Since when did money mean more than career success?

[pezinhoTHFC]

Every morning, just before I actually start doing any work, I trawl through the countless transfer rumour stories and paper talk sections of the usual websites – BBC Sport, Sky Sports News etc etc. I usually just scan over them until the word Tottenham jumps out at me, and let’s face it, as soon as a transfer window opens, we’re linked to nearly everyone! But the one phrase that is standing out amongst the others, for me, is “…Spurs will face tough competition from Manchester City…” – a phrase which most of us on here will also now be familiar with.

The Gareth Barry deal (moving from Villa to City) just highlights and further illustrates how greed has swarmed the game of football. First it was the agents, then the clubs and now the players. The one thing that I fail to comprehend is what Manchester City can offer players more than Tottenham can. Apart from the money.

Let’s take a moment to compare the two clubs…

Silverware

Manchester City have never been a prolific club. The last major silverware that they won was the Charity Shield in 1972. They haven’t been in an FA Cup final since 1981 (when they lost to Spurs) and the only time they won the European Cup Winners’ Cup was 39 years ago.

Tottenham have an illustrious history and last won a major trophy in 2008 with our victory in the Carling Cup Final over Chelsea. We also won the same competition in 1999. In 1991 we won the FA Cup for the 8th time. We last won a European trophy in 1984 and were runners-up in 1974.

League Performance

City’s last five seasons (starting with the 08/09 season just finished) have yielded finishes in 10th, 9th, 14th, 15th and 8th – an average finish of 11th.

Spurs meanwhile have finished 8th, 11th, 5th, 5th and 9th – an average finish of 7th

Managers

Mark Hughes is only five years into his club management career but with five years in charge of Wales as well, he has ten years under his belt. In that time, the biggest achievement he has gained was finishing 7th with Blackburn in the 07/08 season. It’s probably fair to say that he is still learning the art of club management but, nevertheless, he is still the manager.

Harry Redknapp is one of the most well-known English managers. He has 26 years of club management experience and is known for his excellent man-management skills and knowledge of the English game. He led Portsmouth to FA Cup victory in the 07/08 season and is one of the shrewdest managers in the game.

Stadiums

City’s stadium is much larger than Tottenham’s (48,000 compared to our 36,000). However, Eastlands was built for the Commonwealth Games and therefore, in my opinion, lacks history and atmosphere. White Hart Lane is famous around the world for it’s ‘fortress-like’ atmosphere and noise, especially on cold European nights! Moreover, Spurs have massive plans to build a new stadium with a much larger capacity in the next few years.

Next Season

Neither club will play in Europe during the next campaign, with the last Europa League place going to Fulham. Additionally, for the last two seasons, pundits (the credible ones!) have identified Spurs as the team / squad / club most likely (or capable) of breaking the top four.

So, with all of that in mind, is there really anything else other than money that Manchester City can offer players like Gareth Barry? I don’t think so.

For a long time I have defended footballers’ salaries as being relative; that is, in the current market (the football industry), all players are paid astronomical amounts but relative to what a club makes in revenue, it’s probably the same as what Joe Bloggs makes from his 9-5 office job for a corporate organisation.

We are very unlikely to know exactly what the deal was worth or how much City have agreed to pay the player, but with their ridiculously deep cheque book, I would argue in excess of £100,000 a week. And with Spurs’ strict wage structure, it was inevitable that money would talk louder than anything else.

Like the rest of us, footballers are entitled to chase their dreams and make as much money as they can along the way. But this begs the question; when did money become more important than career success? £40k a week or £100k a week – both are more than enough to survive, so would a player really rather play for a lesser club and earn £100k a week than he would a more illustrious and promising club and earn £40k a week?

Club takeovers and buyouts are inevitable, especially as they can prove to be very profitable, but it irritates me that one club can just wave a cheque book under a player’s nose and lure them in. It’s the metaphorical equivalent of giving a gambling addict a million quid.

All the money in the world doesn’t guarantee success. Im just glad that there are players like Kaka out there who can see through the offers of £500k a week and realise City have nothing to offer him apart from money.

 

[avonspurs]

£40k a week or £100k a week – both are more than enough to survive, so would a player really rather play for a lesser club and earn £100k a week than he would a more illustrious and promising club and earn £40k a week?

Clearly the answer, in the majority of cases, is yes. However, they (the players) will "sell it" to the fans on the basis that they are moving to be a "part of something" and that its "exciting times" and they (the club they are joining) are "moving to the top". Lets hope it blows up in their faces.

