Questions for the fans of perennially successful EPL teams..

[dinho]

Ok so question for the Manchester United/Arsenal/Liverpool fans.

Its normal to hear fans of these teams decry Chelsea (and now Manchester City) for injecting huge amount of funds and investment in search of immediate success. The say that formula don't work and they shouldn't do this and that etc.. They pour scorn on the fans of these teams claiming they only became fans when the good times came around (notwithstanding 95% of these people themselves became fans of their team while they were already at the top).

In your opinion, what do you think a club outside of the traditional top 3 have to do to win the EPL?

I ask because it seems to me like you ignore the reality of the situation and how unfairly weighted the league is to traditional powerhouses.

- Firstly, year after year, the top clubs rake in the most money from TV and sponsorship deals, gates and winnings.

- If that not bad enough, the top 2 clubs get glaringly preferential treatment from referees and the FA.

- And if that not bad enough, as soon as a good, honest side looking to do a lil something, the top 2 clubs coming around the following season to poach their best players and rape their youth systems that produce the best talent.

Its a no win situation and as another side in the EPL is like yuh done loss from day one, and even though it exists in other leagues, it is all the more grossly apparent in the EPL. At least in Spain, Italy, Germany and France you could see sides like Real Sociedad, Villareal, Palermo and Hoffenheim making legitimate runs at the title. In England, it is virtually impossible. Its why you have to respect a team like Aston Villa today for doing what they are doing the way they are doing it.

So is it that you think there is another better way to achieve results in the league, or is it just a false sense of entitlement that makes you feel certain teams are entitled to success.

i would like to hear your thoughts.

[Filho]

Nuuuuyccce post Omar. I wouldn't say Spain and Italy any different though. Nor the rest of Europe really. Except for one major difference. The EPL has a big four making it virtually impossible for any other team to even get into the Champion's League. Imagine, they change the rules the one year Liverpool didn't qualify just to prove the fat cats upstairs at UEFA and the English FA like it just so. In La Liga you have Villareal, Atletico, Valencia, Sevilla in the CL carousel and in Italy, you have Fiorentina, Udinese, Roma and Lazio taking turns to qualify. There's a little more variety underneath the usual suspects. but in terms of challenging for the title...not that different imo.

Criticism of Chelsea and Man City is unfair imo. They just doing their spending more rapidly cuz they trying to play catch up. ManU, and Liverpool's stars are paid top wages and the clubs spend big big money on their targets too..But they are starting from a position of strength. In all fairness to ManU, they do have a history of nurturing talented youth ffrom their acadamy too.

Alright..to your question..To break in you have to look at look at the club from top to bottom. Aston Villa and Everton (Birmingham to a lesser extent) have the right formula imo.

1)The execs have to hire a brilliant young manager who not set in his ways and willing to learn (I'm assuming they doh have the dough or the rep to pull ah wise old fox like Capello). Take his licks one season and come back a better manager the next.
2) Set realistic goals. Doh try to buy a brand new squad to win the league in one season. Dat can't be good for team chemistry..in more ways than one.
3) Give him time, funds and space to build. Everton almost got relegated the year after they qualified for the CL..Moyes never feared for his job.
4) Build a squad by mixing talented youth who have no fear, and picking off superb players who riding pine at big big clubs..men who real good and have a point to prove. Get the chemistry right.
5) Develop an us against the world mentality - ie. the squad will die for each other and the manager
6) Luck! And you need one or more of the ususal suspects to fall off a lil'.

[Jayerson]

Nuuuuyccce post Omar. I wouldn't say Spain and Italy any different though. Nor the rest of Europe really. Except for one major difference. The EPL has a big four making it virtually impossible for any other team to even get into the Champion's League. Imagine, they change the rules the one year Liverpool didn't qualify just to prove the fat cats upstairs at UEFA and the English FA like it just so. In La Liga you have Villareal, Atletico, Valencia, Sevilla in the CL carousel and in Italy, you have Fiorentina, Udinese, Roma and Lazio taking turns to qualify. There's a little more variety underneath the usual suspects. but in terms of challenging for the title...not that different imo.

Criticism of Chelsea and Man City is unfair imo. They just doing their spending more rapidly cuz they trying to play catch up. ManU, and Liverpool's stars are paid top wages and the clubs spend big big money on their targets too..But they are starting from a position of strength. In all fairness to ManU, they do have a history of nurturing talented youth ffrom their acadamy too.

Alright..to your question..To break in you have to look at look at the club from top to bottom. Aston Villa and Everton (Birmingham to a lesser extent) have the right formula imo.

