.

      • WINDY MILLER says:

        Toast this is an unfair comparison. The value of each Million that Utd spent in the early nineties had a higher value and was worth more in real terms than each million spent by City in the last two years. Have you never heared of inflation? A loaf of bread costs 50p in 1992, but to get that same loaf of bread now you have to pay £1.30. You are still only buying the same loaf of bread. How about instead of adding up the totals over twenty years, why not tell us which team has spent the most EACH YEAR since 1992, then we will see who has really BOUGHT success.

        • Jay says:

          Windy, please please please… you can’t compare spending from a team that won the double before the spending happened to a team that wasn’t even in the first division. That’s more ludicrous then comparing a teams 30 year spend (including since 92 I might add) to a teams 3 year spend.

          Take off the blue blinders!

      • Carlos says:

        Inflation knobhead!! 2 million was a lot of money 30 years ago, its nothing now. A better guide is how many times have Manyooo broke the transfer record?
        Numpty

    • Jay says:

      I gotta be honest Jason, I agree with Toast. You really just proved everyones point. City spent in 3 years what ManU spent in 30+. Look, ManCity defenitely bought their success. You can’t deny it and more power to them for being able to do so.

      Your comments regarding Arsenal are just ignorant and I’m a spurs supporter so anytime I defend Arsenal, I cringe and it must be the truth :-) Arsenal doesn’t spend money… It’s one of their fans biggest gripes with the club. Vermaelen for $12 mi in 09. I really can’t think of anyone else. Besides some bad loans when funding the Emirates I hate to say it but Arsenal is in a really good financial position moving forward.

      Please know what you’re talking about before you speak.

      • James Dunmore says:

        Thanks Jay – You go that reply spot on.

        How long you been a city fan Jason? Since the FA Cup final ;)

        p.s thanks for the definition of two faced, I was struggling there, do they not have dictionaries up north? And for your reference, I say one thing and mean that thing, otherwise I wouldn’t say it.

      • Earl Reed says:

        OK, then ManUtd should prove how bad it is to be spending money in the transfer market by selling every one of their players and allowing their academy to take the field in 2011-12. Show how pure it is. Come on Sir Alex, you could probably get rid of all that debt if you did it! Be a real maverick, show what a true youth, homegrown, barebones budget team can do in this Premier League. Obviously it’s what your fans want!

      • 750mil n counting says:

        ok you lot win CITY BOUGHT THE CUP but hey guess what!we are gunna buy the league the chimps cup and carling cup!ha ha ha ha get over it or stop watchin footie.hope you lot have years in the doldrums like we have with no hope of winning anything. funny how you dont get rochdale fans or tranmere fans moaning about it……stop bitchin and get over it…..p.s. the best footie fans are those of the lower league clubs who know there team is never going to win the prem but still go..fact

        • Jay says:

          I think everyone is past the point that where to some degree everyone buys success, what Man City has done far surpasses that. Let me ask you this… if say, Wolverhampton was bought by a reich sheik somewhere and in 3 years spend $300 million to bring in some of the worlds best and then win the FA cup, would you not say they bought that?

          Keeping that in mind, if that same Wolverhampton invested over their earnings over there years and over the next 20 years continually improved and re-invested in the club and won the FA cup not one person would accuse them of buying the cup.

          To focus your history facts… MANU (seems to be the one we are comparing to when in honesty it should be Chelsea) were in a relagation battle when Ferguson took over in 86. it was 93 when they won the league. Some homegrown guy by the name of Ryan Gigs was the star, they paid 1.2 for Eric Cantona which led to the double and only then after winning the double shelled out at the time the biggest transfer for Roy Keane. They then won the treble then went on a bit of spending spree for Van Nisteelroy, Rooney and Ferdinand. Keep in mind this was aided by the sale of Beckham.

          I think the key take away here, besides that you’re a blinded Man City supporter is that there is a difference between buying and earning something

          • Jay says:

            Sorry… this was in reply to “WHY”

          • Why? says:

            So after Keane ‘They then won the treble then went on a bit of spending spree for Van Nisteelroy, Rooney and Ferdinand.’

            You seem to have by passed a few : David May, Andrew Cole, Ronny Johnsen, Ole Gunnar Solskjær, Teddy Sheringham, Henning Berg, Jaap Stam, Dwight Yorke, Quinton Fortune, Mikaël Silvestre and Fabien Barthez these are all between that ‘bit of a soending spree’ you mention but of course they were all cheap and some even youth players wern’t they! And the spending spree started with Van Nisteeroy did it? have a guess how much this little lot cost!!

        • Why? says:

          Oh course if Wolves spent like that they would have bought things. What are you going on about? I KNOW city are buying trophies the problem is people DON’T think Utd did, they and say they did it the ‘right way’. What way is this? Is it the way they spent 4 times any body else in the eighties!!! Is it only right if it’s in the past then in ten years later City fans can same they did it they right way? Why use Chelsea there a bit obvious they can’t hide behind 20 odd years. This is the HYPOCRASY the article is about! Just know that Utd also bought there success I couldn’t care less if you like that of not it’s true just like City. ONCE AGIN IN CAPS LOCK I KNOW CITY ARE BUYING TROPHIES JUST LIKE UTD, CHELSEA AND OTHERS HAVE.

      • Why? says:

        So by your ‘City spent in 3 years what ManU spent in 30+’ I take it that when Citys squad Cost say £12m and UTD’s was around £200m+ in the same year you think UTD bought their trophies? You surely must! The truth is out there, in every country the top spending teams are at the top this used to be upto what the board spent but now it’s all about who had the money in the first place and then use that money to stay there this has only been the case since the money men moved into football since the start of the prem.
        Oh and if Vermaelen cost £11m what did Bolton, Stoke, Birmingham etc spend in the 2 yrs before they bought Vermaelen I don’t know but I’ll bet it was a lot less than £11m, are you getting that? So did they buy there position? Answer YES.
        Arsenal don’t spend because they are in debt up to their eyeballs over the new stadium when it is near enough sorted they will be spending big time again!

        • Zach says:

          Why? -

          You’re not blowing anyone’s mind when you say United finishing ahead of City in the past could largely be contributed to the amount of money each club was spending at the time.

          And I mean you can harp on that if you want to, but the more relevant point is that City have spent more money in three years than United have in 31 and still finished 9 points back in the table.

          • Why? says:

            Actually Zach the point I’m making is that when Utd have spent much more than anyone else they have also bought trophies surely? And that Arsenal’s so called non-spending makes some teams spending look tiny.

          • Why? says:

            P.S I’d check my facts on this sentance if I were you!

            ‘City have spent more money in three years than United have in 31′

            Please dont go on about ‘net’ spends as profit can only be made after success. If City win the league etc the money they have spent will be more than made back on any of the young players they have signed.

        • Jay says:

          See above response… get past the obvious that there would be no Premier league without money, you’d have local kickabouts.

  12. What we City fans are trying to say is, we know we are buying success and accept it but the truth of the matter is, United and Arsenal fans deny that they have bought glory.

    The only true English top flight club not guilty of buying glory are Liverpool, again do I have to state that I am a City fan?, atleast we live in the real world and not lala land like the rest of you.

    • The Toast says:

      I would have loved to hear you 4+ years ago when you were most assuredly publicly criticizing United for the success the club bought.

      And Liverpool may not have “bought their glory” in the ancient past, but they’ve been consistently in the top four spending-wise over the past several years.. so it’s not for lack of trying.

    • Jay says:

      I gotta be honest, I don’t see ManU as buying glory… That’s a hard argument. Why not take the easy one with Chelsea. I also don’t see it with Arsenal and I’m a spurs supporter

  13. Toast, youre local is floored, they could have chosen to spend that £384.84 million plus in 1980 alone, thats not the point as the point is.

