Barcelona, arguably the best footballing team we’ve seen in the last twenty years, certainly one of them, decide they want to enhance their already formidable squad by pursuing Fabregas, Torres and Villa (the latter already being signed) during the domestic summer break.
Surely, even for a club of Barca’s wealth and stature, that would be too much to achieve in one summer. Even they, mind games or not, are claiming they don’t have the funds to finance a move, according to Arsenal’s valuation, for the ‘one that got away’ Fabregas. So what becomes of this highly ambitious, but surely unlikely, summer shopping spree? Delay the inevitable signing of Fabregas and possible signing of Torres for another year until the funds are available?
Enter Manchester City, a club so eager to flex their muscles with the giants of European football, so desperate to grab that one marquee player that will finally give them worldwide recognition, and so pathetically irresponsible in the transfer market. Unfortunately, from City’s perspective, it appears the biggest names are not yet convinced that ‘selling out’ and moving to Eastlands is the best option for their careers, but players of genuine quality are now arriving there and eventually, money talks.
This week, they completed the signing of Yaya Toure for an incredible 27.5 (various figures have been quoted) million pounds. A top quality player with international pedigree? Certainly. A player worthy of laying claim to being in the Premier League’s top ten highest transfer fees ever? Not a chance.
Manchester City fans will argue that, given their mass riches, clubs are going to inflate their prices dramatically when they come knocking, but this attitude of blowing everyone away is very damaging for the Premier League – not that City’s owners will be concerned with that, and why should they? Considering City already have the impressive De Jong and Gareth Barry, who both play similar roles to Toure, it’s hard to imagine why they so desperately wanted him in the first place.
Barcelona must be laughing all the way to the bank. The transfer fee they received for Toure was not so far off what they paid for David Villa – his fee effectively has been recouped by this latest piece of business. This season saw the emergence of yet another local talent from the Barcelona school of excellence, in Sergio Busquets, which relegated Toure to the bench for a large part of the season.
Even towards the end of the season, when injuries hit harder, Seydou Keita was often preferred to Toure in midfield. Barcelona’s team has not, in any way shape or form, been weakened by this sale. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred, as Barca now have the funds in place to go out on another raid on the transfer market.
Manchester City are of no threat to Barcelona at this given time and, in my opinion, are a long way from being any kind of concern for them. Financially, City can beat them every time but you’ll be be hard pushed to find any player in the world who would opt for Eastlands ahead of the Nou Camp, even for double the money.
The consequences for the Premier League could be far greater than just Manchester City beating whoever else was in for Toure to his signing. A number of the top Premier League clubs, especially Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal are greatly restricted in the transfer market.
At the same time, the world’s best now seem to be flocking back to the two Spanish giants. The Premier League’s argument that the Primera League only boasts two top sides in false and always has been. A quick look at the UEFA Cup/Europa League’s history over the last fifteen years, shows you how well a number of Spanish teams have done (far better than the English sides), in turn, showing the strength and depth of the league.
Granted, it boasts two massive teams who are now threatening to dominate for years, but to compare it to the Scottish Premier League, for example, is laughable. Barcelona’s pockets have now been nicely lined by City but, why not continue the trend?
Why not offer City other players who will surely be no more than fringe players in the coming season? Bojan, Milito and even Ibrahimovic could be available and, you never know, Barcelona could come out of the summer break with their three targets signed on lucrative deals and yet still boasting a profit from summer transfer dealings – an exaggeration maybe.
So what now for the Premier League? We have the very realistic scenario of two of the Premier League’s biggest stars following Cristiano Ronaldo to the sunnier climates of Spain. We are faced with the fact that the top clubs can no longer afford to replace the stars they let go with the same calibre of player.
And we have Manchester City intent on outbidding any club, or unsettling any player as soon as there is the slightest scent of an agent’s comment but, long may it continue, still unable to bring in the cream of the crop to Eastlands. For now, I hope my pessimism is unfounded.
Roger Rational
Guest
Informed observers - e.g. Gabriel Marcotti of the Times - suggest that the 220,000 figure is almost certainly nonsense, probably put about by Barca to say to their fans: "Don't blame us for selling him, guys - look what he's earning!" Again, it's just incredibly wet and naive to complain about players joining City for the money and to get all teary-eyed about them "not knowing the history". These guys are footballers, not sociologists. They want to earn the biggest wage they can and they want to win things. That's totally fair enough. As for Silva, I'm sure he would have preferred to join Barca, but they didn't want to sign him, so what would you prefer the guy do? Play for his local pub team in solidarity with the working masses? Honestly, what nonsense. As for United, we need to distinguish between guys like Abramovich and the Sheikh who buy clubs as a hobby and are happy to put the wonga in - a thoroughly good thing, imo - and people like the Glazers and Tom Hicks who buy clubs as investments - less good, I grant you. Even then, it's not clear that United don't have the money to spend - Fergie claim he has funds but that there's "no value in the market". Your final point is just straw man rubbish. No one in the EPL is talking about creating franchises, so I'm not sure what you're on about. You seem to have a real problem with mid-sized clubs trying to better themselves.