1)The execs have to hire a brilliant young manager who not set in his ways and willing to learn (I'm assuming they doh have the dough or the rep to pull ah wise old fox like Capello). Take his licks one season and come back a better manager the next.
2) Set realistic goals. Doh try to buy a brand new squad to win the league in one season. Dat can't be good for team chemistry..in more ways than one.
3) Give him time, funds and space to build. Everton almost got relegated the year after they qualified for the CL..Moyes never feared for his job.
4) Build a squad by mixing talented youth who have no fear, and picking off superb players who riding pine at big big clubs..men who real good and have a point to prove. Get the chemistry right.
5) Develop an us against the world mentality - ie. the squad will die for each other and the manager
6) Luck! And you need one or more of the ususal suspects to fall off a lil'.

Good points!
Aston Villa deserves a lot of respect, they're just one point behind Chelsea and 3 in front of the Gunners. What they have, that Everton does not, is funds. Villa has an American owner, Randy Lerner I believe it is, who trusts his manager and allows him to do his job without much interference. Moyes with Everton and Steve Bruce with Wigan, deserves a lot of credit for the job they're doing with small budgets comparative to Spurs, Newcastle, Sunderland, Man City.

[kicker]

A solid developmental program and strategic player recruitment-

If you're able to cherry pick "hidden gems"- quality players who don't have the hype and the price tag that comes along with it....and integrate them with quality players from your youth programs, I think you can put together a side that can win games and challenge the status quo.  Villarreal (and to some extent Arsenal) is the probably the best living example of that.

In the absence of that, the Chelsea model is the way to go.

[acb]

Omar, your first point is the most crucial - but you hit the nail flush on the head with that one. Your two other points hinge on the first.

Firstly, year after year, the top clubs rake in the most money from TV and sponsorship deals, gates and winnings.

GATES:
Many of the fanboys who decry the success of any other team outside of the traditional set claims to be fans since conception. But lets look at the composition of fans. You have loyalists, and you have waggonists. Waggonists can be further sub-divided into corporate-waggonists and scrub-waggonists. The corporate waggonists have the financial resources to splurge on corporate boxes and expensive lower-tier seats. Hence, when the club demands high ticket prices, corporations see no problem in shelling out bailout money to pay for these tickets. It's not coming from their coffers anyways.

SPONSORSHIP DEALS:
Bailout money. Money from the US Treasury and tax payers were given to bailout AIG. AIG is spending money on marketing at Manchester United. You can decide whether that is fair or not.
Stadia. Corporations - many of whom have accepted or benefitted from global government bailouts have their names emblazoned across stadia as part of their sponsorship programs. Clubs gleefully accept this money with wanton disregard to where it came from.

TV:
There are two ways for TV to work. One is the profit sharing from television rights, the other is owning your own station and selling those rights yourself. Now why have a tv station if no-one is willing to watch it, cuz there is no way you will get advertising to run it. Few clubs have their own channels. You have MUTV and ChelseaTV. Ive not paid attention to much of the clubs out there, but this success hinges on subscriptions and advertising. In the US-NY, there's the YES Network and SNY owned by the Yankess and Mets respectively. MSG is also there with the Knicks/ Rangers. They attract big markets primarily because of the team's locations and fan affiliation, they are able to sustain continuity and also attract advertisers making TV an extremely important revenue stream.

WINNINGS:
This makes up a very small contribution to the income a team receives. For teams struggling with relegation, it is a big deal - but for the mid-table teams - the difference between 8th place and 12th place is maybe a couple hundred thousand quid - ie, one week's wage bill.

  
I got crucified for this on a thread some time ago, but I still believe that the business model of EPL teams have an over-riding factor in the prolonged success of clubs. Just look to the US for sporting franchise models and how they are operated.

The way how the collective bargaining system works in the various professional sports in the US is a testimony to this. Truth of the matter is that in the MLB and NBA, very few teams can consider themselves to be true title contenders. LeBron for all he's worth is not on a team that can seriously contend for a title, and that has all to do with the composition of the team based on the salary cap. Just last week, the Portland Trailblazers threatened litigation for any team signing Darius Miles and forcing them to incur the luxury tax over the salary cap, which would hamper them from being a force in free agency and sign and trade deals. In the MLB, you have perennial big market teams such as the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox who can annually sustain paying a luxury tax and maintaining an enormous wage bill. These teams with their television networks, corporate sponsorships and high ticket prices are able to attract, poach and pay for the best talent - always.
However, you compare those to the NHL and NFL and almost yearly, you can find some parity and a different team winning the championship yearly. This is in part due to the rigid structure of the franchises salary caps, how it is allocated and how the league forces their franchises to operate.

Even examine the MLS and soon to come WPS. With the exception of the Tampa Bay Mutiny/ Miami Fusion ... how many other teams in the MLS have gone belly-up? ... WPS has learnt its lesson from the WUSA days which was an organisation run more on emotion from the Womens' WC success and less on financial prudence. The LA franchise has already lured Marta and the rest of top talent in the world.

[boss]

Omar, I'm a little confused, because you seem to have answered your own question already.