    Whether you spent it in one month or 100 years, you still bought glory, delusional denial is the sickness.

  14. Your ‘logic’ is ‘flawed’*

    • The Toast says:

      Delusional denial? Ha. Feel free to point out where I said United doesn’t buy their players. I’ll wait.

      Listen to yourself. You really think there’s no difference in spending the same (if not less) amount of money on.. let’s see how many players you included in your list up there.. 42 players for United since 1980 vs. the 15 City bought since summer 2009?

  15. Mekias says:

    If what ManCity did is valid, then why are Financial Fair Play rules being established to expressly prohibit this type of wild spending. ManCity would not be allowed in Europe if FFP started next year. So well done to ManCity for spending all that money before they have to start being accountable. They’ve already stated that they won’t be buying many players this summer. That’s an obvious concession to the FFP rules. It only remains to be seen whether there are loopholes that can be exploited to get around these rules.

    There is a difference between spending money that you’ve earned through revenue and spending money that you simply don’t have. I don’t love ManU but they make a ton of money. It’s only the Glazers’ massive debt that keeps them from being able to spend it all.

    Money can buy success in football. Anyone can see that. ManCity didn’t even spend their money wisely but because they bought so many top tier players, they could fail with many of them and still field a great team.

    I’m happy for the ManCity supporters but I’m sure some of them feel it’s a bit of a hollow victory. I know I would.

    • Earl Reed says:

      Exactly. A team like Manchester United should show how pure and righteous is is. Ryan Giggs? 20 MM to Chelsea. Rooney? Liverpool for 35 MM. Just get them all out of town. You don’t need all that expensive, high wage bill talent. You can run with Obertan and Bebe and the Evans Brothers. It would be a massive statement, just to put the foot down and show how horrible that Manchester City club across town has been. Wait, you can’t even start Bebe or Obertan, they were both transfers. No, dig deep, that Academy has been good to you, with Scholes and Giggs and Brown what 20 years ago? What a fine school they have. Ahh, maybe Welbeck can actually play for them next year. That’s the ticket, Hernandez would be loved in Spain. They really don’t need that high wage bill, like the evil murderous cross-town bunch.

      • Zach says:

        Earl, have you even stayed on topic once this entire conversation? No matter what anyone says you automatically jump to what Manchester United has spent over the years. Who is saying that Manchester United hasn’t spent money? Why do you keep saying the same thing over and over? I know you don’t have much practice defending your club’s success, but it’s definitely something you need to work on, especially when the only ammo you have is to automatically jump back to hating on United.

        • Troy says:

          Zach, of course he can stay on topic. He’s posted five times and mentioned United in every single one of them. ;)

        • Earl Reed says:

          I don’t have a club right now. I’ve been trying to figure out my rooting interest. To me, it seems like the entire case of Manchester City overspending is being brought up primarily by a group who itself has spent plenty in the past. There is a purity that is espoused, a moral equivalence to how money is spent. It’s OK to buy two players for greater than 20 Million Euros in one season, but not three or four.

          • Zach says:

            From this thread I can tell you’re on your way to becoming the greatest, most cherished United supporter of all time. Welcome!

            But seriously, I understand it when people don’t like the spending. American sports are able to relatively-circumvent this problem with free agency. The fact is, soccer clubs/players don’t let contracts run their course, and rather than trade players (which is how American sport teams gain “value” from a player they cannot reach a contract agreement with), the normative system in world soccer is to purchase the player instead. And thus, we have these “you’re club spends money so it’s more evil than mine” debates. It’s just the nature of the beast.

          • Earl Reed says:

            American sports can circumvent this because they are THE market in each of those sports. If a baseball, basketball, throwball (as Georgie prefers), or hockey player wants the most money, he has to play in North America. The markets in other countries aren’t large enough to sustain clubs buying players like a Real Madrid can do in football. And the current labor situation in the NFL directly relates to the way that American sports curtail salaries by exclusively negotiating with a union so the members of that union will not shop themselves to competing entities.

            In any regard, Zach and Troy, I do have respect for Manchester United. Success is a difficult achievement, and they’ve done it enough times to warrant admiration. I’ve realized over time that I don’t really despise great teams, but I do despise a lack of competition. The Premier League may be at its most competitive stage right now, but given all the transfer talk it’s likely going to devolve again into a Big 4 and the rest.

  16. MCHobbit says:

    Gaffer –

    I’m curious what your perspective is on this element:

    Typically, when a traditionally “downtrodden” team in American sports gets “new money” (or spend what money they can in salary-cap era sports), quite often they actually become the darlings of that sport, and people often love to cheer for them. We love an underdog, and usually don’t begrudge them for how they get to such heights, or at least on the level that City seem to get criticized.

    I hate to make this an Old World/New World debate, but is this an issue of the “nouveau riche” upsetting the balance of old money, and those that support the “old money” system getting their undergarments in a bind?

    I’ve only been following the EPL for around 5 years, so I can’t say that this is the case with any certainty – but it certainly looks like it.

    • The Gaffer says:

      MCHobbit, it’s interesting because up until a couple of years ago, Manchester City — for the longest time — has been the underdog. There’s definitely a romanticism about cheering for the underdog. I love underdogs myself. When Abu Dhabi bought Manchester City in 2008, they changed overnight from underdogs to the nouveau riche.

      It’s definitely a case of the “old money” being upset by the nouveau riche.

      Cheers,
      The Gaffer

  17. Why? says:

    I think to answer this you need to go back to before UTD hadn’t amassed a fortune via ludicrous prize money hikes year after year i.e. winning = massive money of the Premier League and champions league entry not to mention heavily top club bias of TV right payments which were nowhere near this before the Premier league. Meaning in the 1990′s these clubs were always going to be able to out buy the others.

    So lets go back to Ferguson’s first contract and what he spent in comparison to City to see if this can be levelled at UTD (bought trophies tag) also, well to cut a long story short its a massive amount of money that City could not have even dreamed of (check the squads costs yourselves). Now where did this money come from? Not from wining things as the had maybe won a FA cup or two in the few years before which is only about a million now so back then would have been peanuts. So where did they get the big money for players like Ince, Wallace, McLair and Hughes etc? I’d say a mixture of the owners money and bank loans. UTD were by far the biggest spending club of the eighties BOUGHT the players that led to their success. City’s team cost buttons and in the late eighties were mostly youth players and journey men but in 1989 they still managed to whoop the illustrious neighbours 5-1 (I had to get that in)

    So basically ever since the payments structure of the premier league et. al came along the winning/top 4 etc clubs were always going to have a massive advantage over the others, no more Nottingham Forest’s or Derby County‘s etc winning the league just a stale and stagnant continuous circle. Those top taems have been able to shop in Harrod’s while the rest have to go to Aldi. Teams fans cannot even dream of success any more as repugnant UEFA have even put pay to clubs getting a rich owner to keep there grubby little monopoly in place so another football dream gone, you might as well just support one of there top teams because you are never going to see success any other way it’s what UEFA want they are disgusting.

    City have spent big to catch up with these clubs after years of making themselves untouchable with the lob sided funds they received there is no other WAY end of just ask Everton and Spurs even though both have invested large sum in the last 5 0r six years just to try. Luckly they have done now been caught up by City and Chelsea the playing field is level for a change. If people want to moan about this kind of thing why not moan about the unfair payment structures in the game that are meant to keep the top clubs at the top?

    ‘Claims that Manchester City Bought the FA Cup Are Hypocritical’

    Massively !!!

    • Matt T. says:

      Great post.

    • Jay says:

      They’ve spent big to catch up?

      If you look at your ManU history the 80′s were a time of financial troubles and on the pitch troubles. From 2nd to mid to bottom of the table. Cantona was the only big acquisition before the double.

