Finally some good journalism

[halnone]

In recent days the British media have looked for a scapegoat regarding the problems in English football, and these highly paid "professional journalists" have come to the conclusion that it is the fault of one club, Manchester City.

Journalists like Brian Woolnough have written articles stating that the fact that City are investing in their squad with the acquisitions of foreign stars, is the reason for England's failure in the World Cup. This is absolutely ludicrous and here is why.

Manchester City got taken over on the September 1st, 2008, and have since spent over £250 million on new players, an excessive amount in their bid to become a top level European club.

However, the summer before, they won the FA Youth Cup—reached the semi-finals in 2009, losing to Arsenal—and represented England in the Dallas Cup, a tournament bringing the best youth teams in the world together, reaching the semi-finals before losing to Sao Paulo on penalties but beating the AC Milan academy and two North American youth sides.

Last year, City's academy had a disappointing year, but the under 16s are largely tipped to be the next great youth group through the ranks.

City have brought through 31 academy talents to play for the first team in 12 years, 12 still at the club, five at other Premier League clubs with nine more currently at Championship clubs, so to claim City have not done as much as any other club to help English football is just wrong. 15 of these academy talents are English, one Welsh and five Irishmen.

So City's academy is rightfully known as one of the best in England, and considering Arsenal produce far less English players, it is only rivalled by West Ham.

What have Manchester United, Liverpool and Chelsea produced this decade?

Pretty much zilch. So City's academy is doing its best to produce top quality English talent, but no academy is really producing it, so the problem must be deeper at grassroots level.

In Holland, the system is aimed at developing technical ability, and the world class Ajax academy continually produces top quality talent that then moves to top European clubs and develop into quality players, and look at the result, a World Cup final.

Spain keep the majority of their talent closer to home, but with Barca's world class academy and then their sheer size as a football club, they have seven of the first 11 of the Spain national side because they are the ultimate club, one of a kind.

The problem with English talent is that it is in such short supply that it is extremely overrated and overvalued, so they stick ludicrous price tags on the like of James Milner and therefore European clubs cannot afford to buy them. So, you end up stuck in a continuous cycle where English players do not develop new technique's and skills because they are forever stuck in their comfort zone at an English club.

So then what? How do we try and help them improve? We buy foreign players, therefore the English players get some development alongside these quality players and these players improve the team. However, these foreigners are also cheaper for most clubs and readily available, so English lads then get shafted because they aren't ready.

The problem is that we can't start guaranteeing English lads places, like with the new eight homegrown in a 25 man squad rule, because what do they have to work for? They break through at 18, play two good years, earn a massive contract and are set for life, what do they have to achieve?

English lads need to go to foreign clubs and learn a different aspect to their games, look at the best England player of the last decade, Owen Hargreaves. He learnt his trade at Bayern Munich and if it wasn't for injuries he would be integral to both Manchester United and England. At the moment, however, England are one dimensional and this won't change without massive changes throughout the organisation.

But back to City, yes they have spent big, but look who they bought: Englishmen in Gareth Barry, Wayne Bridge, Adam Johnson and Joleon Lescott, a welshman in Craig Bellamy and an Irishman in Shay Given.

City have been building a good mix of foreign talent and British and Irish talent, and of course they have spent a lot of money, but they will never get good value for a player anymore because other clubs will milk them for every penny they can get, as will players and agents because they all know City are the richest club on Earth.

It's the price they have to pay, but it's not like it's any different to any other club who's competed at the top of the Premier League, with the exception of Arsenal, the only difference is the rate of inflation is a lot higher for City.

So far this year, City have spent £24 million on David Silva, £19.5 million on Yaya Toure(another piece of British media prejudice claiming Toure cost £28 million and 220k a week in wages, it's 110k) and £10.5 million on Jerome Boateng, which are all good prices. This takes their total expenditure to £507,037,500 since the 97/98 season.



The table below shows the total expenditure:

1) Chelsea: £732,640,500

2) Man Utd: £507,176,000.

3) Man City: £507,037,500.

4) Tottenham: £499,977,000.

5) Liverpool: £491,249,700.

6) Arsenal: £284,489,500.

7) Aston Villa: £260,914,500.

8) Everton: £230,138,500.

Now that says a lot, and bear in mind United and Liverpool have no money, so won't be spending any money on £20 million signings that used to be an annual event at Old Trafford.



Now let's look at the losses:

1) Manchester United: -£231,380,000.

2) Chelsea: -£501,102,000.

3) Liverpool: -£223,158,600.

4) Arsenal: -£36,458,500.