First of all, I have never decried Chelsea, nor have I said that their model doesn't work. I don't understand how anyone could argue that their model doesn't work - they've won the Premier League in recent years and were a coat of paint on the goalpost away from winning the Champions League. Yes, they are going through a rough patch now, but still, they are challenging for the title. Between the trophies won and the consistent title challenge, I would think that constitutes success.

Yes, it's an unfair playing field. Yes, it's cyclical and the successful teams get the TV and sponsorship money. Having said that, I don't think fans feel a sense of "entitlement" when it comes to success, and if they say so, they are lying. When Liverpool came 5th in the league in 2005 and Everton came 4th, that was painful. And of course, because of the CL victory, it was overshadowed, but it was still a bitter pill to swallow.

The Premier League always talks a good game about giving every team a chance, but the bottom line is that it is IN THEIR INTEREST to keep it this way. All those millions of fans in Asia aren't interested in seeing Wigan or Hull.

acb, those are all really good points on paper, but because of bravado and not being able to admit that they can "learn from the Yanks" you aren't going to see a wage cap or a luxury cap anytime soon. The general consensus in the UK is that the MLS is a joke, when in FACT, it is extremely financially well run while most PL clubs are steeped in debt.

Re. Aston Villa, yes, they deserve all the kudos coming to them. Their proportion of English to foreign talent is impressive also.

Ok, I'm rambling now, but the bottom line is that I don't feel I should have to apologise for supporting one of the big clubs, and I'm not ashamed that I support Liverpool NOW because they were good in '89. Truth be told, if Liverpool were relegated this season, I'd still support them. I guess the bottom line is:

As a fan of football - I wish there was more parity
As a fan of Liverpool - I like it as it is.

[kicker]

Ok, I'm rambling now, but the bottom line is that I don't feel I should have to apologise for supporting one of the big clubs,

That's not the point of the thread..

[Touches]

1) Get a good coach

2) The spine of the team has to be world class...i.e Keeper, Central Defence, Central midfielders and a Striker.

3) As mentioned before...take all the old war horse who have something and squeeze out the last playing juice they could give you.

4) Mix it with some youths who hungry and who could pelt blade.

5) All players have to have pace, size and strength...with one or two free kick or set piece experts.

After that...yuh could compete.

Stoke and Hull have shown that run hard and jam hard will give you the draw or win against big sides....the reason they pop down now is that injuries and suspensions have taken over. But they are able.

[Mose]

All of allyuh seem to be forgetting one thing. I've heard it said year in and year out while watching EPL. Yuh need a big squad to be able to compete in all the competitions (EPL, CL/UEFA Cup, FA Cup, League Cup). These could add up to quite a lot of games and injuries and burnout tend to take their toll near the end of the season. How many times have we seen teams flameout in the second half of the season? Being able to afford having a large first team squad allows for the extra players to deal with this.

[jai john]

listened to the BBC sports today and the commentor said ...Bolton etc are losing fans because they are not going to win de EPL ...that is true !!! so all ah dem ting allyuh suggesting eh go work ....de rich get richer and de poor get ...goals !!

[acb]

All of allyuh seem to be forgetting one thing. I've heard it said year in and year out while watching EPL. Yuh need a big squad to be able to compete in all the competitions (EPL, CL/UEFA Cup, FA Cup, League Cup). These could add up to quite a lot of games and injuries and burnout tend to take their toll near the end of the season. How many times have we seen teams flameout in the second half of the season? Being able to afford having a large first team squad allows for the extra players to deal with this.

Very good point. However, large squad does not automatically guarantee success. Sunderland is a case in point. They were choosing a first team from a squad of 30 odd players under the Keane's reign, and that only landed them in the relegation zone.

What matters is depth and quality at all positions.

The teams best equipped with these features happen to be Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal (to some extent). The four aformentioned have the budgets to accomodate world class players two and three deep in their ranks. For instance, Chelsea's ability to deal with the injuries to Carvalho & Essien is remarkable with them dropping only a spot or two in the rankings.

[Big Magician]

good stuff folks... also all countries have a top 3  etc

[NUFF]

Ok so question for the Manchester United/Arsenal/Liverpool fans.

Its normal to hear fans of these teams decry Chelsea (and now Manchester City) for injecting huge amount of funds and investment in search of immediate success. The say that formula don't work and they shouldn't do this and that etc.. They pour scorn on the fans of these teams claiming they only became fans when the good times came around (notwithstanding 95% of these people themselves became fans of their team while they were already at the top).

In your opinion, what do you think a club outside of the traditional top 3 have to do to win the EPL?

I ask because it seems to me like you ignore the reality of the situation and how unfairly weighted the league is to traditional powerhouses.

- Firstly, year after year, the top clubs rake in the most money from TV and sponsorship deals, gates and winnings.

- If that not bad enough, the top 2 clubs get glaringly preferential treatment from referees and the FA.

- And if that not bad enough, as soon as a good, honest side looking to do a lil something, the top 2 clubs coming around the following season to poach their best players and rape their youth systems that produce the best talent.

