We bought the cup and joint second

[Mikhail Chigorin]

This is the list of champions since I can remember stuff. I challenge anyone to tell me one of these who hasn't 'bought'success, or a key element of it. Just off the top of my head where did Alex Stepney come from again? And Lee/Bell/Summerbee/Book? And Sniffer Clarke? And Alan Ball? And any number of big signings for Liverpool, Notts Forest, Villa, Everton and Arsenal? And as for the holier-than-though Arsenal, look at all their big signings in the 90s before Wenger went completely potty. And the biggest buyers of them all of course, until all the transfer money went to the Glazers - Scum!

1966–67 Manchester United
1967–68 Manchester City
1968–69 Leeds United
1969–70 Everton
1970–71 Arsenal
1971–72 Derby County
1972–73 Liverpool
1973–74 Leeds United
1974–75 Derby County
1975–76 Liverpool
1976–77 Liverpool
1977–78 Nottingham Forest
1978–79 Liverpool
1979–80 Liverpool
1980–81 Aston Villa
1981–82 Liverpool
1982–83 Liverpool
1983–84 Liverpool
1984–85 Everton
1985–86 Liverpool
1986–87 Everton
1987–88 Liverpool
1988–89 Arsenal
1989–90 Liverpool
1990–91 Arsenal
1991–92 Leeds United
1992–93 Manchester United
1993–94 Manchester United
1994–95 Blackburn Rovers
1995–96 Manchester United
1996–97 Manchester United
1997–98 Arsenal
1998–99 Manchester United
1999–00 Manchester United
2000–01 Manchester United
2001–02 Arsenal
2002–03 Manchester United
2003–04 Arsenal
2004–05 Chelsea
2005–06 Chelsea
2006–07 Manchester United
2007–08 Manchester United
2008–09 Manchester United
2009–10 Chelsea
2010–11 Manchester United

from that list there are only really 2 clubs who did not spend enormous amounts of money to win the league - they are city in 68 & villa in 81 . all the others regularly broke british transfer records to achieve their aims (including brian clough who despite his "charisma" could not have done it without spending huge amounts on players ) . i am struggling to think of anyone who has won the FA cup in recent times without spending big (even portsmouth spent millions before harry jumped ship ) a lot of experts predicted city would win nothing with mancini and are now looking like the complete twunts that they are - and there only defence is that we have spent millions to do it .

I would've put City in the spending category tbh. At the time we laid out a few quid, peanuts though it was a few years later. And it's fair to say we wouldn't have won it without the players we bought - Bell, Lee. Summerbee, Coleman.

Villa in 81, off the top of my head bought Mortimer and Withe at least, pretty key players.

Don't forget George Heslop.......but then, who can forget George Heslop ??; what an uncompromising centre half......

[john68]

I'll deal with this in 2 posts to make it easier to read and understand.

As Antti correctly points out, there always were the bigger rich clubs competing against smaller poorer clubs. This was further exacerbated by an attitude of "honourable, sporting, amateurism" versus, what some thought was unsporting and less honourable "professionalism that existed in the earlier part of the previous century. One has only to look at the facts behind the City payments scandal of the 1900s to see how City were targetted by the all powerful honourable amateur establishment of the game, which led to players and administrators were banned from City for life.

The difference was that the gap between the rich and poor was tiny compared to the gap that exists now. The gap was kept smaller in 3 ways. 1)...Away teams received a share of the home teams gate money (as applies in the FA Cup today). 2)...There was a financial drip feed system, by way of a surcharge on the top divisions that was distributed down to the lower divisions and 3)...As the vast majority of players came from these islands, smaller clubs could earn money, more readily, through the transfer system.

I can't remember the dates when changes were made but several events destroyed what had been in place for years. 1)...Home clubs were allowed to keep their home gate money. No longer did smaller clubs get a payday when playing away at the bigger rich clubs 2)...The Premier League saw the end of the drip feed system, leaving lower league clubs to fend for themselves and 3)...The recent increase in foreign players has meant that it is foreign clubs who have benefitted from the transfer system at the expense of the lower clubs.

Conclusion. That considering the game in England as a whole, the gap between the larger clubs and poorer clubs has increased dramatically and this was deliberately driven by the larger more powerful clubs.

[john68]

....continued....

The formation of the Premier League meant that the big clubs cut and run, taking their access to much bigger income, paricularly the huge sume from Sky TV and its spin offs, with them. The lower league clubs were left to fend for themselves. The revenues brought into the Prem meant that the gap between those inside the fence were reaping it in and those outside were financially cut off. Consider that the Championship play off game for promotion to the Prem is now considered to be the richest game in World football because it allows the winners access to mega millions.

Whist those decisions increased the gap in the game as a whole, it was the restructuring of the old European Cup that caused a split of seismic proportions,not only in the prem itself but also throughout Europe in other leagues. It created a European elite, who have not only dominated the game on the pitch ever since but also in the corridors of power, ensuring that they can now shut the gate behind tham with the new Faitr Play rules.