5) Everton: -£51,970,000.

6) Aston Villa: -£140,148,000.

7) Tottenham: -£298,642,500.

8) Man City: -£375,188,300.

Every club makes a loss, and you have to remember City have spent the majority of that in the last three years and haven't tried to recoup the money on their big money signings, and also United would be over £300 million in debt without the sale of Ronaldo.

Therefore, City can be safely discounted as the cause of England's failure, and in fact recognised as a club that has done more than most to try and contribute to England's national team. The problems stem a lot deeper than that and is deep rooted throughout the whole of English football.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/418424-manchester-city-to-blame-for-england-failure-reality-check-needed

Enjoyed this quite a bit.

[Beefymcfc]

I only had to read to thea part about Woulnough (or whatever the twat-head is called) to get the picture. That sounds like an even-handed Blue to me!

[avoidconfusion]

Fantastic article! Really enjoyed that as well.

[blootoof]

Excuses have been made since the dawn of time for all sorts of things. “I’m late because my sundial didn’t go off” or “The bus was late because the wheel hasn’t been invented yet” or even “A Stegosaurus ate my homework.” Of course, I’m being silly – dinosaurs and man never came into contact with each other outside of Jurassic Park and, if the documentary series I saw about those islands are to be believed, there wasn’t much homework-doing going on.

But excuses generally all have one thing in common – they’re utter cowpats. “I’m sorry I’m late, the bus didn’t turn up on time” is, 99% of the time, code for “I’m not actually sorry I’m interrupting your lecture, but I know I have to give a reason for doing it now that I have and I know that telling you I preferred to sleep in for another half an hour isn’t going to go down well, so here’s some rubbish I’m spouting out of my face to save both of us the embarrassment of me turning up late.”

And, of course, turning up late isn’t the only time you need excuses. Excuses are golden for when leaving early: for example, a party you didn’t want to go to (“I have to get home because I’m working in London tomorrow”), a date that isn’t going well (“My grandfather’s not well, so I have to get back”), or even an international football competition where you didn’t do as well as you and millions of others had expected (“Manchester City keep buying people from abroad, so the England team is rubbish”).

Like I said, cowpats.

It has to be City’s fault that Wayne Rooney had the control and agility of a combine harvester. Who else is there to blame that the defence looked as stable as a puddle of Nitro-glycerine near a fire? And it goes without saying that there’s only one place to look as to the reason why Gerrard and Lampard looked like two people who’d not even spoken to each other for ten years.

So, and this is a question aimed at a certain Brian Woolnough from the Daily Star, why have England not been much cop for the last 44 years? I mean, City were taken over in 2008 and Chelsea in 2003 – so that covers the last seven years, but what about the remaining 37? And why are City being blamed for the high finances of football and lack of English youth development when they are just the latest of many clubs to have spent big and, in the years just before the takeover, they were over reliant on academy products to be able to put out a team most weeks?

That transfer fees and wages are as high as they are isn’t the fault of football’s latest rich kids. Before City broke the English transfer record for Robinho, many others had broken it first, on such illustrious flops as Juan Sebastián Verón or Andriy Shevchenko. Money clearly not well spent at a time when the fees spent on those individual players were more than City’s entire transfer budget for the season.

I don’t think there’s a football fan in the world that wouldn’t prefer a team to win their league by producing a squad of academy talents all at the same time, over spending money on foreign imports. There’s always that romantic view of the team of kids showing the big boys in the league how it’s done, most of them from the area around where the club is based.

Unfortunately, as much as that would be the desired method of competing with the best, it just isn’t ever likely to happen. With the amount of prize money that has been earned by those at the top, it made them self-financing in that they were the only teams that could afford to price everybody else out of the market. They bring in better players, win more things, get more money and bring in better players.

The days when several academy graduates topple the establishment are going, if not already gone. So, when City are taken over and decide that they’d like to compete with the best, it’s unfair to blame them for inflating transfer prices. The choice was to either spend little money and remain everybody’s second favourite club or to try and compete. Competing, of course, involved bringing in better players; players whose value had previously soared.

England don’t win the World Cup and City spend big. To say the first happened because the second happened is an inaccurate and ill considered conclusion that’s far too easy and lazy to arrive at. For a start, at the time of writing, City’s squad contains no less than nine Englishmen (four from the club’s own academy) who have been regulars for the club in the past, with an additional three that are currently breaking into the first team. And that doesn’t include the six non-English academy products that have represented the first team and are currently available for selection.

Clearly, youth development is at an end because the chequebook has come out for Silva, Touré, Boateng, et al.