Its a no win situation and as another side in the EPL is like yuh done loss from day one, and even though it exists in other leagues, it is all the more grossly apparent in the EPL. At least in Spain, Italy, Germany and France you could see sides like Real Sociedad, Villareal, Palermo and Hoffenheim making legitimate runs at the title. In England, it is virtually impossible. Its why you have to respect a team like Aston Villa today for doing what they are doing the way they are doing it.

So is it that you think there is another better way to achieve results in the league, or is it just a false sense of entitlement that makes you feel certain teams are entitled to success.

i would like to hear your thoughts.

How is it rape?  The other clubs don't have to sell their best players to the big clubs.  They make a choice to do so.

[LondonTrini LFC]

The cream will always rise to the top... whether it be players through academy ranks, teams winning competitions and trophies, or moneymen pumping cyash into the game...

this is a moot point...

I ask because it seems to me like you ignore the reality of the situation and how unfairly weighted the league is to traditional powerhouses.

with that history comes the recognition that quality brings.. Sir Alex was brought in to "knock Liverpool off their perch"... the successes tha' that team has achieved is possible for any team, money or not... I remember listening after one match in the Serie A, about one young player speaking about not ever wanting to leave because of the chemistry his team has... no it was not Kaka...

Firstly, year after year, the top clubs rake in the most money from TV and sponsorship deals, gates and winnings. the TV money is ruining the game... but it also necessary... look at what they do in the BundesLiga... a game could be played now, and thegoals could be on the TV in 2 hours... all on FREE TV... yuh eh have to pay for games... Sky and SATANta should take note...

If that not bad enough, the top 2 clubs get glaringly preferential treatment from referees and the FA.

Bobol... everywhere...

Go On VILLA!!!!

To answer the las bit...

give me a squad with spirit, experience, passion and flair and I will give you a system to win a title...

can you have it all.. I say yes!

[NUFF]

Yes, it's an unfair playing field. Yes, it's cyclical and the successful teams get the TV and sponsorship money. Having said that, I don't think fans feel a sense of "entitlement" when it comes to success, and if they say so, they are lying. When Liverpool came 5Th in the league in 2005 and Everton came 4Th, that was painful. And of course, because of the CL victory, it was overshadowed, but it was still a bitter pill to swallow.

The Premier League always talks a good game about giving every team a chance, but the bottom line is that it is IN THEIR INTEREST to keep it this way. All those millions of fans in Asia aren't interested in seeing Wigan or Hull.

acb, those are all really good points on paper, but because of bravado and not being able to admit that they can "learn from the Yanks" you aren't going to see a wage cap or a luxury cap anytime soon. The general consensus in the UK is that the MLS is a joke, when in FACT, it is extremely financially well run while most PL clubs are steeped in debt.

It might be an uneven playing field but it is not unfair.  Just because one team has more money than another does not make it unfair.  A salary cap is unfair.

As for MLS it might be financially well run but which league would you prefer to watch?  There is not a single standout team or player in MLS.  The league is boring as hell.  That is what trying to manufacture artificial "fairness" achieves.  A mediocre league with mediocre teams and mediocre players.  

[palos]

- And if that not bad enough, as soon as a good, honest side looking to do a lil something, the top 2 clubs coming around the following season to poach their best players and rape their youth systems that produce the best talent.

How is it rape?  The other clubs don't have to sell their best players to the big clubs.  They make a choice to do so.

De so called "rape" is by no means one sided.  Non top 3 clubs benefit tremendously from the "table scraps" and/or young talent of the top teams as well.

You have examples of players like Alladiere going to Middlesbrough, Bentley initially going to Blackburn, Richardson to Sunderland, Anelka initially to Bolton, Johnny Evans played with Sunderland, Djoujouru played with Birmingham, Pennant initially to Birmingham City etc.  All these teams were strengthened by these players and most have either gone on to even bigger or better clubs or have at least been regular starters in these teams.

[JDB]

Ok so question for the Manchester United/Arsenal/Liverpool fans.

Its normal to hear fans of these teams decry Chelsea (and now Manchester City) for injecting huge amount of funds and investment in search of immediate success. The say that formula don't work and they shouldn't do this and that etc.. They pour scorn on the fans of these teams claiming they only became fans when the good times came around (notwithstanding 95% of these people themselves became fans of their team while they were already at the top).

In your opinion, what do you think a club outside of the traditional top 3 have to do to win the EPL?

I ask because it seems to me like you ignore the reality of the situation and how unfairly weighted the league is to traditional powerhouses.

- Firstly, year after year, the top clubs rake in the most money from TV and sponsorship deals, gates and winnings.

- If that not bad enough, the top 2 clubs get glaringly preferential treatment from referees and the FA.

- And if that not bad enough, as soon as a good, honest side looking to do a lil something, the top 2 clubs coming around the following season to poach their best players and rape their youth systems that produce the best talent.

