Search OleOle:
enesptfritderuzhkoja Sign Up Log in

« Previous Post Next Post »

Bring it on

Wednesday, 01 October 08, 04:02 AM · Comments(2)

by Joel Abraham 

So who's still afraid of Manchester City? There was something immensely satisfying about watching them crash out of the Carling Cup last week, which is not simply down to my status as a Brightonian. A City lineup boasting £38m worth of new signings in Jo, Pablo Zabaleta, Tal Ben-Haim and Vincent Kompany were beaten by a team sitting in 13th place in League One. I’m not implying that City are a terrible team; I’m not saying that spending big is a bad idea; I’m just saying that Manchester City played Brighton and Hove Albion on Wednesday night and lost.

We have therefore learned: You have to do better than the opposition to win the game. Score more! Concede less! It’s an intricate tapestry. You need the players, the manager, the tactics, and a bit of luck. Some teams do this better than others. But it’s not easy. So why exactly is everyone paralysed with terror at the thought of a wealthy club who can purchase new players?

Football is supposed to be a meritocracy, but we’re now scared of the prospect of another good team entering the fray. The fears are that City will construct a multi-billion pound XI from the finest players in the game, that vanquishes all before them; a star-studded exhibition of the best football has to offer; a line-up boasting Kaka, Messi, Fabregas, Ronaldo and Torres that plays total football and wins every piece of silverware going. And this, allegedly, will be terrible for football. Have I missed something? If Abu Dhabi front man Sulaiman Al Fahim is able to make this a reality, I’d pay to watch them.

citeh

It probably won’t happen. Signing superstars is easier said than done. For all Al Fahim’s grandiose claims, City have recruited some promising players and a few expensive Brazilian misfits. The most recent rumours link them with the portly, injury-ravaged Ronaldo. Sid Lowe said how Robinho, expecting a move to Chelsea, was summoned to the Bernabeu offices on deadline day to be told a bid had been accepted from City, not Chelsea. Robinho, ever the pragmatist, was not put off. His agent Wagner Ribeiro said: “Robinho would rather be walking the streets selling things than stay at Real Madrid”. This might’ve raised a few eyebrows amongst City fans, but then again he did score on his debut and kiss the badge.

Building a good team is difficult. The concept of ‘buying the title’ is a crass oversimplification of what it takes to assemble a trophy-winning side. When Abramovich burst onto the scene in 2003, Chelsea were beaten to the title by the Arsenal invincibles, assembled on a relatively modest budget. It took two years before the introduction of Mourinho and a disciplined tactical system brought them trophies. Even then, two seasons of dominance invigorated Manchester United, who raised their game and are now European champions. This begs the question of how much the other non-oligarch-owned teams are spending. Look at the most expensive British deals before Robinho: Shevchenko for £30.8m, Berbatov for £30.75m, Ferdinand for £29.1m, Veron for £28.1m, Rooney for £27m. A mixed bag, and most of them signed by United. Expensive transfers are just as likely to go horribly wrong as the cheaper ones. Money helps, as long as you spend wisely.

The objections to the City saga are a combination of fear, envy and xenophobia. They might become a better team than the one you support, they have more to spend than you, and there’s another bally foreign owner in the Premier League. More and more clubs are becoming filthy rich overnight after being purchased by wealthy men. The argument that this money is ‘undeserved’ is erroneous. It’s not illegal. People might raise moral objections about where the money is coming from, but soon enough they either forget or stop caring. If fans don’t like it, they stop coming. Football is not an altruistic community lynchpin; it’s governed by market economics. Paul Gardner made the salient point that this is simple capitalism. In the lucrative football market, money talks. It’s nothing new. Football clubs are businesses, who need money to develop. It’s simply natural progression, and people hate change.

City might manage to assemble their superteam. I, for one, welcome the challenge.

Like this blog? Help spread the word: Facebook Diggicon Reddit Delicious

Posted by studentsofthegame | Comments (2)

2 Comments · Add yours

arsekicker
Spacer Spacer
0
arsekicker Wrote: | 13.26BST | Oct 1, 2008

I believe the ones who are 'paralysed with terror' of new wealthy clubs are the ones who might then see their own buying power reduced. They will then try to sound all the warning cries about how these rich clubs are now ruining the game and all. Truth is, given the chance, they'd jump at the opportunity to be in the shoes of, say, Manchester City. You can have the money, but you need to do something smart with the money to get results too.

brian
Spacer Spacer
0
brian Wrote: | 17.02BST | Oct 1, 2008

There is a worry that the transfer market may become inflated, but there are still affordable quality players out there if you look hard enough.

Leave a comment




(Don’t want to see this next time? Just sign up for an account.)