6 - 1: And the desmise of the Premiership

[Invader Zim]

Normally I would be happy if United lost. Extatic if they lost at home. Catatonic with joy if they lost by a five goal margin at home.

However, I'm not happy with this result. Say what you like about United, but they built a winning team on home grown players from the youth squad, and that success translated into financial success which allowed them to dominate English football for the last two decades. In two seasons, City have built a team based on a bottomless pit of money. From nowhere to likely league winners, not based on merit, but on an influx of hundreds of millions of pounds worth of cash, that other teams (save Chelsea) just do not have.

Is this how football is going to be from now on? Where smaller clubs, without the financial resources can never even hope to guild a team, from their youth squads, capable of putting in a serious title bid?

Obviously things have been moving this way for years, but nothing quite spells it out like watching United getting slaughtered in their own stadium.

[RedAnarchist]

I was watching the match myself, as a neutral (Liverpool) fan. Man City and Chelsea are only more than mediocre middle-table teams because of their huge wealth, and it's a bad thing for football.

On the other hand, though, Chelsea are currently down to nine men and are losing to newly-promoted QPR.

Edit - I just went back to the pub where I saw the United-City game to watch the second half of the QPR-Chelsea game. A wonderful result for the smaller club.

[ZeroNowhere]

To be honest, when I had met a United supporter earlier today moaning about how football had entered a dark age dominated by money due to teams like Manchester City, the first thought that I had was something along the lines of, "You couldn't make this up."

[Vanguard1917]

Is this how football is going to be from now on? Where smaller clubs, without the financial resources can never even hope to guild a team, from their youth squads, capable of putting in a serious title bid?

It's been like that for a while, though. Even when United in the mid-90s had a good few very decent players emerge from the youth system (Beckham, Butt, Scholes, the Nevilles, and Lee Sharpe and Ryan Giggs a few years prior), most of the key players in the first team came through the transfer market: Mark Hughes (a club record signing), Bryan Robson (an English record signing, who left in '94), Roy Keane (a further English record signing), Andy Cole (a yet further English record signing), Kanchelskis (all the way from Ukraine), Paul Ince, Eric Cantona, Peter Schmeichel, etc. This is without even begining to mention the global record-busting many-million-pound purchases that came later.

I don't think United fans (yours truly included) are in any position to claim 'ethical' superiority over other modern top English teams. Being the first football club to ever float on the London Stock Exchange, United pretty much pioneered the way that top-flight modern English football teams need to function in order to win major trophies.

[socialistjustin]

There needs to be a salary cap or something because now all you need is a Sheikh to buy your team and you can win the premier league even if your youth system is garbage. Who can stop all of that money City has? This is even worse than when Abramovic bought Chelsea because at least they stopped buying players when they didn't need them. City is buying everybody only because they can even if they already have more forwards than anybody else. How the hell is Arsenal or Liverpool going to ever win another title when they don't even have a tenth of the money City has? We are in the age of City and they only way they will be stopped is if their owner gets bored.

[bricolage]

If you want to talk about footballing inequality you'd be better off looking at the ruling on academies this week effectively facilitating top flight poaching of young players for next to nothing. But then again the lower leagues are just a feeder system aren't they?

[ZeroNowhere]

There needs to be a salary cap or something because now all you need is a Sheikh to buy your team and you can win the premier league even if your youth system is garbage.You mean if you haven't paid enough on your youth system?


Who can stop all of that money City has?Fulham, apparently. Would Bayern Munich count?

[socialistjustin]

I mean a limit on how much money a team can spend. It needs to be continent wide so that there isn't an unfair advantage to other teams who might not have to deal with it.

[ZeroNowhere]

Incidentally, I've just been going through United's recent results, and it seems that since their draw against Stoke, before which they were blazing past most teams and generally tipped for the title, they've drawn and almost lost to Basel, drawn with Liverpool and now lost to City. It could be a mentality thing, and we have still to see how strong City are mentally.