Its a no win situation and as another side in the EPL is like yuh done loss from day one, and even though it exists in other leagues, it is all the more grossly apparent in the EPL. At least in Spain, Italy, Germany and France you could see sides like Real Sociedad, Villareal, Palermo and Hoffenheim making legitimate runs at the title. In England, it is virtually impossible. Its why you have to respect a team like Aston Villa today for doing what they are doing the way they are doing it.

So is it that you think there is another better way to achieve results in the league, or is it just a false sense of entitlement that makes you feel certain teams are entitled to success.

i would like to hear your thoughts.

If you look through the history of the leagues you will find that the English league has been more balanced than Spain or Italy. It is only recently that you have had 3 teams winning all of the last 14 or 15 titles. I would also say that the big teams have not poached all the good players. That happens most blatantly in Germany where every club will sell their best player to Bayern even if you are in direct competition. On the other hand it is rare to see a player move between Liverpool, Arsenal, United and Chelsea. And France, yuh can’t be serious, Lyon gunning for their 8th or ninth consevutive title right now.

As for your other question. The problem with Nouveau Riches is not that they have money but that they don’t want to take time. When you look at United winning 10 titles in 20 years you also have to recognize that they went 26 years before that with nothing.


Liverpool currently in a 18 year drought after winning 11 in 18 years.

Arsenal win 3 titles in nearly 50 years before Wenger arrived.


All of these clubs still had money during their droughts but money is only one ingredient for success, the right players and managers were big factors.

Money is a bigger factor now because it is easier to acquire players but it still takes time.

With Chelsea and City it is clear that they want an instant fix. Buy squads wholesale and win immediately. The reason this does not work in the long run is because it is unsustainable and unrealistic.

Take Chelsea for example. Improve your team with 5 good players (Bridge, Johnson, Cole, Crespo, Duff (Plus Veron) – Ranieri win nought in one year – fire him. Bring in  Mourinho – Buy more players and eventually sell off Johnson, Crespo, Duff and Veron for a big loss -  win two titles in 3 years – run him. Grant win nothing in one year – fire him. Scolari – wash, rinse, repeat.

Benitez into his 4th or 5th year without the League, Ferguson went 7 without the League, progress was slow but it was progress and the club was patient.

The fact they have bought in some cases, names for names sake, bought redundant players, quickly shipped out players after one year in the name of success just shows that they do not know what they are doing.

I stop worrying about Chelsea when they bring in Shevchenko and Ballack. Good players but not improving the first team because Ballack playing the same role as Lampard and Chelsea not playing around Shevchenko like Milan did. I also felt that it was unsustainable because as soon as they had to balance the books they would lose the high price players that they depend so heavily on.

City so far off in terms of their team’s development that the not worth worrying about. They could get 5 Kakas and that team will take time to gel.

Villa on the other hand showing how to use money effectively. Don’t watch them slight they have spent plenty money, but much they very quiet about it. Everybody raving about Young now but when O’Neill bought him for 11 M in midseason a couple years ago he had a serious dip in form and everybody said he was a waste of money. If he was at Chelsea he would have certainly been “upgraded” They know how they want to play and they developing it every season. I really wouldn’t mind seeing them win the title.

I should add thet lack of competitiveness across all the leagues is dues more to UEFA than the individual leagues. If you look acrss the top 4 placings inth eleagues it is only since the UCL was opened up to 3 and 4 clubs that the same clubs have been coming in the top 4 and the leagues have become more stratified.

[fordy]

all of you guys are making great points, but for me the best formula i have seen from a professional club use to implement success is Barcelona. they have probably one of the most extensive youth scouting taking place and they nurture their talent and have them playing at 17 and 18 years of age. by the time they hit 21 and 22 they are veterans. when i heard Pep was going to be the coach i said on here that this was a brilliant move for them, along with Ronnie and deco being sold, because many times those high profile players tend not to work as hard as the young player, coming through the ranks, who will bleed barca colors and also Pep worked hands on with the youths at the club so he has first hand knowledge of the talent at his disposal. look at their current team, messi, xavi, iniesta, puyol, bojan, valdez....all coming through the barca youth system. and by the time u blink twice, Pep introducing a new talent to get a taste of the big times. when needed, they spend money on big name players who they know can make a direct impact on the squad (henry, ronaldo, romario etc). but primarily, barca promotes from within the club. Who on the current chelsea starting 11 we can say came through the youth ranks? manchester has a great youth system in place as well but they use their youth system for selling players...outside of the obvious great ones they have (giggs, scholes etc). for the smaller EPL teams, it begins and ends with the youth system. once you can breed these players and hire a manager who understands where his talent pool lies then i think they stand a good chance at making a great run against the top 4. once u line up 11 v 11 on the pitch, it comes down to the fundamentals after that, and as someone mentioned before, hull and aston villa are showing us that the smaller clubs can get it done as well against the big money giants. 

