Are city going to be the new chelsea

Spiritoftheseventies

Given that they are now the only debt free club in Premiership will Manchester City be the dominant team of the teenies.

Xavi6

No

We'll win nothing, the big names and chairman will leave, and we'll get relegated. In the process we'll go back into debt because the remaining players will be on Premiership wages in the Championship.

One Cold Hand

Xavi6 wrote: »

No

We'll win nothing, the big names and chairman will leave, and we'll get relegated. In the process we'll go back into debt because the remaining players will be on Premiership wages in the Championship.

You're the new leeds you mean?!

Spiritoftheseventies

Xavi6 wrote: »

No

We'll win nothing, the big names and chairman will leave, and we'll get relegated. In the process we'll go back into debt because the remaining players will be on Premiership wages in the Championship.

They will become big if they get their hands on torres. Just hope Rafa isnt forced to take the bait. Looking at the players Mancini is chasing, it looks similar to the chelsea model.
If they can tighten up their defending they have the makings of a very good team.

One Cold Hand

bayviewclose wrote: »

If they can tighten up their defending they have the makings of a very good team.

That's astounding insight there. You should consider punditry as a career.

Xavi6

bayviewclose wrote: »

They will become big if they get their hands on torres. Just hope Rafa isnt forced to take the bait. Looking at the players Mancini is chasing, it looks similar to the chelsea model.
If they can tighten up their defending they have the makings of a very good team.

If my aunty had balls.....tbh

We've always fucked things up. It's the City way. I predict limited success, if any, and back to being a yo yo team in about 5 years when the sheikh is bored of his toy.

But I'll enjoy it while it lasts.

anplaya

mancini just said hes keeping micah richards at the club,citing that he has only 4 fit defenders at the moment.says he rates him very highly,that he has potential for the future.

he is also eager to keep roque santa cruz who has been strongly liknked to espanyol.

Spiritoftheseventies

anplaya wrote: »

mancini just said hes keeping micah richards at the club,citing that he has only 4 fit defenders at the moment.says he rates him very highly,that he has potential for the future.

he is also eager to keep roque santa cruz who has been strongly linked to espanyol.

Will he play Vierra in front of back four or further up the field. Given that he is getting on a bit where is his best position at this stage?

gosplan

Yes.

But Chelsea will win the next league or two and then become the new United.

United won't be able to keep up and are destined for 20 years of Liverpoolness.

Arsenal will remain Arsenal.

Liverpool = spurs or leeds depending on the breaks.

Spiritoftheseventies

gosplan wrote: »

Yes.

But Chelsea will win the next league or two and then become the new United.

United won't be able to keep up and are destined for 20 years of Liverpoolness.

Arsenal will remain Arsenal.

Liverpool = spurs or leeds depending on the breaks.

Leeds were never as successful as pool. They basically broke the bank in search of a champions league glory but dont think they really had the structures in place. Are posters really suggesting we could be playing in the old divison three within a couple of seasons?

chiefwiggum

i dont know...they have the potential for sure...but a big part of the chelsea rise was a certain "special one" who seemed to just fit in perfectly with their mindset at that given time....city need a manager who can use the players available,who is not afraid to give them a good kick up the hole when needed...and especially someone who is as good at the mind games as fergie

Spiritoftheseventies

chiefwiggum wrote: »

i dont know...they have the potential for sure...but a big part of the chelsea rise was a certain "special one" who seemed to just fit in perfectly with their mindset at that given time....city need a manager who can use the players available,who is not afraid to give them a good kick up the hole when needed...and especially someone who is as good at the mind games as fergie

Yes if im right, Jose teams are still unbeaten at home stretching back to his porto days. Some record.

everdead.ie

bayviewclose wrote: »

Leeds were never as successful as pool. They basically broke the bank in search of a champions league glory but dont think they really had the structures in place. Are posters really suggesting we could be playing in the old divison three within a couple of seasons?

Depends wheather or not you make the champions League next year no one knows if you will survive without the extra money?