[Devrim]

There needs to be a salary cap or something because now all you need is a Sheikh to buy your team and you can win the premier league even if your youth system is garbage. Who can stop all of that money City has?

When UEFA started talking about these new 'fair play' rules, the first club in the Premier League to express its support for them was Manchester United. The reason is that all of these sort of rules based on percentages of income, automatically favour the present elite.

United is the top earning football club in the UK, and the third top in the world. When people use phrases like "likely league winners, not based on merit, but on an influx of hundreds of millions of pounds worth of cash" one has to presume that it is a description, not of City's current spending, but of United's dominance of the Premiership era, which has seen the richest club in the country win 12 titles as opposed to a meagerly seven from all of the other clubs put together.


Is this how football is going to be from now on? Where smaller clubs, without the financial resources can never even hope to guild a team, from their youth squads, capable of putting in a serious title bid?

Obviously things have been moving this way for years, but nothing quite spells it out like watching United getting slaughtered in their own stadium.

Well yes, things have been that way for years, and if it hadn't been for the millions 'invested' by Abromovich, it would have been even more so. Basically Blackburn was an aberation, Arsenal for a while looked like contenders, but faded. If it hadn't been for Russian oil millions, the Premiership title would have been turned into a dull United procession as they trundled from title to title.

But really what do people suggest? Should we go back to the good old days when of course football clubs weren't 'businesses' at all, and were run by the local butchers*?

Football is a part of the capitalist entertainment business. Whatever people might tell you on the threads about 'left' and 'right' wing football teams on here, they are missing the point that these are business which are selling a commodity.

Devrim

*Who incidentally raked off £100,000,000 from running United over the years.

[Devrim]

most of the key players in the first team came through the transfer market: Mark Hughes (a club record signing)

Although factually correct, this doesn't paint the whole picture. Hughes came through the United youth system, was sold to Barcelona, and then came back for less than he had gone for, but he was a product of the Youth team.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I was enjoying the United result and then we went down to 9 men to the west london scum. They didn't even play well, Bosingwa was unlucky, Drogba was stupid. With 9 men we gave it a good go, I don't think QPR played well at all, just a load of shit from Chris Foy, what a dickhead.

[Invader Zim]

I don't think United fans (yours truly included)

I'm not a United fan. To requote my earlier post:

"Normally I would be happy if United lost. Extatic if they lost at home. Catatonic with joy if they lost by a five goal margin at home."

And let us be clear, I also said that football had been going this way for years anway. And, for clarity, some of your points need consideration. For example, as has been pointed out, Mark Hughes started his career at Manchester United, and his stint away was for only a couple of seasons before he returned. Bryan Robson's career was in its "indian summer" by the 1993 when United won their first title under Ferguson and by that point the eight or so (sort of including Hughes, who had returned to the team in 1988) home grown players who made the core of the highly successful United squad were coming of age.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm not a United fan. To requote my earlier post:

"Normally I would be happy if United lost. Extatic if they lost at home. Catatonic with joy if they lost by a five goal margin at home."
I don't think that he was referring to you, rather to himself.


I mean a limit on how much money a team can spend.I know, but what I was referring to was that you seemed to ignore the fact that youth systems are not free. That's not even taking into account things like the amount of money spent on spreading a club's name, which would probably form a strong incentive for youth to join their youth systems in the first place, and the amount of money spent finding some of the best young players from around the world.

[socialistjustin]

I was enjoying the United result and then we went down to 9 men to the west london scum. They didn't even play well, Bosingwa was unlucky, Drogba was stupid. With 9 men we gave it a good go, I don't think QPR played well at all, just a load of shit from Chris Foy, what a dickhead.