[JDB]

all of you guys are making great points, but for me the best formula i have seen from a professional club use to implement success is Barcelona. they have probably one of the most extensive youth scouting taking place and they nurture their talent and have them playing at 17 and 18 years of age. by the time they hit 21 and 22 they are veterans. when i heard Pep was going to be the coach i said on here that this was a brilliant move for them, along with Ronnie and deco being sold, because many times those high profile players tend not to work as hard as the young player, coming through the ranks, who will bleed barca colors and also Pep worked hands on with the youths at the club so he has first hand knowledge of the talent at his disposal. look at their current team, messi, xavi, iniesta, puyol, bojan, valdez....all coming through the barca youth system. and by the time u blink twice, Pep introducing a new talent to get a taste of the big times. when needed, they spend money on big name players who they know can make a direct impact on the squad (henry, ronaldo, romario etc). but primarily, barca promotes from within the club. Who on the current chelsea starting 11 we can say came through the youth ranks? manchester has a great youth system in place as well but they use their youth system for selling players...outside of the obvious great ones they have (giggs, scholes etc). for the smaller EPL teams, it begins and ends with the youth system. once you can breed these players and hire a manager who understands where his talent pool lies then i think they stand a good chance at making a great run against the top 4. once u line up 11 v 11 on the pitch, it comes down to the fundamentals after that, and as someone mentioned before, hull and aston villa are showing us that the smaller clubs can get it done as well against the big money giants. 

Agree with much of what you wrote but Barcelona pushes out a lot of youths to other clubs as well and in the case of United they have a lot of players who still transition into the squad, mostly in defence but they hang around for a long time and are worthy contributors. Evans being the best example right now but Brown, O'Shea, Fletcher are all players who have come through and play regularly.

Both Barcelona and United, probably all clubs, have a hard time bringing through forwards, that is why yuh find Barca having to but Henry and Eto'o and United has not brought a forward through their system to become a club stalwart since Hughes. It just hard to wait for a young forward to come through and it harder to cover for their inexperience than it is a defender or midfiielder.

That being said Barca has Messi but I don't see Bojan ever being first choice. Barca is also unique because they are really considered a nation within a country and they have an appeal that other clubs just can't compete with. Barca have so many youth options that they end up losing players like Fabregas and Pique.

That is why a team like Arsenal brings youths through but they import them between ages of 15-18. United actually taking a page from the Wenger model recently

[LondonTrini LFC]

buh still de question remains:

wha a "small squad" hadda do to win de title??? we could look at all de examples of everybody else and dey academies, buh when Kaka is being tapped up and offered £500,000 a week... it hadda make yuh wonder?...

does it really take money an' ah doggedness dat go make even a youth dat "belong to Jesus" sell out for a clause in a contrac' 

or should dat money be better invested in "scouting for talent" 

[fordy]

buh still de question remains:

wha a "small squad" hadda do to win de title??? we could look at all de examples of everybody else and dey academies, buh when Kaka is being tapped up and offered £500,000 a week... it hadda make yuh wonder?...

does it really take money an' ah doggedness dat go make even a youth dat "belong to Jesus" sell out for a clause in a contrac' 

or should dat money be better invested in "scouting for talent" 

in my opinion they cud invest that $100 million in their youth program. i understand they have to build their squad but buying kaka for buying him sake does not make sense to me. they actually dont need a player like kaka on their current squad. they need a striker who is capable of playing by himself, a defensive midfielder and a solid defender. also, invest the money in the youth academy to compete with your in town rivals Utd. if a youth is given the choice between city and utd 9 out of 10 going to go to utd. use the money to create incentives for youths and their parents to want to send their kids to city instead of utd. its a better long term solution to the existing problem as well, so u dont end up like chelsea and win the cup one year and have a set ah aged players now struggling to compete to win the league. it come like u putting plaster on gun shot wound!!

[acb]

these numbers might give you a little better perspective.

It's reported that the new Juve stadium is costing 100M Euro.
Man City has offered 150M Euro for Buffon and Trezegeut.

So Juve can spend 100M on their new stadium, improve & modernize their infrastructure which attracts players and still have 50M Euro left over to buy at least 3 or 4 budding talents, or 2 very good players.

Man City on the other hand, gets one world class keeper and one very solid forward which will further sustain the backbone of their team, drive up gate receipts, attract new sponsors and give them the chance to make longer and deeper runs in cups, as well as challenge for higher spots in the league.

So who really wins ... or loses?

[fordy]

these numbers might give you a little better perspective.

It's reported that the new Juve stadium is costing 100M Euro.
Man City has offered 150M Euro for Buffon and Trezegeut.

So Juve can spend 100M on their new stadium, improve & modernize their infrastructure which attracts players and still have 50M Euro left over to buy at least 3 or 4 budding talents, or 2 very good players.