      Words are great but please provide actual facts.

      Danny Wallace ( 1.2, modern equivalent of todays 2.4 even say it’s 10 it’s still not close)
      Brian McClair (850K, modern equiavlent of 1.5)
      Mark hughes ( Sold by ManU for 2mil, bought back for 1.85)

      Also, the money you say came from selling stock on the stock exchange. They gained something like $5 mil from that.

      No arguments on the UEFA. I’m a spurs supporter so I see the huge mountain to climb… especially in our 36,000 seater. Extreme disadvantage, but I do believe we can earn more money like we did with getting champions league and the money that came from it so we can spend a bit this year. Whole different story there.

      • Why? says:

        My Lord! Wallace cost £1.2m but this is the equivalent of £2.5 is that right! Well what was the eighties equivalent of the £31.75 paid for Berbatov £2.6?

        When a player for £1m plus was signed it was big news as most were paying between £60k to £400k for the odd player unlike Utd who paid absolute fortunes In the eighties! I don’t have a clue what your trying to convince people of? £1.2 in would be worth £2m now?????? Well what would £1.5 for Robson (transfer record 1981) be worth now considering today’s record stands at £50m?

        Utd floated on the stock market in the nineties not the eighties!
        As for financial troubles in the eighties? do you know who were by a million miles the biggest spending club of the eighties? I’ll give you a clue the teams initials are M. U?

        As a Spurs fan you need to know that you can not compete with the money the top clubs can spend. You are forever cannon fodder for these top clubs to take your best players etc. Why you may ask? Because UEFA have just made 100% sure you will find it next to imposable to join the party with there laughable so called Fair play rules!! Most Spurs and other fans think these rule to be right your team is not allowed to spend like Utd did in the eighties or Chelsea and Arsenal and Liverpool in the nineties and naughties or City and don‘t think it is any problem to these teams because it simply is not. The reality is you will be playing for 5,6 and 7 place with the odd 4th every 10 yrs or so, all thanks to UEFA.

        Why can’t people on this site see that UEFA’s FFP rule are meant to keep the raising investment in the EPL down. IT ONLY KEEPS THE TOP CLUBS TOP JUST LIKE THE PREMIER LEAGUE ET.AL DID other clubs can go to hell for all they care.

        • Jay says:

          My mistake on the stock… it was 91. My point with the transfers, is that strictly dollar for dollar those would be the modern day equivalents. Now obviously tranfer fees have been inflated as of late so they are not exact, thanks mostly to Real Madrid.

          Back to transfer fees… if you try to factor in the raise in transfer costs, then in 84 diego mardona was the record at 5 mil. Todays record is Ronaldo at 80 mil which gives us a multiple of 16. So wallace would be 16mil and McClair abouty 13 mil or the equivalent to Kolarovs 16 mil fee and Asomah Gyans 13 mil fee.

          Keeping on that track… you can’t forget that ManU set the transfer record twice… both for sales inthe 80′s with Wilkins and Hughes. Oh and please remember that Man City did spend 1.4 in 79 for Steve Daley, more than ManU paid for anyone.

          My point is, that there spending wasn’t as wild as your’re making it out to be and it was accounted for with sales as well.

          • Why? says:

            Man Utd’s 1980′s players bought

            Ray Wilkins £825,000
            Gary Birtles £1,250,000
            John Gidman £450,000
            Frank Stapleton £900,000
            Remi Moses £500,000
            Jesper Olsen £350,000
            GordonStrachan£500,000
            Peter Davenport£750,000
            Brian McClair £850,000
            Steve Bruce £825,000
            Lee Sharpe £200,000
            Mal Donaghy £650,000
            Bryan Robson £1,500,000
            Mark Hughes £1,800,000
            Mike Phelan £750,000
            Gary Pallister £2,500,000
            Paul Ince £2,400,000
            Neil Webb £1,500,000

            Total = £18,490,000

            Man city’s 1980′s players bought

            Steve Daley £1,400,000
            Kevin Reeves £1,200,000
            Bobby McDonald £240,000
            Graham Baker £350,000
            Neil McNab £35,000
            Andy Dibble £240,000

            Total = £3,465,000

            There is a slight difference isn’t there? No other club even came near this sort of spending. Now did Utd buy there success? The answer is glaringly obvious!!! That why saying City are buying trophies is hypocritical, we all know they are but so DID Utd and many others!

            What are you on about x16 Maradona, Ronaldo it bollxcks mate, see what any other clubs paid out in this decade and you will find Utd double it at he very least! The only equation needed is spending 2x more than your rivals = trophies! Robson and Pallister also broke transfer records in this decade! Which club has broke the transfer record the most? No prizes for guessing. There spending was wild as hell my man!

          • Jay says:

            Okay… so fact checking just a couple here.

            First Mark Hughes was not bought for 1.8 in 1980. He was bought for 1.8 in 1988 after being solde a few years previously by ManU for 2.0.
            2nd, Robson was 81.
            3rd, Phelan was 89
            4th, Pallister was 89
            5th, Ince was 89
            6th, Webb was 89

            Not really adding up here… WHY?

          • Why? says:

            That’s why I wrote ‘Man Utd’s 1980?s players bought’ the clue’s in the 1980′s part. I haven’t mentioned any individual years this is what Utd spent to help get where the did in the nineties not even mentioning 1990,1991 or 1992′s spending which believe me only goes up. Because not all of them worked out doesn’t mean they never happened!! I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

  18. Guy says:

    Speaking of money……The Prem has published the broadcast payments to each club for this year. Yikes!! :-)

    http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~2366164,00.html

    • Mekias says:

      That’s about a 15-18% increase over what was paid out last year. I guess that means that players’ salaries will now increase by 15-18%. That’s usually how these things go.

  19. Patrico says:

    To me, the problem with MCFC is not just all the money they spent so quickly, but it’s the way the roster has been assembled.

    1. They massively overpaid for so many players over 2009-2011. Even MUFC gets value sometimes – Chicharito, Ji Sung Park, Rafael, Fabio.

    2. In many cases, they bought talented players, only to leave them languishing on the bench. This is my problem with all the top clubs – Real Madrid and Barcelona especially. When you pay big transfer fees for talented players, and then they don’t even play, it seems like a waste for the sport as a whole. I think Manchester City was an even worse offender than Chelsea or MUFC this season, which is saying something.

    3. The players just don’t fit together. It felt like they didn’t buy players to fill needs, they bought players to add more players. It’s so strange seeing Dzeko, Balotelli and David Silva all milling around the same space, with apparently little idea how to play together.

    4. Players that I used to like on other teams – Barry, Milner, Lescott – seem to be drowning among unlikeable players – Balotelli, de Jong, etc.

    5. They let players go without seeming to understand their value – Adebayor being a prime example.

    6. And yet despite all of this, because the acquired players are of such a high quality, they have been winning.

    • Why? says:

      ‘They massively overpaid for so many players over 2009-2011. Even MUFC gets value sometimes – Chicharito, Ji Sung Park, Rafael, and Fabio.’

      Kompany, Barry, Zabaleta and Johnson not value? What you on about? How much are Tevez, Toure, Silva and De Jong worth now?? I tell you more than they paid for them!

      ‘The players just don’t fit together. It felt like they didn’t buy players to fill needs, they bought players to add more players’

      It’s like you have taken random words and just typed them! You do know that City have just finished in what is basically joint second place don’t you? Strange!!

      ‘Barry, Milner, Lescott – seem to be drowning among unlikeable players – Balotelli, de Jong,’

      Barry has been Mr dependable all season Lescott has been top notch (in the joint best defence in the league) Milner didn’t take his chance when he could have. You are just spilling out pour drivel!

      ‘They let players go without seeming to understand their value – Adebayor being a prime example.’

