can city attract quality in 15th position?

everdead.ie

Do you think will Hughes be able to attract top quality in the january transfer window with the richest club in the world in 15th position in the league. He may not be able to look at Diarra offered more money at city then real yet he chose real. I really think hughes could end up going for a lot of players he knows from blackburn and wales and in the summer if in a better position try to reshape the team into champions. This makes sense to me when you look at the bid for bellamy and i think he could turn to spurs for gareth Bale he's known to admire him a lot from his time in charge of wales.

Jazzy

yes because football players notoriously like money

Helix

they can attract quality, yes. any premiership club can

but theres no chance theyll attract the sort of names getting bandied about in the press

pwd

It will be a feast or a famine. If they can get one or two more big names others will be confident that the club will do well and join too.

redout

Definitly, its all about money these days. Look at Chelsea sure. They were not a huge team but when the money rolled in then all of a sudden players started signing that previously would never have signed for a club like Chelsea.

Helix

redout wrote: »

Definitly, its all about money these days. Look at Chelsea sure. They were not a huge team but when the money rolled in then all of a sudden players started signing that previously would never have signed for a club like Chelsea.

the chelsea thing was far more gradual than people imagine

pretty much started off with gullit in the 90s

scruff321

hate that word "quality" in relation to football its onf of the most over used phrases!! and 100% yes because for most footballers its money first football second

leninbenjamin

Helix wrote: »

the chelsea thing was far more gradual than people imagine

pretty much started off with gullit in the 90s

to mention Ranieri achieved miracles with them to guide them into the Champions League before Roman's money arrived.

everdead.ie

redout wrote: »

Definitly, its all about money these days. Look at Chelsea sure. They were not a huge team but when the money rolled in then all of a sudden players started signing that previously would never have signed for a club like Chelsea.

True but chelsea where a pretty established top 6 team already I think it really will rely on hugh's ability to talk up the club and where they're going.

Helix

leninbenjamin wrote: »

to mention Ranieri achieved miracles with them to guide them into the Champions League before Roman's money arrived.

i wouldnt quite call what ranieri achieved a miracle tbh, they werent stuck for any money at that stage anyway. nor did they find it hard to attract decent players. they were a regular player at that stage, and picking up silverware

spanner_head

I'm not too sure about this.

Diarra mentioned that City offered him more money than Madrid.

It'll be interesting to see who City bring in.

anonymous_joe

scruff321 wrote: »

hate that word "quality" in relation to football its onf of the most over used phrases!! and 100% yes because for most footballers its money first football second

Seen this a few times, and not really singling you out.

What's true is this - if someone offered you more money to do the same job for someone else, you'd probably do it. That's human nature.

Any footballer knows that City will pay them a fortune - however, money is one of their primary motivations to do their job just like anyone else. There are, though, plenty of examples of players being led by factors other than money. Manchester United can pay as much as Real Madrid, so why would Ronaldo want to leave? Why did Diarra choose Real over City who offered him more money?

City will be able to sign all the world class players not yet at top clubs, and anyone whose unhappy. They'll probably struggle to get players from the top clubs however.

m@cc@

scruff321 wrote: »

hate that word "quality" in relation to football its onf of the most over used phrases!!

How so?

redout

In all honesty with Chelsea being a top 6 team and it being a gradual thing as some of you are saying the majority of these players would not have signed for a club like Chelsea had it not been for the money. Geremi, Makelele, Crespo, Veron, Cech, Robben, Drogba, Carvalho, Essien, Ballack, Shevchenko, Ash Cole, Deco.

Helix

redout wrote: »

In all honesty with Chelsea being a top 6 team and it being a gradual thing as some of you are saying the majority of these players would not have signed for a club like Chelsea had it not been for the money. Geremi, Makelele, Crespo, Veron, Cech, Robben, Drogba, Carvalho, Essien, Ballack, Shevchenko, Ash Cole, Deco.

so why did these players sign...

Emmanuel Petit
Boudewijn Zenden
William Gallas
Frank Lampard
Winston Bogarde
Mario Melchiot
Didier Deschamps
Chris Sutton
Jimmy-Floyd Hasselbaink
Eidur Gudjohnsen
Brian Laudrup
George Weah
Pierluigi Casiraghi
Albert Ferrer
Gianfranco Zola
Gianluca Vialli
Roberto Di Matteo
Frank Leboeuf

all were pre abramovic, all were quite sizeable names

chelsea were built the right way... gradually, and on a foundation of substance. you cant just build these things in a year or 2, no matter how it might have looked like chelsea did it. they were winning trophies and finishing in the top 5 long before the russian money

redout

The players you listed, some were nearly past it and some would not have been as big as the one's which I listed. Some also never played more than a dozen games ie: Casiraghi, Weah. Put simply Chelsea would not have had the money to pay their huge wages if not for the Russian and hence they would never have signed. The players followed the money.