I don't think City will be the new Chelsea I think they have gone for attractive football that doesn't have sound foundations like Abromavich wants at chelsea but that won't work without a super Defense as it leaves them very exposed at the back. All these problems could be rectified tho ya never know

monkey9

bayviewclose wrote: »

Leeds were never as successful as pool. They basically broke the bank in search of a champions league glory but dont think they really had the structures in place. Are posters really suggesting we could be playing in the old divison three within a couple of seasons?

Do you not have any sarcasm sensors you can switch on?

anplaya

bayviewclose wrote: »

Will he play Vierra in front of back four or further up the field. Given that he is getting on a bit where is his best position at this stage?

feck knows ,youd want t ask a city fan that,was only posting city related news.

deisedevil

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes if im right, Jose teams are still unbeaten at home stretching back to his porto days. Some record.

Home Record

Mourinho is currently on a run of 127 home league matches unbeaten (38 with Porto, 60 with Chelsea and 29 with Inter). His last and only home league defeat came when Porto were defeated 3–2 by Beira-Mar on 23 February 2002.[22][40]

Taken from Wiki, I think it's right. Pretty amazing indeed.

gosplan

In all seriousness though, is the question in this thread ..

- 'can city buy the league and remain competitive given that they have unlimited cash resources?'

The answer is of course they can. Perhaps given that there's more of a tussle at the top than when Chelsea came along, it might take them a bit longer but it's obvious that if you continuously outspend everyone, then it's only a matter of time before you outdo everyone.

Loving Xavi's 'glass is half empty' thing.

I totally understand where you're coming from Xavi but you should have a bit more faith. Even if this is just a plaything of some rich arabs, AFAIK, they're soooo stinking rich that they won't ever really need to think about dropping it.

They're defo not going to stop until they win something and after that ... well, when budgets and value for money simply don't come into it, why would you drop a nice little asset like a successful football club.

KittyeeTrix

I can understand Xavi's viewpoint. It's hard to believe you can be a valid contender when you've spent so many years yo-yoing between the leagues and even within a season.

You kinda get used to messing up and you don't expect any better to happen. Not only us fans have felt this way, it has been expressed by many other fans....can't blame them really with our past record.

That said, i feel that City in the future will succeed but like xavi there is still a part of me that waits for the "inevitable mess up" that has been part of our past form but will still be there to cheer on City no matter if we are winning, draswing or losing.

leninbenjamin

bayviewclose wrote: »

Leeds were never as successful as pool. They basically broke the bank in search of a champions league glory but dont think they really had the structures in place. Are posters really suggesting we could be playing in the old divison three within a couple of seasons?

Granted 'Pool haven't quite pissed away money like Leeds did, but you're forgetting the massive amount of debt on the club coming from a different a very different source. And I believe their infrastructure does lag behind that of United, Arsenal and Chelsea?

If one believes the media stories of late, Liverpool are already in a 'worst case scenario' because they are required to service the interest on the debt from their transfer activity, typically a death knell for any club. You could easily find that failure to reach the champions league this year be the 'tipping point' for the club's finances.

However, this is all forgetting that Liverpool have one get out clause that Leeds and others don't have, that is the billionaire foreign owner like at City. However, it's also clear that the Americans are a big barrier to this occuring, so a Portsmouth like scenario (i.e. where new owner refuses to invest cash until the old mess is cleared up) may not be too remote a possibility either.

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out and whether the media are exaggerating or not, but it's quite likely that Liverpool are in for a turbulent couple of years yet.

Spiritoftheseventies

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Granted 'Pool haven't quite pissed away money like Leeds did, but you're forgetting the massive amount of debt on the club coming from a different a very different source. And I believe their infrastructure does lag behind that of United, Arsenal and Chelsea?

If one believes the media stories of late, Liverpool are already in a 'worst case scenario' because they are required to service the interest on the debt from their transfer activity, typically a death knell for any club. You could easily find that failure to reach the champions league this year be the 'tipping point' for the club's finances.