      Adebayor is still a City player!!!!

      ‘And yet despite all of this, because the acquired players are of such a high quality, they have been winning.’

      Yes these player that on here at the start of the season were not good enough are now ‘of such high quality’ and City are just lucky.
      Absolutely pathetic, hahahahaha

  20. Harry says:

    You cannot compare what United spent in years past to what City paid these last couple of years because the market value for players were different. A player bought 10 years ago at 5 million pounds would be worth more than twice or thrice that amount today.

    There is NO team on the planet that would not spend as much as it takes to win a trophy or get into Europe. United will do whatever it takes to try and retain their position at the top. That’s exactly what they have been doing for the past upteen years. Let’s not forget that when United bought Ferdinand they broke the bank for a defender. The same is true of Berbatov who was a record signing for a striker.

    Chelsea became successful only after Abramovich spent millions bringing players in. He is still doing so. The fact that Chelsea were not successful this season does not negate the fact that they spent millions. So because City spent millions and were successful should not be reason to downplay their success.

    Whether it is a good thing or not that some clubs have more buying power than others is a different discussion. Did manchester City buy the FA Cup? No. They won on merit.

    By the way, I’m a Fulham fan. As long as a team doesn’t violate the rules I have no problem with them spending millions. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money which is how the top teams stay on top, for the most part. In fact when Fulham or Stoke or any of the other midtable to bottom teams do well against the top teams it makes us feel great that we were able to beat a top team. Doesn’t alter the fact that we wish we had their buying power.

  21. Gordon says:

    When Chelsea spent their way to winning trophies not many manchester united supporters said much. But because this is Manchester City it alters everything. United are afraid that City may actually begin doing better than them in the next few years because City have owners that will spend their own money without putting the club in debt. United’s owners will not do likewise and have already amassed some debt for the club. Now that City have progressed into a place in the Champions league and won the FA Cup they will be able to attract players not only because City can afford to pay them more but also because the team can win trophies. That is what scares other teams, United included. It’s all about bragging rights in Manchester. City have a long way to go to come anywhere close to emulating United’s success. But that they are now capable of success is what bothers United fans.

    This would be no different if Everton had owners with deep pockets and they began to spend their way to success. Liverpool fans would probabaly feel the same towards them as United fans feel towards City.

    It’s the new world order. Or maybe not. Time will tell. As a fan of the beautiful game I love change and seeing different clubs becoming successful. It’s more interesting.

  22. Zach says:

    Every successful club spends money on players. No one big spending team is better or more righteous than any other. I, as a United fan, can say City/Chelsea/anyone else bought their success just as you all can say it to me. I don’t see the point of this argument.

    • Mizzy says:

      You’ve just summed up the point of the Gaffer’s article. I get it. You get it. Why doesn’t everyone else get it?

  23. El Tri 2014 says:

    MCFC borrowed Roman’s playbook to buying err…winning trophies. MCFC has been WAY less efficient about it – almost naive. The Dzeko purchase was a fiasco and totally unnecessary. It may work out now that Tevez is heading to Italy or Spain (better food and less rain). And Barry and Milner have not panned out to the fan’s expectations but then that might be more on the players than the numbskull who signed the check. That said, it doesn’t take a genius to win with Roman’s playbook – City should be cashing in on some silverware from now on – unless the well dries up.

  24. jasonc says:

    Rather silly discussion! City didn’t buy a trophy – they bought players who then played in a competition and won that competition. Wow – what a revelation!! Who really cares?
    The problem is that since the start of the premier league and then the champions league it (spending lots of money) has become the only way to compete at the top. Unless you do what Arsenal do and “buy” 14 yr olds from Africa (most of whom don’t make it), and is that somehow morally better? I think not. Since the beginning of the premier league and champions league, football has become more and more of a closed shop for the elite whilst more and more clubs have had financial problems and gone into administration – city were heading in this direction themselves!! City have helped make the league a little more competitive as have Spurs who were spending a hefty amount before the city wagon started rolling!! Furthermore other clubs have gained financially from city (everton, villa, boro) and more will gain this summer. The fact is – city have had to spend in order to compete, other teams can’t spend and so can’t compete. A sad state of affairs brought about by the greed of the elite trying to ensure that they keep revenue for themselves rather than supporting clubs further down the ladder.

    • The Toast says:

      Now you’re just getting into the nature of professional sports. If you want purity, stick with college/academy level. Professional sports are a business, and when you’re a big time club (or want to be a big time club), you spend money on talent.

  25. Troy says:

    I honestly don’t see don’t see anything wrong with City spending money to compete with the “big” clubs. They have the finances and only a fool would refuse to use them. You can’t honestly tell me that if Wolves (for example) were bought by an absurdly rich owner who wanted to compete that they wouldn’t spend the money. The one complaint that I have with City is how they utilize their squad. I think that maybe instead of spending a ton all of once, they could have spend a lot and infused the new stars with an already established group of quality role players and still been very successful. However, if ownership can just stand pat a little and let the team gel, City will become a formidable club.
    One comparison I constantly think about is the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. The Yankees were the big dogs. They spent the most and won the most. Red Sox, on the other hand, hadn’t won the World Series in 86 years, they then hired Theo Esptein as GM and began to spend more and more like the Yankees. The eventual result were a pair of WS wins in ’04 and ’07.
    As much as it pains me to say as a United supporter, City are well on their way to becoming a year-in year-out threat for the title.

    • Mekias says:

      The difference is that even with the almost £50 million increase in revenue for ManCity, they still make less than half of what ManU makes. It’s not really sustainable for ManCity to spend this much unless the owner keeps pouring money in and Financial Fair Play will make it much harder to work the system like that.

      The Red Sox and Yankees spend the most money because they make the most money. ManCity don’t have that to fall back on just yet, but maybe they will in 5-10 years if they stay in top 4.

      • Troy says:

        Good point. I wonder if that money can be made up by playing in CL next year. I don’t have the figures readily available, but I imagine it should provide a decent amount of support (especially if they advance past the group stages).

      • Why? says:

        Your right they don’t earn as much as Utd but have been increasing there income by something like £50m a year since the takeover they need to win the league and possibly Europe to attracted the fans that the others have then they will be as big as any. Don’t forget the owners are spending massively on the business side of things that will also generate more money. They have the added bonus as being a Manchester club don’t under estimate how many people have grown up in the UK and abroad with that arrogant Man Utd fan next door, what a way to get revenge and rub their arrogant little noses in it lol.

        • Troy says:

          Hey now..

        • Stop Making Sense says:

          Why.

          First and foremost I’m a United fan, am I arrogant well that’s not for me to decide but I can safely say I don’t rub my clubs success in people noses so there’s a start. I’ve been a season ticket holder since the late 80’s and prior to that a LMTB holder since the late seventies.

          In response to the actual article that has erupted this nonsensical string of post: Lets get one thing straight, I have no issue with your club or any club spending money (within reason) but please don’t start freakin crying when fans of other clubs start, supposedly through jealousy, criticise your club and accuse you of buying success! Although these jibes from opposing fans may seem hypocritical in fairness they are only stating the blatantly obvious economics of modern day professional football, attempting to take the moral high ground and criticising them for it is a severe case of double standards as minority or even possibly a majority of blues have constantly used the same expressions over the past two or so decades to describe critically the successful clubs of the time. I was born, raised, educated, work and continue to live in this small post industrial city in the north west of England that is dominating the global football grapevine and it makes me proud, I have family who are red and blue the same applies to my friends and work colleagues and the blue contingent constantly griped about United’s success was built on cash not merit, did it bother me? Not one bit! I used to stand next to blues in the pub on Saturday night and listen to them clinically take Chelsea to pieces when they became Chelski. So please do not take this as a criticism on your clubs spending more a criticism to the reaction, you carry on what you feel you need to do to acquire success but just don’t expect people to applaud you for it, for as much as success breeds contempt, courtesy breeds courtesy!

