MARTIN SAMUEL - DEBATE: How dare Manchester United and Arsenal try to deny your club chance of success? | Mail Online
Some interesting debate & discussion by football fans on the merits of the FFP rules and how certain big english clubs have/have not bought the league over the years before everyone started screaming about chelsea & man city over the years.
Well, since this has been opened up again, I have to say that my view hasn't changed: the difference between Chelsea/City and Man Utd is Utd weren't taken over by some foreign sugar daddy - their success was built up over many years of hard work and clever merchandising, allied to astute signings (Schmeichel, Cantona and Keane to name three) and investment in the youth academy which led to success on the pitch.
The difference is clear! Within a few years of being taken over, City had won the league - same for Chelsea. That wasn't the case with Utd. The bottom line is this: were it not for the foreign investment, City would be mid table mediocrity at best, and possibly a yo-yo club while Chelsea would probably still be predominantly a Cup team with a regular placing in the four or even three. I'm so sick and tired of people comparing Utd to Chelsea and City!
And before the inevitable 'you're biased' posts start, what about Arsenal? They weren't taken over by someone with more money than they know what to do with, were they? Yet they hit a very rich vein of success in the mid to late nineties. Blackburn - sure, they were heavily invested in but it was from a man who had Blackburn running through his blood. Are you trying to tell me that Sheik Whassisname or Roman had City and Chelsea respectively running through their blood?
These takeovers are bad for English football - sure, they provide more competition and that's great but these foreign owners are not looking at ten year plans are they? They're looking for instant success. So in come all the big foreign stars, they win the League, they win the Cup, they win this and that - meanwhile the pool of talent available to England dwindles further. At first, the signings were huge stars that our players could learn a lot from: Zola, Klinsmann, Bergkamp, Gullit, Overmars - the list goes on. Now? Clubs simply buy foreign players because they're cheaper, but not necessarily better, than English players.
As I said before, we need a cap on the number of foreigners on the pitch at any one time - not simply a cap on the foreigners in the squad. It stands to reason! Spain's league has something like 38% foreigners and they're winning everything in sight. England's league is the other way round and we're rapidly becoming a laughing stock in World football.
Make no mistake: just because we only lost against Italy on penalties, it doesn't mean we're anywhere near in their class let alone Spain's (who smacked Italy in the final remember?) Italy could and should've beaten England by many goals - the final score should've been something like 5-1 or 6-1. So that's two tournaments in a row where England were totally humiliated by the opponents who ended up defeating them. There was a time when England would come up against a Germany or Italy or Portugal and you'd not be wrong in saying that they were unlucky - that they matched and at times were better than the supposedly superior team. When was the last one? Germany 2006, when we eventually lost against Portugal on penalties, but during the game itself, they did not know what to do with Lennon and Hargreaves, while Ronaldo was where he always is whenever Cole's involved: in Ashley's back pocket.
People can say as much as they like that if the English youngsters are good enough, they'll get into the teams, but deep down we all know that a potential rough diamond doesn't stand a bloody chance against a mega star like Aguero or Silva. I'm sure no one here will believe me, but my primary concern isn't that City or Chelsea's money will topple Utd: we're still here, still fighting for titles and still signing big players. No, my main concern is the long term damage all this does to the English game - specifically at International level.
----------
When Fergie won his first league title in 1993, it came on the back of a ?6.75million spending spree on Gary Pallister, Danny Wallace, Neil Webb, Paul Ince and Mike Phelan. That sounds like peanuts today, but in 1989 it represented a huge outlay.
Yes - but where did that money come from? That's the difference!
Still, either way it doesn't matter that much - in spite of City's millions, we only lost the title by two minutes last year and this year we sat seven points clear going into the New Year.
In other news:
In a deal worth a reported ?8million-a-year, the historic ground will be known as 'Wembley Stadium in association with EE' in a tie in with the mobile phone operator.
One of the main differences this season is City are clearly stressing more about what we're doing than just ticking off the games the way they were last year - that can only work in our benefit.
----------
What the hell is going on at Southampton?
No one's prepared to give a manager a chance any more, that's what.