JPA

Helix wrote: »

so why did these players sign...

Emmanuel Petit
Boudewijn Zenden
William Gallas
Frank Lampard
Winston Bogarde
Mario Melchiot
Didier Deschamps
Chris Sutton
Jimmy-Floyd Hasselbaink
Eidur Gudjohnsen
Brian Laudrup
George Weah
Pierluigi Casiraghi
Albert Ferrer
Gianfranco Zola
Gianluca Vialli
Roberto Di Matteo
Frank Leboeuf

all were pre abramovic, all were quite sizeable names

chelsea were built the right way... gradually, and on a foundation of substance. you cant just build these things in a year or 2, no matter how it might have looked like chelsea did it. they were winning trophies and finishing in the top 5 long before the russian money

what are you talking about? Chelsea were on the verge of going under before Roman came in.

Helix

JPA wrote: »

what are you talking about? Chelsea were on the verge of going under before Roman came in.

does nobody remember football pre 2003 or something?

chelsea went from being a nothing club in the early premiership years, to gradually improving and building a brand. gullit and then vialli's signings started to establish them europe-wide as a name brand, and they followed that gradual recognition with picking up their first silverware in a long long time, winning in both europe and in england.

there is practically nothing there that serves to compare with man city, who for years were a yoyo team between divisions, and when they werent being relegated, they were generally in the bottom half. they were never glamourous, and did very little to gradually build a brand either in england or further afield.

for them to suddenly have money is in a completely different ball park to when chelsea came into money. chelsea were a regular top 4 fixture before their cash, city were not. chelsea had been signing superstar names before their cash, city had not. chelsea were winning trophies before their cash, city were not

eddiehead

In the Summer I would have said the needed Champions League football to attract top players, then they went and signed Robinho. Im not convinced thay can do it again, certainly not as soon as the January window anyway. How many of Europes top players would give up 2 (at the very least) seasons in the Champions League to join a club 15th (albeit midway through the season) in the Premiership?

Maybe its just me but I'd like to think it isn't ALL about money.

JPA

Helix wrote: »

does nobody remember football pre 2003 or something?

chelsea went from being a nothing club in the early premiership years, to gradually improving and building a brand. gullit and then vialli's signings started to establish them europe-wide as a name brand, and they followed that gradual recognition with picking up their first silverware in a long long time, winning in both europe and in england.

there is practically nothing there that serves to compare with man city, who for years were a yoyo team between divisions, and when they werent being relegated, they were generally in the bottom half. they were never glamourous, and did very little to gradually build a brand either in england or further afield.

for them to suddenly have money is in a completely different ball park to when chelsea came into money. chelsea were a regular top 4 fixture before their cash, city were not. chelsea had been signing superstar names before their cash, city had not. chelsea were winning trophies before their cash, city were not

Yes, I know all that. But to say it's solid foundations is rubbish since they had built up a mountain of debt and were in serious financial difficulty.
they were signing superstars with money they couldn't payback.


As for regular top 4 fixture? They finished 4th in 2002/03 and before that they last finished in the top 4 in 98/99.

leninbenjamin

Helix wrote: »

i wouldnt quite call what ranieri achieved a miracle tbh, they werent stuck for any money at that stage anyway. nor did they find it hard to attract decent players. they were a regular player at that stage, and picking up silverware

were they not near 100million stg debt thanks to what his face?

Helix wrote: »

so why did these players sign...

Emmanuel Petit
Boudewijn Zenden
William Gallas
Frank Lampard
Winston Bogarde
Mario Melchiot
Didier Deschamps
Chris Sutton
Jimmy-Floyd Hasselbaink
Eidur Gudjohnsen
Brian Laudrup
George Weah
Pierluigi Casiraghi
Albert Ferrer
Gianfranco Zola
Gianluca Vialli
Roberto Di Matteo
Frank Leboeuf

all were pre abramovic, all were quite sizeable names

5 years before signing for Chelsea in most cases... they only reason most of them did was that it was a nice retirement gig with a relatively high profile and a decent pay packet. Most of those players wouldn't have gone hear Chelsea in their heyday.