While it may be true that City can field a first team that contains no English players, it is also true that they can field one that contains no foreigners (though the formation would be a bit off, granted). It seems pretty churlish to point the finger at City for strengthening the squad from abroad, when there’s a potential season of 64 matches (not including any FA Cup replays) coming up and when English players are as over-priced as they are.

If recent reports are to be believed, Aston Villa’s valuation of James Milner is £30m. And, of course, should City decide to pay that amount, they would still be the bad guys, because, despite the promotion of English talent, it would be an obscene transfer fee. Should City decide it’s too much and look overseas for a cheaper, equivalent player, then the club are ruining the chances of future England teams.

The only option for City to be the good guys is to promote academy products before they are ready… The very same system of providing first team players that nearly saw the club relegated in 2007. The club is now in the position where they don’t need to rush young talent into the squad, where only the best of the best will make it through, and where those youngsters can learn from some of the best players the game will see.

Yet that is the wrong way to run a football club. Work that one out.

The problem isn’t that the influx of foreigners is stopping English youth developing. Forcing teams to play x number of English players in their team won’t increase the quality of the national team, but rather decrease the quality of the Premier League. If the youth isn’t good enough to break into the first time for any reason other than being forced in there by the rules, then those players are never going to be good enough to help England to a World Cup win.

But if the English youth is good enough, then those players will play.

If you want to look for excuses as to why England didn’t win the World Cup, you could look at poor management, incorrect tactics, the fact that we’re not as good as other teams that have gone further than us… But the takeover of Manchester City and their transfers in isn’t a valid excuse.

Written By David Mooney

[blootoof]

double post bollox

[The Man In Blue]

toof i was just thinking of that one, read it the other day. good read.

[gillie]

Excuses have been made since the dawn of time for all sorts of things. “I’m late because my sundial didn’t go off” or “The bus was late because the wheel hasn’t been invented yet” or even “A Stegosaurus ate my homework.” Of course, I’m being silly – dinosaurs and man never came into contact with each other outside of Jurassic Park and, if the documentary series I saw about those islands are to be believed, there wasn’t much homework-doing going on.

But excuses generally all have one thing in common – they’re utter cowpats. “I’m sorry I’m late, the bus didn’t turn up on time” is, 99% of the time, code for “I’m not actually sorry I’m interrupting your lecture, but I know I have to give a reason for doing it now that I have and I know that telling you I preferred to sleep in for another half an hour isn’t going to go down well, so here’s some rubbish I’m spouting out of my face to save both of us the embarrassment of me turning up late.”

And, of course, turning up late isn’t the only time you need excuses. Excuses are golden for when leaving early: for example, a party you didn’t want to go to (“I have to get home because I’m working in London tomorrow”), a date that isn’t going well (“My grandfather’s not well, so I have to get back”), or even an international football competition where you didn’t do as well as you and millions of others had expected (“Manchester City keep buying people from abroad, so the England team is rubbish”).

Like I said, cowpats.

It has to be City’s fault that Wayne Rooney had the control and agility of a combine harvester. Who else is there to blame that the defence looked as stable as a puddle of Nitro-glycerine near a fire? And it goes without saying that there’s only one place to look as to the reason why Gerrard and Lampard looked like two people who’d not even spoken to each other for ten years.

So, and this is a question aimed at a certain Brian Woolnough from the Daily Star, why have England not been much cop for the last 44 years? I mean, City were taken over in 2008 and Chelsea in 2003 – so that covers the last seven years, but what about the remaining 37? And why are City being blamed for the high finances of football and lack of English youth development when they are just the latest of many clubs to have spent big and, in the years just before the takeover, they were over reliant on academy products to be able to put out a team most weeks?

That transfer fees and wages are as high as they are isn’t the fault of football’s latest rich kids. Before City broke the English transfer record for Robinho, many others had broken it first, on such illustrious flops as Juan Sebastián Verón or Andriy Shevchenko. Money clearly not well spent at a time when the fees spent on those individual players were more than City’s entire transfer budget for the season.

I don’t think there’s a football fan in the world that wouldn’t prefer a team to win their league by producing a squad of academy talents all at the same time, over spending money on foreign imports. There’s always that romantic view of the team of kids showing the big boys in the league how it’s done, most of them from the area around where the club is based.

Unfortunately, as much as that would be the desired method of competing with the best, it just isn’t ever likely to happen. With the amount of prize money that has been earned by those at the top, it made them self-financing in that they were the only teams that could afford to price everybody else out of the market. They bring in better players, win more things, get more money and bring in better players.