However, this is all forgetting that Liverpool have one get out clause that Leeds and others don't have, that is the billionaire foreign owner like at City. However, it's also clear that the Americans are a big barrier to this occuring, so a Portsmouth like scenario (i.e. where new owner refuses to invest cash until the old mess is cleared up) may not be too remote a possibility either.

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out and whether the media are exaggerating or not, but it's quite likely that Liverpool are in for a turbulent couple of years yet.

At the crux of it is whether we have to sell Torres to them. Its a poison chalice IMO but its largely depends on whether we finish in top four.

IvySlayer

Torres won't go to City.

City, imo, will spend a few seasons in the top 5 before they go into meltdown.

I thought this was the LFC thread for a second there.

I'd be shocked if City don't win the league in the next 3 years tbh.

Money can buy the league and will.

leninbenjamin

bayviewclose wrote: »

At the crux of it is whether we have to sell Torres to them. Its a poison chalice IMO but its largely depends on whether we finish in top four.

hehe, so in conclusion, 'Pool will determine the future of Citeh.

KittyeeTrix

IvySlayer wrote: »

Torres won't go to City.

City, imo, will spend a few seasons in the top 5 before they go into meltdown.

Thank you Mystic Meg:D

A fine example of what I referred to in an earlier post, generally felt by many and even sometimes by City fans but hopefully won't be the case.

noodler

bayviewclose wrote: »

Given that they are now the only debt free club in Premiership will Manchester City be the dominant team of the teenies.

Sorry, I assume you mean Chelsea are debt-free there?

So you are guessing City will have the same level of back Chelsea did along with the same willingness to reduce debt significantly.

Massive ifs as Xavi said.

leninbenjamin

noodler wrote: »

Sorry, I assume you mean Chelsea are debt-free there?

No, he meant they weren't. Chelsea have £500m or so of 'loans' from Ambramovich to pay off.

Those loans will probably never be repaid though. Afaik had Ambramvich simply gifted Chelsea money they would have been required to pay substantial amounts of tax on it as it raises the overall balance of the club, and a loan of course does the opposite.

IvySlayer

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

Thank you Mystic Meg:D

A fine example of what I referred to in an earlier post, generally felt by many and even sometimes by City fans but hopefully won't be the case.

City have the potential to be quite decent team. If they had a better chairman I'd say they could go onto higher things.

noodler

leninbenjamin wrote: »

No, he meant they weren't. Chelsea have £500m or so of 'loans' from Ambramovich to pay off.

Those loans will probably never be repaid though. Afaik had Ambramvich simply gifted Chelsea money they would have been required to pay substantial amounts of tax on it as it raises the overall balance of the club, and a loan of course does the opposite.

They are classed as the only debt-free team in the premiership though?

A quick google says it is because the debt has been turned into equity.

So they are debt-free for regulation purposes.

Is it the same situation at City? The money has been 'loaned' to the club by the Sheikh?

Warper

Football at the top level is all about money, if you dont have much you wont do much on a consistent basis. Hence we have had the same Top 4 for ages as they were the teams with the money. Now City are the richest club in the league and of course they will challenge at the top as they can afford any player on the market. If they get into the Top 4 this year expect them to make bigger and better signings than they have ever done. They will target everything next season and good luck to them. It can only make the League more interesting having more teams fight for the title.

Paleface

FIFA or UEFA will eventually bring soccer under control in monetary terms. Its completely unstustainable to have clubs operating at a loss while still shelling out millions on new players. The switching of debt to equity is the biggest cooking of the books I have ever seen. That won't last long before its outlawed!

The whole sugar daddy thing will eventually become a mute point and all major soccer clubs will have to come into line with how sport franchises in America operate i.e. viable businesses.

Well at least thats what should happen. Soccer in England is in big trouble otherwise and we are beginning to see the start of it now with Liverpool and United in particular saddled with large debts that are starting to have an impact on their activity in the transfer market. If teams like Chelsea and City weren't around the transfer market would never have become as over inflated as it is now.

noodler

Warper wrote: »

Football at the top level is all about money, if you dont have much you wont do much on a consistent basis. Hence we have had the same Top 4 for ages as they were the teams with the money. Now City are the richest club in the league and of course they will challenge at the top as they can afford any player on the market. If they get into the Top 4 this year expect them to make bigger and better signings than they have ever done. They will target everything next season and good luck to them. It can only make the League more interesting having more teams fight for the title.