Maybe Jol should give Chelsea a training lesson before you guys play QPR again.:cool:

[SHORAS]

Good post from Devrim and totally agree. There is no going back or was there ever a golden age, football was always business. And nowadays the majority probably support a brand instead of their local team. Brand United, brand Liverpool etc - of which I am guilty. The way I see it you can no more reform football as you can reform capitalism as a whole. That's why I think professional sports in general and football as it exists now will simply not exist in a future society. There have been sides that have started up recently, the FC United/Manchester I think was one of the first, there is a Liverpool too and I think AFC Wimbledon was a fans vernture but all these are still business enterprises and the more they advance in football terms the more they will be forced to act and behave like any other club.

Besides all of this, let's be honest football is all spectacle. There is little to no involvement for those watching and what there is replaces genuine emotion or what have you that is missing from this society. But what is most hidden or denied that the players are all completely out for themselves. Professional sports all about the individual, they want to do what they do for themselves not for you, the town or anyone else. It's all a bit of a charade. There have been some who have appeared to challenge these relations (Shankly) but only in rhetoric and all the talk about him being socialist I thought was absurd. He often sounded demagogic and if anything would have been a Stalinist not a socialist.

Perhaps that couldn't be said by a Liverpudlian but as a supporter of Brand Liverpool I can get away from regionalism and tribalism in a limited sense, if I am honest with myself and the relations that currently exist.

Glad Man Citeh gave Utd a good bollocking. Hope Fergie has more days like these.

[Bandito]

City syndrome is nothing new.

Football is capitalism, whether we like it or not, and it is the owner's choice either to drain money and shut down the club or invest silly in it. Fans have no say in what happens in the club, and the fact that their love for the club badge exceeds money for them, you can't get a good player for love these days - you have to pay millions.

Sometimes the debate against Man City or Chelsea's funds get racial, which is really annoying, too.

Bottom line is, it's always been like this, and it's not 'the end of Premiership', as some portray it. It's rather 'the result of Premiership'.

P.S.

Man City board confirmed that this year is the last year of major transfers like these, and they will focus on building the team. Which is completely logical. I mean, why would they buy another top-class striker if they already have what they have, for years to come? They also announced that this year they will invest huge money into the club's academy, since, I quote, they 'want to breed a new Messi'. Which is also fine, especially as their new director of the Youth academy will be Patrick Vieira. For a top academy, you don't need romance, but again - money. Quality youth scouting costs money, top facilities need money, all that jazz.

Whether we like it or not.

[ComradeOm]

They also announced that this year they will invest huge money into the club's academy, since, I quote, they 'want to breed a new Messi'. Which is also fine, especially as their new director of the Youth academy will be Patrick Vieira. For a top academy, you don't need romance, but again - money. Quality youth scouting costs money, top facilities need money, all that jazz.It's also their stated intention to have two world class players in each position. Good luck bleeding the youngsters into that environment

[SHORAS]

It's also their stated intention to have two world class players in each position. Good luck bleeding the youngsters into that environment

Exactly. Whatever happened to M. Johnson? He looked quality a couple of seasons ago, young, British...Kasper Schmeichel was another good young player. I think these have either been loaned out or have left now. Shame. Two promising players. They also sold Ireland when he was one of their best players and relatively young, couldn't understand that one at the time!

[Devrim]

It's also their stated intention to have two world class players in each position. Good luck bleeding the youngsters into that environment

I think that all of the top teams want at least two good players for every position nowadays. I suppose it depends how you define 'world class'. I would say it means people who could get into any team in the world, and therefore it is an impossibility for there to be 22 of them in the world at one time, let alone at one team.

The schedule of the top clubs is so demanding nowadays that they do aspire to have two top players in each position. Within this, alongside the loan system as it operates today, it is possible for young players to come through. Witness Cleverly, Wellbeck, and Evans (though I am not completely convinced by him) at United, all of whom came through the youth system.


Exactly. Whatever happened to M. Johnson? He looked quality a couple of seasons ago, young, British...Kasper Schmeichel was another good young player. I think these have either been loaned out or have left now. Shame. Two promising players.