          With regards to what the sheik is trying to achieve at Eastland’s I personally feel it is too little (or too much) too late. City’s last years accounts shown a turnover of around £125 million, there wage bill alone came to £133 million which is a massive loss before you even include any other operational costs, there was a total loss of £121 million last year. To start breaking even City will have to double their turnover, I know the Mansour has grand plans but this costs money and the plans involve doing nothing different than the perceived top clubs in Europe have been doing for years and continue to do, it has taken the likes of Real & United etc 20 years of shrewd marketing and decades of so called “history” (I use that term loosely as to not cause offence!) to achieve turnovers around the £300 million mark which in my opinion is now starting to stagnate because of a saturated market. City have a hell of a lot to do to fall in line with the FFP which expects clubs operations to start breaking even from next season but allowing £39 million deficit for the 3 years (13 million a year) to 2014. I think your comments regarding people supporting city because they may live next to an “arrogant” United fan are wishful rather than logical thinking and comes across a touch arrogant in itself .

          Good luck anyway, this fine city (the greatest in the world in my opinion) deserves two great clubs!

          • Why? says:

            I don’t have much time but I will reply to the bit I have read.

            You know as well as I do that 99.9% of utd fans will and do try to rub other fans noses in there success i.e banner stating that a club that have spent a millionth of what Utd had having won a trophy for years and what a surprise that is.
            How about the banner that reads ‘not arrogant, just better’? Their are many more as you know. So you see you may not see your fans as arrogant but I guess some where like 90% of other fans do.
            How funny it is now to here a commenter’s on a game Utd v City talk about how much money City have spent while playing Utd, but what did they say when the Utd squad cost £230m and City’s was around £12m it was ‘how great Utd are, look at there super players’ obviously beating the team costing peanuts (well not all the time ) ;)

            The greatest in the world comment shows your arrogance you have won nothing like most of big European clubs your only claim to this get be the money that the owners screw out of the club!! Don’t you see that this is arrogance!! Go and look what Munich, AC, Real, Barca and many more have won your not even close, surely this can only be seen as arrogance!!
            No one is CRYING my friend every body knows City are buying big to win things which gives them an advantage but Utd have also had that same advantage in the 1980′s 90′s 00′s that all that is being said! The hypocrisy stinks!

          • Stop Making Sense says:

            Why, sorry fella but you have missed the point totally, the stinking hypocrisy you talk about is fuelled by yourself and others, in layman terms “Pot calling Kettle”. How can you accuse people of hypocrisy when your own used to do exactly the same before an Arab prince spun a globe and stopped it with his finger? As I said I couldn’t care less what city or any other team does with there finances but don’t expect people to praise you for it!

            I didn’t once mention that other United fans are not arrogant, maybe they are or maybe that is just a perception born of frustration, most fans of most clubs are fickle and before accusing others of something ask yourself would you act any differently if the roles were reversed, the honest answer would be probably not and with that there should be nothing to complain about. The bottom line is that they are opinions, of which one is entitled to but as we all know opinions are like assholes, everyone has them just some are more full of crap than others!

            I didn’t state that united were the greatest in the world, I stated my city “Manchester” is the greatest in world, that’s not arrogance man, that is just an opinion based on affection, I love M/cr, I have the education and finances to relocate if I wanted but I do not wish, as one of our other “arrogant” banners states “Manchester is My Heaven”. Read comments and make informed responses. But with regards to great clubs why, united have won the European cup same number of times as Barca (3), and if (which I very much doubt) we are successful on Saturday puts United on level par with Ajax and Munich, Real and AC ,and to a lesser extent Liverpool, are in a league of there own, Real’s five in a row in the late fifties for me is contentious, although there is no question that they had a great team back then it would be fair to suggest that maybe not all the great teams of the time were taking part during the early years of the competition. So we’re not a million miles off your so called elite. As a united fan I feel we should have capitalised more in Europe over the past two decades but you only win when you earn it, but to brush aside United (even though I didn’t claim it) as not one of the great clubs of world football, a club that has dominated it’s said domestic football for near on two decades is verging on the idiotic or dare I say “bitter”!

            If you read my initial post you might even notice a compliment or wish of good luck but you’ve been too blinkered just like the masses you are accusing of hypocrisy!

          • Why? says:

            Wow you go on more than me!!! Just like you didn’t say other Utd fans aren’t arrogant I never called you arrogant as I don’t know you. I called Utd fans in general, as they mostly seem to be! The role are starting to reverse and I’ll tell you this now if I come across fans as arrogant as I have Utd fans I WILL let them Know it. Unfortunately for Utd the fans they attract are not those of the past before the became rightfully one of the top two clubs in England they attract fans who want to say we’re better than you even though the reality is they have no bearing what so ever on any football clubs performances. I do not look forward to this kind of fan at City that will inevitably arrive.

            When you mention you know City Fans who were jealous of Chelsea, I think you may be getting mixed up with Utd fans. Why would City have been jealous of Chelsea? They were already well out of sight of us with no chance of catching them up so why would it bother City’s fans? We might as well have been jealous of Arsenal. Chelsea were going to stop our local rivals from winning everything in sight and therefore their fans would become more and more arrogant as time went by! In fact all the City fans I knew were quite excited to see who Chelsea would sign next! We never dreamed it could ever happen to us, therefore living the dream through them, but hey what do you know dreams do come true!!

            Your comment on UEFA’s FFP are well out (IMO) as you will see in time, these rules are not here to stop City or Chelsea only to stop any more teams coming through and making the prem the most powerful league by far therefore threatening UEFA themselves. Utd would also struggle with interest payments which are included in the FFP rules (in the way you put it anyhow) but don’t worry because they won’t bother you or us even if they don’t meet the terms as it’s only there as a guide. UEFA spokesmen have already said as much but just in case you still think city will be banned I give you a few ways City can cover themselves:

            1, Ground naming rights estimated £200m-£250m
            2, The owners are allowed to put in something like £50m per year of there own money
            3, Nothing stops one of his Dads companies investing say £400m in 2 years does it?
            4, Business’s ventures being placed all around COMS and East Manchester the like of which football has never even thought of.

            You are right you didn’t say the usual rubbish Utd fans do Worlds best etc. I apologise I was in a rush as I said. The so called elite is not mine just some clubs that have won more than Utd. As you know Utd fans constantly call themselves the greatest team on the planet but it’s not true just plain old arrogance! Your club is up there with Liverpool in England not in Europe although it is probably in the top 10 as are Inter Milan but I don’t hear their fans constantly saying the are the best in the World! While by passing the whole of South America as not even worthy of a mention because they don’t play in Europe.

            For bitterness look though EPLtalk blogs for comments by Utd fans regarding Man City articles truly pathetic, not that I’m tarring you with this brush I don’t know you and I do know Utd fans who are not arrogant or don’t hate everyone who rivals them in a competition not many but some.

          • Stop Making Sense says:

            Morning Why, this unfortunately, as I’ve enjoyed our little tete a tete, will be my last post for the week as I’ll be busy wrapping things up at work today and heading to the big smoke tonight for Saturdays game in an attempt to avoid the crazy ant rush that is “Bank Holiday Traffic”. Believe it or not I’m not a regular blogger as I’d struggle to find the time, I normally have a quick glance through Newsnow first thing then that’s me for the day so if I don’t respond next week to what I’m sure will be a much more informed response then please do not take offence, it’s nothing personal just the fact that other things may have taken precedent!

            So in response to your last comments, I don’t really like bullet pointing but you seem to have a soft spot for it, so…when in Rome!