The days when several academy graduates topple the establishment are going, if not already gone. So, when City are taken over and decide that they’d like to compete with the best, it’s unfair to blame them for inflating transfer prices. The choice was to either spend little money and remain everybody’s second favourite club or to try and compete. Competing, of course, involved bringing in better players; players whose value had previously soared.

England don’t win the World Cup and City spend big. To say the first happened because the second happened is an inaccurate and ill considered conclusion that’s far too easy and lazy to arrive at. For a start, at the time of writing, City’s squad contains no less than nine Englishmen (four from the club’s own academy) who have been regulars for the club in the past, with an additional three that are currently breaking into the first team. And that doesn’t include the six non-English academy products that have represented the first team and are currently available for selection.

Clearly, youth development is at an end because the chequebook has come out for Silva, Touré, Boateng, et al.

While it may be true that City can field a first team that contains no English players, it is also true that they can field one that contains no foreigners (though the formation would be a bit off, granted). It seems pretty churlish to point the finger at City for strengthening the squad from abroad, when there’s a potential season of 64 matches (not including any FA Cup replays) coming up and when English players are as over-priced as they are.

If recent reports are to be believed, Aston Villa’s valuation of James Milner is £30m. And, of course, should City decide to pay that amount, they would still be the bad guys, because, despite the promotion of English talent, it would be an obscene transfer fee. Should City decide it’s too much and look overseas for a cheaper, equivalent player, then the club are ruining the chances of future England teams.

The only option for City to be the good guys is to promote academy products before they are ready… The very same system of providing first team players that nearly saw the club relegated in 2007. The club is now in the position where they don’t need to rush young talent into the squad, where only the best of the best will make it through, and where those youngsters can learn from some of the best players the game will see.

Yet that is the wrong way to run a football club. Work that one out.

The problem isn’t that the influx of foreigners is stopping English youth developing. Forcing teams to play x number of English players in their team won’t increase the quality of the national team, but rather decrease the quality of the Premier League. If the youth isn’t good enough to break into the first time for any reason other than being forced in there by the rules, then those players are never going to be good enough to help England to a World Cup win.

But if the English youth is good enough, then those players will play.

If you want to look for excuses as to why England didn’t win the World Cup, you could look at poor management, incorrect tactics, the fact that we’re not as good as other teams that have gone further than us… But the takeover of Manchester City and their transfers in isn’t a valid excuse.

Written By David Mooney

Qualifuckinteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[halnone]

Excuses have been made since the dawn of time for all sorts of things. “I’m late because my sundial didn’t go off” or “The bus was late because the wheel hasn’t been invented yet” or even “A Stegosaurus ate my homework.” Of course, I’m being silly – dinosaurs and man never came into contact with each other outside of Jurassic Park and, if the documentary series I saw about those islands are to be believed, there wasn’t much homework-doing going on.

But excuses generally all have one thing in common – they’re utter cowpats. “I’m sorry I’m late, the bus didn’t turn up on time” is, 99% of the time, code for “I’m not actually sorry I’m interrupting your lecture, but I know I have to give a reason for doing it now that I have and I know that telling you I preferred to sleep in for another half an hour isn’t going to go down well, so here’s some rubbish I’m spouting out of my face to save both of us the embarrassment of me turning up late.”

And, of course, turning up late isn’t the only time you need excuses. Excuses are golden for when leaving early: for example, a party you didn’t want to go to (“I have to get home because I’m working in London tomorrow”), a date that isn’t going well (“My grandfather’s not well, so I have to get back”), or even an international football competition where you didn’t do as well as you and millions of others had expected (“Manchester City keep buying people from abroad, so the England team is rubbish”).

Like I said, cowpats.

It has to be City’s fault that Wayne Rooney had the control and agility of a combine harvester. Who else is there to blame that the defence looked as stable as a puddle of Nitro-glycerine near a fire? And it goes without saying that there’s only one place to look as to the reason why Gerrard and Lampard looked like two people who’d not even spoken to each other for ten years.

So, and this is a question aimed at a certain Brian Woolnough from the Daily Star, why have England not been much cop for the last 44 years? I mean, City were taken over in 2008 and Chelsea in 2003 – so that covers the last seven years, but what about the remaining 37? And why are City being blamed for the high finances of football and lack of English youth development when they are just the latest of many clubs to have spent big and, in the years just before the takeover, they were over reliant on academy products to be able to put out a team most weeks?