Or they fail to get into the top 4 this season and therefore have to sign players more interested in money than the CL or challenging for trophies.

SlickRic

could go either way.

they're only a year into this tenure, and didn't have the core basis that Chelsea did, so it will tke longer imo.

far too early to properly predict what will happen yet.

leninbenjamin

noodler wrote: »

A quick google says it is because the debt has been turned into equity.

Ah right, hadn't heard about that.

noodler wrote: »

Is it the same situation at City? The money has been 'loaned' to the club by the Sheikh?

Too early to say. Took a while for the situation to be sussed at Chelsea too so I don't expect the intricacies of the situation to become apparent for a while.

Warper

noodler wrote: »

Or they fail to get into the top 4 this season and therefore have to sign players more interested in money than the CL or challenging for trophies.

Not really they can sign both - interested in money and the CL/PL. Btw every player is interested in money and this is the primary condition of practically every transfer. This is not Bambi - world-class players wont play for 50k a week irrespective if they play for Barcelona or not. They have made some great signings - Tevez is the standout one who has never played better in the PL. Finally he is starting to show what made him voted the best player in South America twice. Given and Toure are good signings, Barry still has to improve but will come good. Adebayor etc can all do better but they have signed proven PL quality.

PHB

Until City get top 4, they will still attract just below the level required. But with Mancini, they could become a top 4 club. However Mourinho came in after a bit of Raneiri building, which people forget. I'm not sure Hughes did as much good for City as Raneiri did for Chelsea.

noodler

Warper wrote: »

Not really they can sign both - interested in money and the CL/PL. Btw every player is interested in money and this is the primary condition of practically every transfer. This is not Bambi - world-class players wont play for 50k a week irrespective if they play for Barcelona or not. They have made some great signings - Tevez is the standout one who has never played better in the PL. Finally he is starting to show what made him voted the best player in South America twice. Given and Toure are good signings, Barry still has to improve but will come good. Adebayor etc can all do better but they have signed proven PL quality.

I don't dismiss your point.

I do however believe in the oul laws of diminishing returns as well as the ego of players.

I doubt there are many who would be attracted by wages of 150,000 per week rather than 120,000 a week if the club offering less is in the Champions League and actually challenges for major honours.

flahavaj

What SlickRic said. Chelsea basically had the spinea championship quality team in place anyway when Mourinho came along, he just added a few and gave them the winning mentality.

At the moment City have quite a poor spine to their side and still lack that winning mentality that comes with challenging regulalrly at the business end of the championship. Mancini has the experience of winning championships and in that snse is a good recruitment. I'd say City are still 3 -5 years from being a regular team in the top 4 not to mind champions.

Surely the bigger aim would be to be the next United anyway, not the new Chelsea and dominate for decades rather than 3 years?

Spiritoftheseventies

flahavaj wrote: »

What SlickRic said. Chelsea basically had the spinea championship quality team in place anyway when Mourinho came along, he just added a few and gave them the winning mentality.

At the moment City have quite a poor spine to their side and still lack that winning mentality that comes with challenging regulalrly at the business end of the championship. Mancini has the experience of winning championships and in that snse is a good recruitment. I'd say City are still 3 -5 years from being a regular team in the top 4 not to mind champions.

Surely the bigger aim would be to be the next United anyway, not the new Chelsea and dominate for decades rather than 3 years?

I was thinking of the model of chelsea there because a new owner came in and practically transformed the fortunes of club. To be fair to united and i really hate to say it they built their success on their reserves.

noodler

Chelsea had Champions League football to offer from the get go.

leninbenjamin

noodler wrote: »

Chelsea had Champions League football to offer from the get go.