            1. Yes, they were city fans griping at Chelski’s new found wealth, yes, admittedly, the scenario it produce i.e. stopping the so called media produced phrase of the United Juggernaut acted as pacifier but there was still the an ingrained mentality of why the rent boys not us!
            2. Yes you’re entitled to think my views of the FFP are well out, but I can assure you that they are not far from the mark. Sadly the geek in me decided to go through the 91 page Club Licensing and Financial Fair play document with a fine tooth comb as I was bobbinmepants regarding what effect it would have on United. Download from here for the official document http://en.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf . Have a good read if get the time and if you are still under the impression that the like of City or United will be left alone then, well, that’s your opinion but I beg to differ.
            3. Your perception of how much city will acquire from the proposed naming rights are little optimistic, City have suggested that hopefully they can secure a deal in excess of the Arsenal/Emirates £100m deal with a hope of achieving a top end market value of £150m which would be spread over a proposed15-20 year period equally M/cr city council have declined to comment on whether it would benefit from this income, as an experienced businessman declining to comment suggests to me that that the city council will take a sizable chunk from that income as they own the stadium. The forerunner for the naming rights are Etihad, this in itself could cause problems if the deal exceeds a reasonable market value (something I will explain a little more in point 5)
            4. Owners of clubs are allowed to subsidise losses up to the value of £36m over the first three years of the new rules (which kick in next week 1st June), that’s £12m a year, this drops to £9m a year for the following three years, the investment is not allowed to be a loan but must be acquired though shares (you’ll have to research the major financial impact difference between a loan and shares as this already lengthy post would become even more ridiculous!).
            5. Yes the rules do stop his dad investing a hypothetical £400 million in two years, all investment whether it be sponsorship deals or commercial partnerships etc will be seriously scrutinised especially if the partner is deemed to have a financial connection to the benefactor and any deal will be market tested for fair value. The easiest way to explain this in layman terms is that if any club decided to sell a scarf for say £200 in its club shop would it be deemed fair value, the answer is quite simply no. This assessment can be applied to all deals whether it be a sponsorship deal or commercial partnership within any said club hence my comments re Etihad and the naming rights in point 3.
            6. The investment around Eastland’s is admirable but business ventures need customers to break even or make profit, at the moment I don’t personally see where the custom will come from, I hope it does work out as it will not only benefit city but Mancunians in general. The Sheikh will have a projection to how this will reap benefits though so the very best of luck to him.

            So to conclude Why, I’m not knocking what City are trying to achieve as I personally feel they have set the foundations in the right way but it wont be plain sailing, money can be invested in other areas that will be free from FFP i.e. youth investment, something that the Sheikh will see as a more realistic goal that if successful should reap results in years to come. What the Sheikh has achieved is he has put city in a position to challenge, unfortunately the FFP rules have hampered his plans for global domination and I’m sure he would agree with my previous post that his investment would have been a lot more beneficial if it had come a lot sooner and because if this I feel City have a mountain to climb to avoid penalty, but good luck to you all.

  26. jasonc says:

    what u say is true troy. the problem was though, that that established group of quality players wasn’t really there!! City had to buy much of that core group which now seems to include Hart, Richards, Kompany, Dejong, Yaya, Lescott, Zabaletta. Don’t think you will be seeing the same amount of players coming into city now, but rather a smaller number of quality players with more players leaving (Bellamy, swp, rsc, jo, adebayor, given, onoha).
    As for finance, you might not realise that city now have the rights to sell the name of stadium (worth roughly 200mill), plus the sports development arounf the ground that is being planned over the next few years (more revenue for the club). There is alot more to the owners than simply buying players!!’

    • Troy says:

      Good info. Thanks. The question I have for you then is, do you think they will sell those naming rights?

      • Elliot says:

        One of the top three clubs in England with the potential to go even higher?

        No, doubt anyone would be interested.

        • Troy says:

          Well considering the top-2 revenue generating teams in baseball refuse to sell their stadium naming rights, the reason I ask is because certain teams (or clubs) don’t like to do it for the sake of pride. When the Yankees built their new stadium, offering it to a sponsor wasn’t even an option because they wanted to keep it Yankee Stadium. Fenway Park in Boston, Oriole Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore and Dodger Stadium in LA all lack stadium title sponsorship as well.

          But thanks for the profound answer anyway.

      • jasonc says:

        Of course, negotiations with Manchester council had gone on a while and were concluded a couple of months ago. This is one of the reasons that champions league qualification (esp to the group stages) was so important. It significantly raises the value of any deal. Rumour has it that Etihad is the most likely

  27. clevblue says:

    I really couldn’t care less what rival fans say. I really couldn’t!

  28. big red says:

    am i suprised to see more anti-united bullsh*t on this site? no. am i suprised to see the gaffer use this article which appears to be a ‘well done city’ article as an attempt to knock united down a peg, yes.

    i was on the fence about this web site, but i have now made up my mind. apart from the tv schedule that comes in very handy, this site is total sh*t. i visit almost everyday, and i can really only remember about 2 articles that were positive about united but there are countless articles that are negative towards united and countless articles that are pro everyone else.

    not that you care, gaffer, but you have lost yet another user for your site.

    • Why? says:

      Surely this article is asking if it is Hypocritical to say City bought the Cup? Not about Utd.

    • somervillain says:

      Well put, Gaffer. As luck would have it, I was just making pretty much this exact point this morning to a rather myopic United fan in the comments section of your article about the new City away kit. Hypocrisy indeed.

    • Amber says:

      Could not have put it better myself. I usually just come to this site for 2 reasons. 1. The TV schedule and 2. Special 1 TV episodes. But I guess now it will be just as easy to use, my dish program guide and youtube.

      I would like to add to the complaint of this site, shown so blatantly on this article. All this “Blah, blah, blah…City didn’t buy anything…Blah, Blah, United are shit…Blah, blah, I am right, you are wrong but I am not going to give you facts, You are just WRONG,” with someone (if you are smart you can figure who I am talking about) the biggest offender.

      I know you cannot really control the comments but you can control the articles.

      Make that 2 lost readers. *deleting EPL talk from bookmarks*

      • The Gaffer says:

        Amber, the site has always covered as many of the 20 Premier League teams in a positive and negative light. If you expect to read Man United fan boy articles, this is not the site for you.

        I’m surprised that you would get upset because of one article about Manchester City. If you don’t like the post, read the next one. After all, I believe I helped you get Man United tickets this summer for the game against Barcelona by posting an article about where to get them.

        Cheers,
        The Gaffer

      • Earl Reed says:

        Don’t worry, you’re not going to guilt trip anyone. If you’re talking about me, then I honestly don’t care. I wrote a very favorable article a few weeks back about Chicharito and how he was the buy of the season.

        The funny thing is that your comment here is, in fact, a “You are just WRONG” comment. Basically you’re saying that the only way you’ll read this site is as long as every post and comment is pro Manchester United.

    • The Gaffer says:

      Big Red, sorry but this site has written many favorable articles about Man United. And when they deserve criticism, they’ve been the subject of some negative articles too. I’m not going to censor opinions for fear of upsetting a Man United supporter.

      Just this morning we published a post entitled “Wayne Rooney’s Impact On Manchester United’s Winning Season.” If you want me to list more positive articles that have been written on this site about United, I can. But a quick look through the past few weeks will reveal many examples.

      Cheers,
      The Gaffer

      • Why? says:

        1, Amber, not one person has said City haven’t spent money.

        2, No one has said Utd are Sxxt.

        3, Most posters here have indeed given facts.

        4, Most Utd article here are pro Utd.

        5, 95% of the City articles here are having a dig at City for spending, over rated players, Bad manager, High wages (same as any other top spending club) the list could go on for ever!