Kasper is at Leicester City now, and is first choice there. I think it is even more difficult for goalkeepers as there is only one position they can play in, and they tend not to be rested much.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Also, I am quite confident that United will retain the title.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

I think that all of the top teams want at least two good players for every position nowadaysI'd like to have three. The point is however that when you have two top players in each position it makes it exceptionally difficult for young players to break through into the first team. With the possible exception of Arsenal, no English team would today introduce several youngsters into the first team at once, as Utd did in 1995-96. It's highly unlikely that any youth product at City is going to be given the chance to develop when competing with two world class (or there abouts) players

The only alternative is the highly unsatisfactory loan system. Spending six months making bit-part appearances for lower league teams is hardly ideal preparation for the Premier League. I don't believe that any player really develops that way. The real loan successes - such as Wilshere and Sturridge - were players who were clearly good enough for first team football but simply weren't given enough time at their parent clubs. Sturridge, for example, was living off a few 80th minute appearances before Bolton gave him some real game time to show what he could do. Staying with Chelsea, the likes of McEachran clearly have talent but aren't being given a chance to play regularly

And these are the success stories. Given the rate at which the top clubs are accumulating talent there's a dozen John Bostocks out there who ply the lower leagues with almost no chance of establishing themselves at their parent clubs

[bricolage]

It's highly unlikely that any youth product at City is going to be given the chance to develop when competing with two world class (or there abouts) players
This is one of the major problems with the Elite Player Performance Plan coming in now. If the top clubs are able to scour youth academies across the country and nick 16/17 year olds for practically nothing not only is it terrible for the lower league clubs who get very out of years of investment it's also extremely bad for those 16/17 year olds hanging around at the big teams not getting any games. Players that could have got good experience playing in lower leagues will sit around at training grounds surrounded by numerous others doing the same and noone's going anywhere. Much as it can be debated how similar playing in the Championship is to playing in the Premiership it's a lot better than not playing at all. If Bostock hadn't stabbed us in the back I imagine he'd be doing better now than he is.

[SHORAS]

Also, I am quite confident that United will retain the title.

Devrim

Still the team to beat, got the experience, know how and all that but I fucking hate them still, especially the way Fergie barracks referees and the way their players intimidate them similarly as Chelski do. I am not confident they will win the title but think they should just about be favourites despite their loss to Citeh.

I think for Citeh a lot of it is down to keeping the squad happy and getting all the players games. Once they lose a couple of games lets see what happens or there are injuries and certain players don't get picked and get moody. They've so many players it must be very difficult to keep them all on side. As for Tevez...he can fuck right off, back to Argentina hopefully. Funnily enough that whole incident might have strengthened the team when it could have caused a split in the dressing room - he might be out on his own with one or two others.

[SHORAS]

This is one of the major problems with the Elite Player Performance Plan coming in now. If the top clubs are able to scour youth academies across the country and nick 16/17 year olds for practically nothing not only is it terrible for the lower league clubs who get very out of years of investment it's also extremely bad for those 16/17 year olds hanging around at the big teams not getting any games. Players that could have got good experience playing in lower leagues will sit around at training grounds surrounded by numerous others doing the same and noone's going anywhere. Much as it can be debated how similar playing in the Championship is to playing in the Premiership it's a lot better than not playing at all. If Bostock hadn't stabbed us in the back I imagine he'd be doing better now than he is.

During Benitez especially we were notorious for signing Spanish and other international youngsters who would then get virtually zero opportunities and waste away in the reserves. One quality player was Pacheco, Spanish international, highest scorer in U19's for Spain- only went on loan tail end of last season to Norwich and did well. Now at Rayo back in Spain and likely he will leave for next to nothing. He is a player everyone wants to see play as he his skillful and a goal scorer. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up back in the premiership in five years time. England should have B Teams like they do in Spain and play in the lower divisions.

[Devrim]

As for Tevez...he can fuck right off, back to Argentina hopefully.

I think that Tevez has been vilified throughout the entire affair. The clearest message that has come out of it, and a time of massive cuts and rising anger, is to do as the boss says. People have been on the radio saying "If I told my boss 'No', I'd get sacked" or such like. The overlying message that has come through this whole affair is a completely reactionary one.