JPA

leninbenjamin wrote: »

were they not near 100million stg debt thanks to what his face?

Yes, they were on the verge of a Leeds-esque collapse.
Coming 4th saved the club as it made it more attractive to Abramovich.

leninbenjamin

JPA wrote: »

Yes, they were on the verge of a Leeds-esque collapse.
Coming 4th saved the club as it made it more attractive to Abramovich.

and that's why imo what Ranieri did was near miraculous. Watch most clubs in financial troubles, their performances always take a tumble as players start to wonder about where their next pay packet is coming from and whether they'll be able to see out their contract. Instead Ranieri had Chelsea on the up...

Helix

JPA wrote: »

Yes, I know all that. But to say it's solid foundations is rubbish since they had built up a mountain of debt and were in serious financial difficulty.

nobodys talking about money

im talking about footballing foundations, the same foundations im talking about in terms of man city. without building those first, no amount of money will be any use to anyone

HashSlinging

I'd say players will be more than happy to play for them, if they are paying more money. I'm sure if they were offering bonus's of 20mill per player for landing a championship they would have a lot of offers.

Bubs101

JPA wrote: »

what are you talking about? Chelsea were on the verge of going under before Roman came in.

The reason we were on the verge of going under is because we wasted so much money on players. Sure the money wasn't as big as the Serie A clubs at the time or our current spending but it was still high by Premiership standards at the time.

JPA

Helix wrote: »

nobodys talking about money

im talking about footballing foundations, the same foundations im talking about in terms of man city. without building those first, no amount of money will be any use to anyone

If Chelsea started becoming a big club around the time Gulitt And Vialli arrived, it was because of money.

Helix

JPA wrote: »

If Chelsea started becoming a big club around the time Gulitt And Vialli arrived, it was because of money.

yeah but it was also gradual

it wasnt a case of go and buy every superstar in the world first. it was start supplementing a team with names, then bigger names, then bigger names again

the way villa are trying it. the way that actually works.

everdead.ie

Just remembered that hughes is ment to have about £240m to spend over the next two seasons. That means if you have to give every player a huge bonus that money is going to dwindle very fast

JPA

Helix wrote: »

yeah but it was also gradual

it wasnt a case of go and buy every superstar in the world first. it was start supplementing a team with names, then bigger names, then bigger names again

the way villa are trying it. the way that actually works.

Ok but any club could do that if they don't care about debt. Chelsea were not built on solid foundations.

Bubs101

Lebouf and Desailly training John Terry is about as solid as your foundations are going to get

Helix

JPA wrote: »

Ok but any club could do that if they don't care about debt. Chelsea were not built on solid foundations.

thats just nonsense

JPA

Helix wrote: »

thats just nonsense

How is it nonsense? They were spending money they didn't have, and were very very lucky that Roman came in.

brayblue24

OP

Was this not about Man City at one stage?

eagle eye

A lot of people in this thread need to sign up for Premier League/English League football history classes based on some of the things said.

Do none of you remember Ken Bates and all that he did at Chelsea?

Pigman II

If I was on the wanted list it wouldn't be so much that Citeh are in 15th that would put me off so much as that Citeh are in Manchester. At least Chelsea are located somewhere closely resembling civilisation.

astrofool

Bubs101 wrote: »

Lebouf and Desailly training John Terry is about as solid as your foundations are going to get

And Terry was off to another club that summer before Abramovich came along and offered him a huge pay packet.

Chelsea were built on the same foundation as Leeds were (in fact you could argue Leeds had a more solid base, having won the league in the previous decade, rather than being a cup team, and had planning in place to redevelop Elland Road). Players near the end of their career, and a couple of big signings, as any top 10 team at the time had (even fwank, the record signing, was a flop before he had the entire team replaced around him).

Had Abramovich not come in, they'd probably be kicking a ball in League 2 right now, solid foundations my arse.

everdead.ie

brayblue24 wrote: »

OP

Was this not about Man City at one stage?

yes, yes it was
tbh i dont think that city are going to be able to attract any more robinho's untill they have champions league football a lot of the great players out there want to win a champions league medal and can't do it in a club thats sliding toward the wrong end of the league. City have been exposed as pretty blunt without robinho and pretty open at the back so i think it will be next summer or even the summer after before any really big signings come there way.

Helix

JPA wrote: »

How is it nonsense? They were spending money they didn't have, and were very very lucky that Roman came in.

coz they had a team who could finish in the top 6 before they got the money, man city dont. hence chelsea had a foundation to build on