        6, On every single City blog here there is a bitter Utd fans throwing hate towards them.

        You are further proof that Utd fans are a special kind of person, I don’t think you will stay a Utd fan when things go belly up as they always do.
        You need to stop being such a spoilt baby and grow up! (forgive me if you’re 10 yrs old)

        • Zach says:

          Why? –

          1. You’re not even man enough (or woman enough) to put your name on your posts.

          2. What do United fans have to be bitter about? I believe most of us are pretty pleased with the club’s success over the years.

          3. Most United articles on here are not pro-United, which also isn’t that big of a deal. Their main complaint is that this is supposed to be an article about City, but really it turned out to be just another excuse to bash United. I think that’s fair to say.

          4. Numbering your points is moronic.

          Personally, I’m happy that City is going to be relevant at least. It makes the rivalry more fun/intense, and it’s a hell of a lot more satisfying to beat a rival when they’re actually worth a damn. No one likes beating up the sickly neighbor dog.

          • Why? says:

            1, Why is my name it’s Short for Whyler!!

            2, Idon’t know but they sure as hell are just look through these pages for proof! You don’t like any other club being successfull.

            3, In comparisson to City they most certainly are. Use the little box and put in City then Utd for proof.

            4, Why are you also doing it then you nugget!

            You very comment of ‘sickly neighbor dog’ show you to be the arrogant prat you are if City were this what were the teams below them? Not even fit for Utd to play? CLOWN.

  29. Mizzy says:

    I love it. I hope this thread goes on for days.

  30. Dave says:

    Investing in a club is a business. The investor could choose to buy a well known club for a billion( inhert or get the club into debt) or a smaller club at a lesser amount. Mansour choose a cheaper investment to built a team of his choice to compete with the better known club. The overall investment could still be a lot cheaper but with risk if they could not make it to the top 4 where good footballing income is. Real investor are people that would generate jobs in the City and benefit the people there. Mansour is investing another billion in a Manchester City project with Hotel, shopping and etc. The income generated from these investment could hence further support the expenditure of the football team. MCFC had the blessing of a long term plan that could benefit the people of the city( jobs and tourist) hence to say MCFC bought success is only surface.

  31. Garth says:

    No one ever asked how much did United or Chelsea or any other team spend to buy success. So why are City different. They are late to the party in understanding that to be successful you have to spend. They are fortunate to have an owner that has deep pockets and can afford to spend. Every team in the world would like to have that kind of money available.

    What difference does it make if a team spends 100 million in one year or five years to get the results they want? If they can afford it, power to them. Until there is a salary cap there’s no law being broken.

    I am glad that City have crashed the party and can now compete with the big boys. Much more interesting than having the ame teams at the top year in and year out.

  32. Warner says:

    This is a discussion that will last a day or two. Nobody remembers or cares how much Liverpool paid to buy players that made them a successful team in the 80′s. The same for when Blackburn won the title which they did by outspending their opponents. The same is true of Manchester United and Chelsea. At the end of the day there is no asterisk next to a team that has a trophy with the comment “but they spent 150 million pounds” .

    Get over it and move on.

  33. Dr. G says:

    Man city won the cup. Fair play to them. They are not the first to obtain success through the finances of a wealthy benefactor and they wont be the last. What is unusual is the reckless approach of not just buying a good player for each position but buying 6 and then loaning them out. If you wish to point out that man utd has bought big, then fair enough. But there has been a recurring commitment towards youth players. Succesful teams depend on a strong core and the city project seems to challenge that ideal. In its place, we have a concept that if we had the 11 most expensive players, you are entitled to trophies, I suspect you will be disappointed. It is fantasy football and its fair if you have a sucker to bankroll it, but I don’t think it will work.

  34. somervillain says:

    You don’t think City realize a strong core is key to success?

    These are the ages of the players City have bought under Sheikh Mansour:
    Zabaleta (24)
    Robinho (24)
    Bridge (28)
    Given (32)
    de Jong (24)
    Bellamy (29)
    Barry (28)
    Santa Cruz (27)
    Taylor (28)
    Tévez (25)
    Adebayor (25)
    Kolo Touré (28)
    Lescott (27)
    Vieira (33)
    Adam Johnson (22)
    Boateng (21)
    Silva (24)
    Kolarov (24)
    Yaya Touré (27)
    Balotelli (19)
    Milner (24)
    Džeko (24)

    If you look at which players are expected to stay at the club this summer, you’ll notice it’s the younger players. There’s a clear pattern there of initially bringing in established Premier League players in their late 20s to do the heavy lifting and reshape the mentality of the dressing room, then switching to younger transfer targets beginning in January 2010. Since Adam Johnson’s signing on February 1, 2010, the average age of a City signing is just 23.1.

    So if you think City’s transfer policy appears chaotic, look closer.

  35. satan says:

    I don’t post on epltalk (maybe once or twice in a year) but this is the first time I went through a thread here with many comments in it and have just one question – Earl Reed, can you try to stay on topic ?

    From your responses, it is clear that you either don’t read what people post or just cannot comprehend them. I’m sorry I had to write such a personal comment about your reading skills but that is what it comes across to an outsider like me. The hate towards Manchester United is understandable (and perhaps justified to an extent). The ridiculous and irrelevant posts that come out of it are not.

    • Why? says:

      I don’t see this ‘hate towards Manchester United’ only people point to the fact that they spent a lot to get into the position they are now! Are you so blind that you think that anything said about them that is not about how great they are is hatred? Does every one have to say gee every thing Utd have done is right they are the greatest team on Earth hey never spent a penny and did it all the right way, don‘t dare say anything bad about them? Pathetic!

      • satan says:

        Did you even read his posts ? The guy’s come up with ridiculous posts which seemed absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. Go back and read his posts again. Nowhere is there any mention of the spending by Chelsea and Liverpool. His posts revolve around Manchester United.

        And did my post ever say that United haven’t spent on costly players in the past ?

  36. Zach S. says:

    No one objects to teams spending money in the transfer market, as the vast majority of an EPL team’s players come from transfers.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Tfye44850mE/TWa65Oj_AII/AAAAAAAAAdU/0LGRFEYGVRw/s1600/League+Composition.png

    What many people object to is the distortion that owners like those at Chelsea and ManCity have on the market place. They bankroll their club’s purchases without regard to the bottom line for the club. ManCity has reported huge losses in the past few years, and its due to their wage and transfer bills not matching up to their stadium, commercial, and TV revenue.
    http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-manchester-city-could-break-even.html
    As if there was any doubt, check out the cost of the Manchester City squad when adjusting the purchase price for current GBP.
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wcyzdzNu5yA/TWW9qzTLoII/AAAAAAAAAdA/daSF9MakJ3o/s1600/Post+Arbramovich+MSqPound.png
    When owners can bid for top talent with total disregard for what their business can sustain, they put everyone else at risk. ManCity and Chelsea are examples 1 and 1A for UEFA’s financial fair play rules. I won’t take away from their FA Cup championship – it’s impressive. But no one can argue that they didn’t buy it.

  37. bluePRINT says:

    Three points:

    1. Nobody from outside Manchester (and Salford – to stretch a point) is entitled to support or talkabout City or United – some complete d*ck in this thread is talking about a ‘teleporter.’ If you lived in the area you wouldn’t need one so when Barca embarrass you in front of the world at the w/e, go and do all true Mancunians a favour and support them.

    2. Work out which club has broken the British transfer record the most times and get back to me.

    3. City still have the English attendance record so we’ll talk when United beat it. Erm, never…

    Bye

    • Troy says:

      Cool story bro.