It was also presented as something that was completely unprecedented in football history, whereas it then came out that not only had it happened before, but it had in fact happened with Mancini's own son at City just a few weeks previously. Alan Pardew stated that it is something that he has experienced more than once in his career as a manager, and even paul Scholes chipped in with the time he refused to play in a League Cup match. If it happens to Alex Ferguson, then one must presume that it could happen to any manager.

It is also to be noted that the PFA came down on the side of Tevez saying that he hadn't actually refused to play and had merely refused to warm up saying he already had:


The PFA's opinion, based on all the evidence presented, is that Carlos Tevez never refused to play for the club. This is accepted by the club in that the charge against Carlos made at the hearing was not one of refusing to play. As such, the PFA considers that there is no justification for a fine other than up to the prescribed sanction of two weeks' wages agreed by the FA, the Premier League and PFA. The PFA has informed the Manchester City football club accordingly and Carlos will continue to be supported by the PFA in this regard.


The charge was momentarily refusing to resume warming up. He never refused to play. He was desperate to play. They are trying to portray he refused to play, which is serious and why he was vilified. No evidence that they presented suggested that. If the evidence was strong and irrefutable, that's gross misconduct, as serious as it gets and could be a termination of contract. That's not the case. The evidence doesn't suggest that and that's why the charge was not of gross misconduct.

Finally, it has been suggested that Tevez is somehow uniquely responsible for all that is worst in modern football and the huge amounts of money that players earn, and all that that implies. Personally I don't see how a boy from the slums of Buenos Aires is the sole villain of the piece, and nobody has even implied that it has anything at all to do with Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan.

Devrim

[SHORAS]

Well to be frank Devrim I think professional sports men and women of Tevez's ilk are more like capitalists than workers. They are multi millionaires selling their image and brand. They are not forced to sell their labour power.

On footballing matters it seems quite apparent that his agent tries to get a move every couple of seasons to get a cut of all associated fees. He's also already gone from Man U to Man City, that tells you something. And if you take stuff like that away then I'm afraid football basically means nothing - which perhaps it should.

Also, have you considered that Tevez might be talking bullshit when he says he didn't refuse to play? I think he did refuse to play and anyway if he did refuse to warm up it amounts to the same fucking thing. I think it is simply disrespectful, you're taking the piss out of everyone.

[Bandito]

I'd like to have three. The point is however that when you have two top players in each position it makes it exceptionally difficult for young players to break through into the first team.

That depends on the quality of the academy and will of the manager.

Take the most obvious example of good youth management - Barcelona. Yes, they have not two, but three world class players in every position (except maybe left back), but there is still time to introduce likes of Busquets or Pedro in the first team before expensive new signings.

[ComradeOm]

Barcelona did not have two world class players per position when Guardiola took over. In fact they don't have that now: last season their strength in depth was notoriously thin

[Devrim]

The only alternative is the highly unsatisfactory loan system. Spending six months making bit-part appearances for lower league teams is hardly ideal preparation for the Premier League. I don't believe that any player really develops that way. The real loan successes - such as Wilshere and Sturridge - were players who were clearly good enough for first team football but simply weren't given enough time at their parent clubs. Sturridge, for example, was living off a few 80th minute appearances before Bolton gave him some real game time to show what he could do. Staying with Chelsea, the likes of McEachran clearly have talent but aren't being given a chance to play regularly.

But the top young players coming through aren't spending their time at lower league clubs, though they almost certainly will have done that earlier on, but are on loan in the Premiership where they are picking up experience.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

As I say, those "top young players" were already ready for Premier League action, they just weren't given the chance to show this at their parent clubs. It is exceptionally difficult for them to do so without going outside the club's structures. Neither Cleverly or Welbeck, to use your examples, came through the Utd youth system in the same way as Neville or Beckham. Not unless I missed the bit where the latter played for another PL side for a full season?