Kaiser
Guest
Roger Rational - so it's a good thing that Man City can pay Yaya Toure 200,000k a week. Toure cannot even be considered to be in that bracket, nor should anyone really. I think that is a sad factor about football, the club has a squad full of players who are there only for money and most likely know nothing about Man City's history. The 'guff' about City not being able to attract top players actually said they are beginning to attract top players and eventually the cream of the crop will most likely arrive. For now though, do you really think David Silva's first option was City? He'd been touted for Barca and Real for the last year or two but then they pursued other options and he ends up at City. Yes, the premiership is very exciting at the moment but there are a number of clubs in a perilous position. To state 'United building all the time' is a pretty weak argument for the league's shape considering they are one of the powerhouses of football and are now fairly cash-strapped and unsure of their direction. Yes, to be a City fan just now must be great, but that's not to say they're good for football. You sound like you'd be better off following an American 'franchise' where new, rich teams can be created and added to the top league at the drop of a hat & unsuccessful, poorly followed teams can be banished into oblivion. Maybe we should drop all the poor teams and get 20 billionnaires and forget the rest of the football league? Sounds like that would suit you down to the ground.
Roger Rational
Guest
A wet article and even wetter responses. Are we all supposed to be teary-eyed that Manchester City are trying to blow the biggest clubs in world football out of the water? Is it really so "sad"? Of course not! All this guff being spoken about City not being able to attract top players was also spoken about Chelsea in 2003 - no history, just a rich owner, no one will go there and money will never buy success, blah blah blah. Well, it didn't take Chelsea long to start winning things and become an "acceptable" destination for top players. People have very, very short memories in football - players especially. They want top wonga and they want a chance of winning medals. If City can offer both these things, they'll attract top players easily. As for it being bad for the EPL: why exactly? We now have two billionaire owners who are willing to shell out and buy the top players as and when they choose. It's fantastic. City buying whomever they please, Chelsea signing Torres, Arsenal's finances in cracking shape, plus United being United and Tottenham building all the time. It's more exciting now than it was two years ago, imo. Honestly, to read some people on here you'd think the EPL was better off back in the days of Vinnie Jones and Wimbledon clogging their way to sixth in the table.
Ravy Davy Gravy
Guest
PS. this articulates the state of English football pretty well - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/06/footballs-debt-socialism-world-cup
Ravy Davy Gravy
Guest
one of the sad things that's happened with the emergence of these super-rich clubs is not just their ability to pick and choose players, but the willingness of good players to seemingly 'sell out' and head there (im talking Man City - at least Real and, to some extent chelsea, have history). i don't buy the idea that a team can be built through money alone - there has to be an organic growth and the players have to respect the club they're playing for, which i find hard to see with City (how many supporters would honestly say they identify with the club now in the same way they did 4 years ago?). they're a business in a way that other Prem League and Euro clubs aren't, and it's superficial. i wouldn't wanna see them win anything - money shouldn't dictate success in sport
Art Sapphire
Guest
JB - Barca, like Real Madrid do have and endless supply of money. However, their cantera is so successful they cherry pick to to strengthen their squad. Here are the facts Barca 2009/10 Transfer revenue: 22.050.000 £ Transfer expenditures: 101.700.000 £ Total Spend 79.650.000 £ Real Madrid 2209/2010 Transfer revenue: 78.750.000 £ Transfer expenditures: 231.660.000 £ Total Spens 152.910.000 £ Man City 2009/10 Transfer revenue: 26.550.000 £ Transfer expenditures: 132.570.000 £ Total Spend 106.020.000 £
John Boy
Guest
The article didn't claim that Barca buy their success, infact it claimed they don't have endless money to buy success and that Man City's reckless spending is aiding them in buying the few players they need to make them even stronger..
Art Sapphire
Guest
This analysis fails on a major level. Why is Barca so successful? Here's a clue Valdes, Pedro, Pique, Puyol, Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, Bojan, Busquests and even Fabregas are Barcelona products. Barca cherry pick to strengthen their squad. Long term vision, long term gain. Man City has just become a plaything of a wealthy sheikh who wants to play a real version of Football manager. Same applies to other EPL clubs. There's your difference.