Man City on the other hand, gets one world class keeper and one very solid forward which will further sustain the backbone of their team, drive up gate receipts, attract new sponsors and give them the chance to make longer and deeper runs in cups, as well as challenge for higher spots in the league.

So who really wins ... or loses?

how old is buffon and trezegeut? god forbid that these players receive injuries while playing. how good will their run be in two to three years time? i see the validity in your point but these clubs have to take their blinders off and look at the bigger picture.

[dinho]

Fellahs..

firstly thanks for the great posts. This thread make for some good reading.

I like the long term formulas alot of you have put forward; invest in the youth system, build the scouting network, find some diamonds in the rough, find a good coach etc.

Tottenham and Everton have been cited as examples, as was Aston Villa of this year.

But lets be honest here.

No matter how excellent their formulas are applied, and how well implemented their developments are, the only thing they scraping is a 4th place and a final champions league slot. Then their talent will be harvested, their coaches will be stripped, their youths will be sought after and is right back to square one. Then maybe the board will get impatient with their inflated ambitions, rip up the script and then is back into mediocrity.

Fair enough you guys reference history, but we dealing with today's game, and to be successful yuh need now to become a BIG CLUB to attract and retain talent and thus immunize yuhself from all the outside factors that mitigate against success. Gone are the days of player loyalty, honesty and innocence in the game of football and an equal playing field.

Thats why Chelsea formula worked, and similarly while Man City's formula can work!!

The board had a plan to make Chelsea a world class brand in a specific timeframe backed by the billions of Abramovich. Also the plan was to make Chelsea self sufficient by 2012 which, while unrealistic, was a goal neverthless.

I admit it may not have been financially viable, but is not the fans, government or allyuh money spending; It is Abramovich's money. Just because the financial model was not what the other clubs adhered to over years of domination doesn't mean it isn't right.

Whatever slip ups with Chelsea along the way could be attributed to the directors' over-involvement in team affairs, tension with Mourinho and Abramovich and some questionable decision-making, but this is an aside imo.

The fact of the matter is that Chelsea made themselves a BIG CLUB in a short space of time and gatecrashed the duopoly and found instant success. Who knows what kinda dynasty would be running now if the board had take a backseat and leave Jose to his own devices. Who knows if a sustained period of success would lead to a self sustaining model that would last well beyond Abramovich's involvement in the club?

The formula worked guys!!!

And don't be surprised if it works for Man City too. 100 million for Kaka might seem like plenty in our eyes but is a drop in the bucket for these oil juggernauths. 100 million not only gets you one of the best players in the world, but it also gets you recognition and the ability to attract other world class talent to the Eastlands. Besides, who knows what the final outlay will be when all is said and done? Could be a 200M stadium, a 100M youth system and 500M more on an all star team.

I eh hating on them. Just mean the old boys club have to up they game.

watch the ride...

[NUFF]

Fellahs..

firstly thanks for the great posts. This thread make for some good reading.

I like the long term formulas alot of you have put forward; invest in the youth system, build the scouting network, find some diamonds in the rough, find a good coach etc.

Tottenham and Everton have been cited as examples, as was Aston Villa of this year.

But lets be honest here.

No matter how excellent their formulas are applied, and how well implemented their developments are, the only thing they scraping is a 4th place and a final champions league slot. Then their talent will be harvested, their coaches will be stripped, their youths will be sought after and is right back to square one. Then maybe the board will get impatient with their inflated ambitions, rip up the script and then is back into mediocrity.

Fair enough you guys reference history, but we dealing with today's game, and to be successful yuh need now to become a BIG CLUB to attract and retain talent and thus immunize yuhself from all the outside factors that mitigate against success. Gone are the days of player loyalty, honesty and innocence in the game of football and an equal playing field.

Thats why Chelsea formula worked, and similarly while Man City's formula can work!!

The board had a plan to make Chelsea a world class brand in a specific timeframe backed by the billions of Abramovich. Also the plan was to make Chelsea self sufficient by 2012 which, while unrealistic, was a goal neverthless.

I admit it may not have been financially viable, but is not the fans, government or allyuh money spending; It is Abramovich's money. Just because the financial model was not what the other clubs adhered to over years of domination doesn't mean it isn't right.

Whatever slip ups with Chelsea along the way could be attributed to the directors' over-involvement in team affairs, tension with Mourinho and Abramovich and some questionable decision-making, but this is an aside imo.

The fact of the matter is that Chelsea made themselves a BIG CLUB in a short space of time and gatecrashed the duopoly and found instant success. Who knows what kinda dynasty would be running now if the board had take a backseat and leave Jose to his own devices. Who knows if a sustained period of success would lead to a self sustaining model that would last well beyond Abramovich's involvement in the club?

The formula worked guys!!!

