£930m to win the league.

[Whelan]

I wasn't saying it was easy, I was just adding a bit of balance to the thread. City didn't need to spend £930m to win the title, they only did because they could. They spent a lot of money just to make statements like the Robinho signing and the Tevez one.

.

 

I think you are right, Arsenal have not failed to win the league because they haven't spent, it is because Wenger refuses to change his philosphy to accomodate more pragmatic players. Dortumund have developed a title winning side, which has meant a long term approach (as with Arsenal).

 

Look at us in 2009, had we replaced Keane with a striker we would have won the league. I think money just negates the need to get every decision right, if you have four strikers available, then you only need a 1 in 4 success rate, if you have two, then it is 1 in 2.

[Kennys_spell]

Or alternatively look at how little Newcastle spent to get into the top 4.

 

Let's be clear here - finishing in the top 4 is STILL not winning anything.

 

Someone very intelligent once said "First is first and second in nowhere". Oh yes, Bill Shankly!

[John McClane]

So are the media just going to print that money city won the league, ignoring the fact that united were able to outspend everybody for years (bar abromavich (sp) era)

How long is ferdinand been there, 10 years and he was close to £20m? Roonet was bought as a teenager fro again close to £20m and there have been many others, cough ..Veron.

 

Real spend £80m on Ronaldo & £40m on Kaka but no mention of money buying the title.

 

I know I will grow to hate city if (when) they dominate but I have city mates and fair fucks to them having to grow up next to those inbreds all their lives.

[Ne Moe Imya]

Still think City will bottle it on Sunday, making this whole conversation into "How much money do you need to spend to finish second?"

[Il Fenomeno]

Let's be clear here - finishing in the top 4 is STILL not winning anything.

 

Someone very intelligent once said "First is first and second in nowhere". Oh yes, Bill Shankly!

 

He seemed proud enough when we finished runners up in the FA cup in 1971 though.

[Il Fenomeno]

I think you are right, Arsenal have not failed to win the league because they haven't spent, it is because Wenger refuses to change his philosphy to accomodate more pragmatic players. Dortumund have developed a title winning side, which has meant a long term approach (as with Arsenal).

 

Look at us in 2009, had we replaced Keane with a striker we would have won the league. I think money just negates the need to get every decision right, if you have four strikers available, then you only need a 1 in 4 success rate, if you have two, then it is 1 in 2.

 

I agree with all of that. You obviously need some amount of money to win the league, that is not up for debate, but with thorough scouting and a good negotiator at the club then there's no reason why you can't do it with much less money than what City have spent.

[shaunstrudwick]

How long is ferdinand been there, 10 years and he was close to £20m? Roonet was bought as a teenager fro again close to £20m and there have been many others, cough ..Veron.

 

Veron was £28m in 2001

Rio was £29m in 2002

Rooney was £27m in 2004

Berbatov was £30m in 2008

 

they are the only '£30m' players i can think of tbh - but yes the Mancs have been always spending loads of cash on high profile signings - this is simply because their platform of a fucking massive stadium and winning the Prem League 7 out of 10 attempts in the 90's i believe? enabled it

 

City have been playing the Mancs at their own game over the past few seasons:

 

£24m for Toure

£24m for Nasri

£24m for Milner

£24m for Lescott

£25m for Tevez

£27m for Dzeko

£35m for Aguero

[mighty sweater]

City also seem to be in the game of buyiing players like Milner and Johnson but not giving them a game, just so no-one else could have them. I vote the City and the Chavski blues have their own super-rich league where they play one another every week to see whose money is best and the rest get on with a more meaningful competition.

[mypost]

I'm not surprised. When you look at the talent we've had over the last 5-7 years and longer, and even with all that talent, which fans seem to want to have back so badly, we never won the League! How much more would we have to spend now, in today's prices!?!? This club currently can't afford to spend that kind of dosh. Revenues need to be way up, and that comes from a new stadium which wont get built w/o some kind of performance on the pitch. Catch 22.

 

And where does FFP come into this?

 

The years of spending €100 million per transfer window are coming to an end. When FFP is operational, clubs such as us, that spend moderate sums of money will do better, than those currently in millions and millions of debt.

[Ramjet]

City also seem to be in the game of buyiing players like Milner and Johnson but not giving them a game, just so no-one else could have them. I vote the City and the Chavski blues have their own super-rich league where they play one another every week to see whose money is best and the rest get on with a more meaningful competition.

 

They also get to send players like Adebayor out on loan, now obviously they can't play against their parent clubs, but can play against everyone else, in effect making it more difficult for the other teams and easier for them. United do this too, I think the rule of loaning players to teams in the same league needs to be looked at as it allows teams to do this.

[VladimirIlyich]

How does this compare with Chelsea winning it under Mourinho?

As good as he is he did inherit a top 6 team before winning it with a few bob.

City have finished 7th? and 4th before this too.

As well as rich benefactors it still takes time.