That transfer fees and wages are as high as they are isn’t the fault of football’s latest rich kids. Before City broke the English transfer record for Robinho, many others had broken it first, on such illustrious flops as Juan Sebastián Verón or Andriy Shevchenko. Money clearly not well spent at a time when the fees spent on those individual players were more than City’s entire transfer budget for the season.

I don’t think there’s a football fan in the world that wouldn’t prefer a team to win their league by producing a squad of academy talents all at the same time, over spending money on foreign imports. There’s always that romantic view of the team of kids showing the big boys in the league how it’s done, most of them from the area around where the club is based.

Unfortunately, as much as that would be the desired method of competing with the best, it just isn’t ever likely to happen. With the amount of prize money that has been earned by those at the top, it made them self-financing in that they were the only teams that could afford to price everybody else out of the market. They bring in better players, win more things, get more money and bring in better players.

The days when several academy graduates topple the establishment are going, if not already gone. So, when City are taken over and decide that they’d like to compete with the best, it’s unfair to blame them for inflating transfer prices. The choice was to either spend little money and remain everybody’s second favourite club or to try and compete. Competing, of course, involved bringing in better players; players whose value had previously soared.

England don’t win the World Cup and City spend big. To say the first happened because the second happened is an inaccurate and ill considered conclusion that’s far too easy and lazy to arrive at. For a start, at the time of writing, City’s squad contains no less than nine Englishmen (four from the club’s own academy) who have been regulars for the club in the past, with an additional three that are currently breaking into the first team. And that doesn’t include the six non-English academy products that have represented the first team and are currently available for selection.

Clearly, youth development is at an end because the chequebook has come out for Silva, Touré, Boateng, et al.

While it may be true that City can field a first team that contains no English players, it is also true that they can field one that contains no foreigners (though the formation would be a bit off, granted). It seems pretty churlish to point the finger at City for strengthening the squad from abroad, when there’s a potential season of 64 matches (not including any FA Cup replays) coming up and when English players are as over-priced as they are.

If recent reports are to be believed, Aston Villa’s valuation of James Milner is £30m. And, of course, should City decide to pay that amount, they would still be the bad guys, because, despite the promotion of English talent, it would be an obscene transfer fee. Should City decide it’s too much and look overseas for a cheaper, equivalent player, then the club are ruining the chances of future England teams.

The only option for City to be the good guys is to promote academy products before they are ready… The very same system of providing first team players that nearly saw the club relegated in 2007. The club is now in the position where they don’t need to rush young talent into the squad, where only the best of the best will make it through, and where those youngsters can learn from some of the best players the game will see.

Yet that is the wrong way to run a football club. Work that one out.

The problem isn’t that the influx of foreigners is stopping English youth developing. Forcing teams to play x number of English players in their team won’t increase the quality of the national team, but rather decrease the quality of the Premier League. If the youth isn’t good enough to break into the first time for any reason other than being forced in there by the rules, then those players are never going to be good enough to help England to a World Cup win.

But if the English youth is good enough, then those players will play.

If you want to look for excuses as to why England didn’t win the World Cup, you could look at poor management, incorrect tactics, the fact that we’re not as good as other teams that have gone further than us… But the takeover of Manchester City and their transfers in isn’t a valid excuse.

Written By David Mooney

good read that. why can't everyone think that way. too many stupid people believing in the first shit they read in the paper about all this "city are ruining football" stuff.

[BlueMoonAwoken]

It will never end up in the mainstream papers.

[frannylee]

viewtopic.php?f=119&t=33356

Agree that it is a good article

That it is why I posted it on the thread above earlier this week ;-)

[Chinners]

It's always good journalism when its in city fans favor ... they are all cunts, don't get conned

[The Man In Blue]

think the latter one is from a fan blog site.

and

favor

hang your head in shame.

;)

[brite blu sky]

good read, and as said it wont get into the mainstream press, partly perhaps because of the blue tint of the main argument.
If you re-edited it and took out the blue tint it would still make the point and would be probably more powerful in the eyes of the mainstream press.
eg: In the light of the abject failure of the national squad we looked at what top clubs are contributing to the English and British game by feeding young players into the game.

Chelsea - 0
Liverpool - 0
Rags - 1
Arsenal - 1
Everton - 2
Villa - 2
City - 12
WestHam - 12

that kind of thing and let the reader make their mind up themselves.

[craigmcfc]

That's a really good article that unfortunately other clubs fans will never see and will just be fed the usual bile by our gutter press

[JB]

It's always good journalism when its in city fans favor ... they are all cunts, don't get conned

Totally agree. Journalists outcunt every other profession, imho.