And don't be surprised if it works for Man City too. 100 million for Kaka might seem like plenty in our eyes but is a drop in the bucket for these oil juggernauths. 100 million not only gets you one of the best players in the world, but it also gets you recognition and the ability to attract other world class talent to the Eastlands. Besides, who knows what the final outlay will be when all is said and done? Could be a 200M stadium, a 100M youth system and 500M more on an all star team.

I eh hating on them. Just mean the old boys club have to up they game.

watch the ride...

I agree with a lot of what you say above.  In today's world it's what have you done for me lately.  Lately could be as recently as last season.  Capello win a title wid  Real Madrid and still get de axe.  There is no one correct formula for success anymore.  Everyone has to try to achiece success however they can.  For one team that might be through investing in player development systems for another it might be buying the best players that money can buy.  At the end of the day no one remembers how it was done they only remember that it was done.

[JDB]

Omar it works but it is dependant on one thing. th eowners willingness to continue losing money.

As long as that doesn't change everything is fine but we already seeing the effects on Chelsea now that Abramovich has pulled the pursestrings.

I not begrudging other teams sucess or finances. At the end of the day all the clubs who rich from long time were rich because of fortunate circumstances.

Look at United. Arsenal just build a new stadium at great cost. Because of their location they will get a good revenue stream from the original real estate. Liverpool and Chelsea need one too but Liverpool real estate ent worth nothing and Chelsea will have a hard time finding cheap land to build.

United was able to expand their existing stadium over the last 15 years without having to close the stadium. Why because Old Trafford was rebuilt after it got bombed out during the war, it was the most modern of the lot and easiest to upgrade. In a sense it was good fortune for United today that the stadium was partially destroyed during the war and that has led to plenty money being made that Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea could not make. In fact United would not have come into existence if not for JH Davies who bankrolled the club when newton heath was in danger of going under.

Whether it was because of their prime location, stadium, great players, managers or owners these clubs have benefited from just as much luck as a rich man deciding to buy Chelsea.

I just feel that given the opportunity for that kind of cash injection I would prefer that my club to get set up to compete for the long haul rather than try to grab everything for a few years.

But then I does be cool when my side win nothing for years as long as I like the players, manager and the brand that they playing.

[g]

When a club is spending a lot of money the key thing is getting the right mix of coaching and player personnel.

Individual talent is what it is, that's why I am not suprised by Man City's bid prices

The big question mark is how to achieve cohesiveness in as short a time frame as possible to get results on the field. I would have doubted it before until the Chelsea/Murinho period.

If you look at how Murinho built his team you would see that even with his huge squad, he never tinkered with central defense or central midfield. You win your champoinship with those positions. It was when the legs of Makalele couldnt play every game and Obi Mikel was not ready as yet and Injuries crept into the central defensive pair and lesser players had to fill the roles.

People used to moan about the dogged Chelsea style of play but it was a winning formula. But it shows that you can never satisfy in this world. The moaning and groaning started to get into the ears of the ownership and then that tried to influence the manager and his winning formula. Then there is discord, then breakdown.

It is not impossible but near impossible. It just takes one bad issue to upset the applecart.

[acb]

so interestingly enough is the case of Wigan Athletic's Wilson Palacios.

Fergie is prepared to splash out £14 million even though he has Ronaldo, Hargreaves, Scholes, Carrick, Anderson, Giggs, Fletcher and newly signed Tosic.

Tottenham, in need of a player like Palacios had offered £10 million and had it rejected.
Even in the case of our own KJ, they've had £15 million rejected.

Can you blame a team like Tottenham for injecting cash, trying to bring in fresh young talent ... but ends up being circumvented by Man U for a player who will start a game or two and ride pine regularly? Does Man U even need a player like Palacios - given the depth that they currently have?

Even Chelsea, which I support, can accept some blame for purchasing players to "give them depth" when it was clearly to prevent competitors from signing the players. Case in point: SWP and Obi Mikel. SWP never settled and Obi Mikel is having a hellish season.

[Filho]

Case in point: SWP and Obi Mikel. SWP never settled and Obi Mikel is having a hellish season.

have to disagree with the Obi Mikel comment. man starting almost every game, played regularly last season and he is very young. i don't think he's having a bad season at all, but what either one of us thinks of his form is moot given the point you're trying to make....that is, he not riding pine

[acb]

Case in point: SWP and Obi Mikel. SWP never settled and Obi Mikel is having a hellish season.

have to disagree with the Obi Mikel comment. man starting almost every game, played regularly last season and he is very young. i don't think he's having a bad season at all, but what either one of us thinks of his form is moot given the point you're trying to make....that is, he not riding pine

Filho ... this should play out very interestingly in the coming weeks.
Scolari has had enough of the primadonnas putting out 50% per his comments earlier this week. So have I.
Obi Mikel has alot of talent, and even though he has started many games this season, it's only because Essien has been injured & Makalele has moved on - otherwise, he would be coming off the bench.
Scolari is threatening to clean house .... again, let's see how the next few weeks turn out.