    • Matt says:

      - “Nobody from outside Manchester (and Salford – to stretch a point) is entitled to support or talkabout City or United”

      You’re kidding right? Well, I suppose neither of those teams need the TV, merchandise, and various other revenues that are practically handed to them by supporters outside of Manchester. I guess that Manchester (and Salford – to stretch a point.) alone can support both teams’ revenue streams.

      Every large club in the world has an international fanbase outside of their hometown/city. Part of the reason that they’re financially successful is because of their desire to market the team so they can make more money. If they’re financially successful, usually they’re able to inject that added revenue back into the team.

      Just because you’re from a certain area doesn’t entitle you to a greater ownership of being a fan. Get over yourself. Let people like who they like and shut up.

  38. Zach says:

    What’s hypocritical is the same City fans who have been screaming about United’s spending for years are now trying to defend their own spending by pointing even more fingers at United.

    City fans: congratulations. You managed to snag an owner willing to pay whatever it takes to get top players to The Blue Camp. That’s fine. Even though you’ve been complaining for years that United are evil for spending money on players, we all know you’re ecstatic to be a part of that club. And we welcome you! Now you have the opportunity to win trophies and perhaps even – gasp- the league! So please stop complaining that people are on your backs about spending money, when that’s what, as a United supporter, I hear every single time United come up in conversation. Quit trying to play the victim.

  39. Larry says:

    This is a stupid discussion. Nobody talks about clubs that have spent millions and not achieved any or much success yet people want to talk about clubs that have spent big and achieved some success. At the end of the day it’s all about success and nobody cares how it was achieved, as long as it was done legitimately. As someone earlier pointed out no one remembers past clubs who spent big to win trophies nor is there an asterisk next to those clubs saying they won it by spending millions.

    This is an absolutely useless discussion.

  40. Brian says:

    [This is an absolutely useless discussion]. Totally agree.

  41. H says:

    I never felt more like singing the Blues,
    See City win, United lose,
    Oh City,
    You’ve got me singing the blues …

    Clap Clap Clap Clap Clap Clap

    I never felt more like singing the Blues,
    See City win, United lose,
    Oh City,
    You’ve got me singing the blues …

  42. jimbob james says:

    Any spending carried out by MUFC,was generated by fans,going through the turnstiles,to watch attractive,attacking football,see average attendances over the past 60 years,boosted by a worldwide fanbase purchasing merchandise, MCFC & Chelsea (to a lesser degree) have got sugar daddies,literarily ? throwing money in their direction,Big difference
    Debate over, finito

  43. nicki says:

    city get slated either way. last year they definitely should have got 4th spot with ‘all the money they have’. this year, they get champs league, 3rd spot, and won the fa cup, and have now ‘bought the fa cup’ they can’t win with all those jealous fans out there. i for one am pleased for their fans, they deserve it more than most. arsenal fan.

  44. john says:

    dont just look at the wages, how much did they spend on the players:
    Man Utd: 81.9 mil
    Man city: 216 mil
    i mean come on, man united bought rooney 4 years ago along with van der sar. only chicharito was the main buy last year, city have spent 500 mil in 3 years, man u have spent 120

  45. Sminky says:

    Some incredibly verbose and infantile posts here but equally, incredibly amusing. The fickle and blinkered nature of fans. The vicissitudes of supporting a team from Manchester squarely hinged on money.

    I’m a QPR fan, we have swathes of money that our board refuse to invest. Having won the Championship with minimal outlay we’re viewed upon favourably – Faurlin issue aside – yet had we spent big to get promoted then we would be tarred with “buying success”. Its a moot point, success is dependent on investment whether it be youth or transfer of players from other clubs.

    The idea that spending alot of money and winning trophies is somehow disgusting or borderline cheating is nonsensical. It implies a gentlemens agreement is in place. Its a thoroughly British attitude, one must know their place. When Chelsea won the league it wasn’t so much buying the league that was the issue, it was “Chelsea have no tradition”. The great British class system is as ignorant in football as it is elsewhere; the working classes believing that ultimate success must only be achieved via hard graft. Buying an expensive squad is apparently a breach of etiquette and simply not cricket.

    Why? Because don’t like Johnny come lately’s in England, its a cultural idiosyncrasy.

    The wealth on offer by being in the Premier League and Champions League is the catalyst for such spending, the gap between the established and would Be’s is always growing. Its not viable now to wait 5-10 years on a golden generation of players and be financially prudent.

    I wouldn’t say its hypocritical of United or other fans to accuse City of buying success, no, its ignorance. A blind refusal to accept the reality of competing in the Premier League. Buying success? Isn’t everyone.

  46. James says:

    Im sorry but if you have the money to improve a squad that wants to win and is as competitive as city you must be a fool to not do that. And im a united fan, who also believes utd earned the money that bought the players

  47. Tim seaton says:

    Fact , man city bought the fa cup, but as others have said, no supporters would turn it down, if you can’t beat em , etc…, but tho. I’m a Stoke fan , the argument is flawed when you consider they only beat us one nil, and we had nine men!!, one sub was worth more than our whole team, but what Stoke have got as a founder member, is heart, passion and guts, players of the the big clubs don’t give a sh*t about their clubs, just their wallets, not their fans, just their cars and houses, and you all know it, rooney, Ferdinand, tevez etc…

    • Why? says:

      Man City bought the players who won the FA cup. Exactly the same as other Clubs that ever won it have, That’s the only FACT her please explain how City purchased the FA cup is a fact?

      If your a Stoke fan you’re not like any I have ever known as they took defeat with the best sportsmanship I have seen in a long time!
      How did Stoke have 9 men? And if you are seriously trying to say it was close then you are a fool but I won’t go down that road as I have a lot of respect for Stoke as a team and it’s fans, well not when it comes to you though it would seem you have no grace what so ever! Any top Clubs players cost more and if you were playing Chelsea, Liverpool, Utd, Arsenal and maybe even Spurs you could say the same!
      Don’t you think it’s the same when you play teams like say Stockport or Burnley etc? Do their players love the Club more than your highly paid stars with the big houses and the flash cars? What a sad delusional man you are.

  48. tim seaton says:

    PLEASE, FOOL I AM NOT, one nil is as close as it gets , is it not ??yes as i said” if you cant beat em” any club would AS I SAID !!!!,spend spend spend, but we have a strict structure and that keeps our players with their heads from up their backsides,and again you insult me with having no grace, but again you don’t seem to have read my comments, i am backing the flaw in my own argument of buying the cup as you did only win by one, not easily as you should have, so i concede it aint a fact, but a probable,sad and delusional ??, i wont resort to personal insults as i seem to have touched a nerve, but thanks for “best sportsmanship” it did hurt but the winner deserves to be clapped. you returned the honor by not parading the cup, tho. it was your right, in front of us later in the week when we came to your place, and you played delila !!! i wish more of you had done the same at wembley when united beat you, it shows guts, and class, we dont have any silverware so its the only thing we have, despite getting knocked by the arsen wengers of the league

  49. Why? says:

    Stoke had ONE shot on target City 14!!! City had 60% of the possession!!! If your Club has this ‘strict structure and that keeps our players with their heads from up their backsides’ then how do you explain Tuncay? The winner of that game deserved to win! Not just ‘the winner deserves to be clapped’ what the does the loser then do? They try to say City bought the Cup or they only just won lol, get real. This was one of the most one sided Cup Finals I have seen. Utd didn’t beat us at Wembley?? See you are delusional! We beat them not unless your talking about the community shield, I am on about the one that counts not a friendly! All respect to the Stoke fans but not when they’re saying City bought it and fail to mention teams that cost more didn’t and call this fact? Also saying it was close just because it was 1-0, it was as one-sided 1-0 as you will see. Some great keeping kept it close but only in score. What’s all this about nine men?? Not delisional and sad, you sure? What you have said doesn’t show class or guts at all you lack the grace of a sporting loser and that is sad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>