1)...A group of rich and powerful European Clubs formed themselves into an elite politico/football group.
2)...They demanded changes in the European Cup that would benefit themselves to increase their revenue streams at the expense of all other European teams.
3)...They threatened to break away and form their own league if these changes weren't made...Blackmail.
4)...As there was no profit playing against small clubs from small countries, they demanded that clubs from the smaller countries should either be thrown out or made to qualify to filter them out, before the big clubs joined the comp.
4)...The initial formation of a 2 league system, dramatically increased the number of European hgames. This meant that in order to compete in Europe and domestically, clubs needed to carry a huge competetive playing staff. Something only clubs from rich leagues could afford. This effectively wrote off all the east European clubs who had previously had a long and reasonably successful European heritage.
5)...The elite group then demanded that for purely financial reasons, they could not afford to be outside the new competition and demanded extra places. Initially the rags and Arsenal dominated English football and we had 2 places alloted. This was increased as Liverpool and Chelsea became more powerful and threatened the top two.
6)...The clubs from England, Spain, Germany and Italy demanded that because they were the big clubs attracting the biggest audiences, they should recieve a larger share out of the income generated. Clubs from those countries recieve a higher pay out than other countries.

I apologise for the long post but hope that it will prove interesting for those who have bothered to read it. I will deal with the conclusions and how it affects the present day "buying the league" argument in another post.

[john68]

If you could have been bothered to read the above, you will understand the mechanics of how the elite clubs in Europe have taken a complete stranglehold over the football financial asylum, to their exclusive benefit. It is interesting to note that while that "G" group were in existence, membership was by invitation only. Bayer Leverkusen were on the inside, whilst Chelsea were never invited to join. It was a subversive, greedy closed group. I have estimated that the benefit to the rags alone from those European deals, has been worth arounf £500M-£600M. It is no wonder they want to close the door with their Fair Play rules.

It is not that clubs can now buy success, the fact is that has always happened. It is the tragedy that the resources now available to those few clubs who benefitted from those blackmailing European decisions, precludes any other club being able to compete at their level in the transfer market. Unless a sugar daddy comes along, there is no way any other club can surmount the huge mega billion gap they have created around them. Chelsea tried and ended £130M in debt and at risk of going out of business until saved by Abramovitch. We all know what happened to Leeds when they tried to cross the divide. They have yet to recover.

Again I apologise for such a long and laborious post. I hope that those who do read it will open up the debate even more.

[brite blu sky]

that pretty much outlines the whole deal there john, nice one.
The key thing for me is that the cartel that the big european clubs set up, while denounced at the time, i think, has since become accepted without a murmur as though it is ok. There is a certain law of nature in football, that the clubs from larger cities or towns are more likely to attract a bigger fan base and so have more money over time, that is pretty uncontentious and obvious; it leads to a principal that for a healthier footballing environment in general there should be a mechanism for the re-distribution of that wealth to the smaller outfits - for the health of the whole of football. That used to be in place to some extent and the actions of the euro cartel has stopped it. The result of that has been a stagnation in terms of certain leagues being the most prominent and the same old clubs dominating. But by marketing and stitching up TV rights they appear to have convinced the press and a lot of people that this is both normal and good. We are being forced to applaud a load of selfish money grabbing bastards for the detriment of the age old game.
At some point there will be a backlash and i would see this time as just a transition to another model.. but football lives in a culture that has been doing the same thing so until people get bored of it i can't see where a backlash would come from. Maybe City's rise will open a debate about where we all want football to go.. as the only way in to make an effective challenge in the domestic league is by spending and as Leeds have shown, spending and being able to stay secure while doing that. It is now very unlikely that any other club will be able to get into a challenging position even if they had the secure financial backing.

On a different tack but a similar area, why have we not seen live Championship games on TV ? While Sky have stitched up the Prem it would seem to me a golden opportunity to big up the Championship and for the terrestrial channels to do a deal to bring live football to footie fans on TV.
If there is to be a backlash against the stitch up then it will have to come from below.. from football loving fans.

[guv111]

Let them have their consolation. We've seen the Rags buying the title and other trophies for the last decade and more, with transfer records being broken along the way - they paid £30m for Ferdinand ten years ago, FFS. They bought every single trophy they've won during Ferguson's tenure. As well as City and Chelsea, Liverpool will probably be spending big this summer, too, so that will give the Rags something else to moan about. Anyone who doesn't spend a lot of money this summer will be stating a lack of ambition. Look where prudence has got Arsenal, yet another trophy-less year, and an awful end to the season starting in February. Considering the way Arsenal fans have been demanding Wenger spend, we needn't take any notice of their comments re. money.

[Avalon]

we bought the league and joint second

I'm confused..do you need to replace league with cup?

no - you mental...

oh...

Been on the oranjeboom tonight have we Arjan? ;-)

Oranjeboom has effects like that, even the Dutch don't drink it XD.

[john68]

Cheers BBS, May I sk if you managed to trawl all the wat through that lot?...:-)

The deal with the media is easy to answer mate. As the cartel clubs have increased their power and influence and as the money has increased, so the media have found a very profitable area to generate income from. The media earn many millions grom football abd mainly from the cartel clubs. Shove a pic of Taggart, Van Persie, Gerard or Lampard on their back pages and their sales increase. They jealously guard their golden goose with a vengeance and the threat of a club such as City breaking any of their golden eggs ios something they dread. Untill City match the selling power of the cartel clubs, we will always be considered an outsider.

The CL Final this year is a dream for them. The rags v barca means a mega audience, which inturn means mega adverising and mega revenue. Can you imagine if little City happened to be playing a team like Leverkusen and just how much it would affect their income...It scares them to death.

Earlier on Talkshite, a presenter made a very telling remark regarding the FIFA Corruption issue. he told the listeners that he had been told by his bosses to back off on it. I wonder why?