Not only that, but in his final season Ranieri took them to the semi's. Would Drogba and Essien, the two players most important to Mourinho's Chelsea, have picked Chelsea over the more established heavy weights of United, Milan etc. if Chelsea hadn't already made a name for themselves on the European scene? Hard to know.

flahavaj

bayviewclose wrote: »

I was thinking of the model of chelsea there because a new owner came in and practically transformed the fortunes of club. To be fair to united and i really hate to say it they built their success on their reserves.

In what sense reserves?

noodler

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Not only that, but in his final season Ranieri took them to the semi's. Would Drogba and Essien, the two players most important to Mourinho's Chelsea, have picked Chelsea over the more established heavy weights of United, Milan etc. if Chelsea hadn't already made a name for themselves on the European scene? Hard to know.

I personally feel Lampard and Terry were the most important players during the Mourinho era. I reckon the two you listed got more important towards his twilight and with the subsequent managers.

Spiritoftheseventies

flahavaj wrote: »

In what sense reserves?

Well more youths than reserves. Giggs, Scholes, Beckham all came up from the ranks. But assume they played a few reserve games along the way.

spockety

As the Kaka saga has already shown, City are going to have a hard time attracting world class players. Money alone is not enough for those already earning 100k+, their hunger is for success and fame at the top clubs, or a desire to do well for the club they love (while earning over 100k ).

People are asking things like "Can Liverpool/Rafa refuse an offer of 70m for Torres???", without asking "Would Fernando Torres consider a move to Manchester City???". The same applies to any truly top class player who is already plying their trade at a top 10 European elite club.

I think City will have a hard time attracting players already on 100k+ per week from United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Barca, Real, and Milan. Very good players at non Champions League clubs, or clubs in the CL who rarely make it past the last 16 will definitely be tempted, if only because City will take a player who's on 40K at a club and easily offer wages of 100k+, which is a massive massive ego stroke, putting them in what they think is the top bracket of footballers worldwide.

As a Liverpool fan I'm not worried about City bidding for Torres to be honest, I don't think he would agree to the move. I'm also not worried about City going around buying up the top names in world football, because I don't think they will be able to. I am really worried that they will pluck the best players who are not already at the historically (and more recently in the case of Chelsea) big clubs.

I would also be worried, for example, that they come in with 15m type bids for the likes of Yossi Benayoun, or a 30m bid for Mascherano etc. These are the types of players for whom a massive salary would turn their heads. And I think if City can fill a squad with really good players of that ilk, and Mancini can do a job with them, they can establish a berth in the Champions League within a season or two.

flahavaj

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well more youths than reserves. Giggs, Scholes, Beckham all came up from the ranks. But assume they played a few reserve games along the way.

Partially.

I'd say their success is based more than anything else on their amazing business model, which produced consistently better annual profits than nearly every other club year in year out, which translates to serious muscle in the transfer market. Yes, the youth system has consistently produced over the years and there was the golden age of the mid nineties when a glut of talented that will probably never be repeated again emerged all at once. However its safe to say United's spending power has been equally if not more responsible for their success and the cycle of buiding great teams from the ashes of the last. That and having one of the magerial greats at the helm for the entire time.

rossie1977

PHB wrote: »

Until City get top 4, they will still attract just below the level required. But with Mancini, they could become a top 4 club. However Mourinho came in after a bit of Raneiri building, which people forget. I'm not sure Hughes did as much good for City as Raneiri did for Chelsea.

you could ask did hughes do a good as job for city as Gullit and vialli did for chelsea, i would say no way

Spiritoftheseventies

rossie1977 wrote: »

you could ask did hughes do a good as job for city as Gullit and vialli did for chelsea, i would say no way

Chelsea did okay under Hoddle and Vialli. But you only have to look at Jose's home record to see when things started to turn around.
As for city would think they have the basis for a very good side there. But big money signings like Robinho dont always work out the way you want them. Was alarmed that he walked straight to the dressingroom after a game recently.

rossie1977

yes but under ranieri chelsea finished second in the league on 79 points and into the last four of the champions league (city are nowhere near that level), if mancini can get city to the level that chelsea were at when ranieri was sacked i would say every man city fan would be delighted