 

[JimmyG2]

I agree with you about the lure of money here. Last season Liverpool couldn't match the £18 million valuation of Barry, his preferred choice because of Champions League.
Now he has gone to a non Champions league club for a fee far less. 'You do the Math'
You can buy success, look at Chelsea and Barry has signed 'off plan' on the prospectus.
We all hope it blows up in their faces but it might not.
However I for one am not desperate for that kind of success and will be happy to finish 6/7/8th every season as long as we play decent football preferably with some good young 'home grown' players in the squad.

 

[JamieMangan]

As much as I hate to say it I think that they will see Champions League football before we do. They have already proved they can attract quality players in Robinho and Barry and more will follow. They weren't a million miles away from getting Kaka who appears not only to be a compete prat.

I'm not saying that I don't think Barry is being a mercenary, but City will continue to throw money at this until it sticks, and probably will break the top four sooner rather than later. Hopefully it will be at the expense of Arsenal

 

[j777777]

When Abramovic took over Chelsea they had just finished 4th in the league and were only just off being in the top class of Premiership teams. There is no way Man City will be able to acheive what Chelsea has done from their current position. It's going to take them 3 or 4 more years at the very least.

 

[Locotoro]

I have to say that its not only the attraction of being paid astronomical amounts that will attract players. Its the likelihood that the money will be able to pay for the transer and huge salaries of other top players.

Even if Spurs offered the same wages and sign on fee as Man City do I still feel that most players would still pick Man City. Man City, through their vast wealth and lack of financial restraint, are able to afford the £70 million Kaka and the £33million for Berba simply because they will throw money at the club and offer the salary that the player wants.

Unfortunately as we have seen with Robinho some of those players will come for the money and I believe its the prospect of being in a team capable of attracting those players that also plays a factor in these kind of decisions.

Fortunately for us we know that the football is not a business and the assets do not always produce.

Some may cite Chelsea as a team that bought success and state that Man City are using the same blueprint. There are a few differences though, and those are that Chelsea, as has been pointed out, we're already challenging for the title albeit at a distance. They spent heavily with Ranieri and still couldnt crack the league so we know that the management and the right players is also important.

Aside from Man U and Arsenal, there was no other real competition from the rest of the league. Finally, they took the league by storm in terms of spending power and other premiership sides were only too happy to accept the huge sums for their players.

Now, we have to note Man City are further from challenging for the title in terms of quality of the team than Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs, Villa and Everton. So serious work is needed.

In Hughes they have a good manager but essentially one that is out of his depth in my opinion and (prediction time) he'll be the first to go next season when it doesnt click straight away.

The players that they are signing, apart from Robinho, are not top notch players capable of breaking the Top 4 in my opinion. Look at Newcastle and West Ham with their huge salaries. They bought the wrong types of players and it all went pear shaped. Who are Man City actually signing?? Gareth Barry a decent player in his own right but his career has been one of complete mediocrity so far. He has won diddly-squat. Bellamy? Benjani? Jo? There are actually very few players at Man City that would be comfortable in a Top 4 squad let alone first XI.

Why? Because those top players capable of taking a team up into the top 4 are already on those salaries at Real, Barca, Milan, Inter, Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal, in addition to the salary, they are already challenging for Champions League every season.

Finally, we have to remember that almost all the top 10 premiership sides have huge financial backing and aside from Fulham/Everton, are in no need to accept those bids. Even Derby County and QPR are owned by billionaires so its the way the league is going.

 

[spud]

It is clearly the done thing to sneer at players who join clubs ostensibly 'just for the money'. Through our club-tinted glasses we fail to understand why players could possibly go anywhere apart from WHL / Eastlands / Villa Park / Goodison etc.

Your point about the two clubs' history is not really valid, for two reasons. First because you gloss over the fact that City had a pretty bloody good trophy-winning team in the 60s and early 70s, and have won the league more recently than us. Secondly because it counts for f-all when you are choosing a club to play for. I suggest that players are interested in what they might win rather than how full the trophy room is.

So how would you choose? Looking at it objectively, there is little to choose between us and City. Both are generally perceived as 'big' clubs, with a long history punctuated by successes. Both have good players. Both play good(ish) football. Both have managers who are highly regarded, though neither has a particularly impressive trophy haul. Both have a large number of loyal, vocal fans. Both are generally thought to be 'on the up' and might challenge the established top four, although neither is playing in Europe next season. And both are in the shadow of their nearest neighbour.

When it comes down to it, it might be a simple choice between living in London on great money and living in Manchester on obscene money. Why not choose the money?

 

[spurs_viola]

Barry has just used to his advantage what many clubs and their managers believe: that if you throw enough money at a player, he will come, irrespective of whether you are challenging at the top or not. Our own dear Harry is one of the main advocates of that approach, where he thinks we can get the right players whether Spurs are in the European competition or not, as long as we offer a big enough envelope to the players.

Yes, thank God for players like Kaka, who seems to be rejecting another huge offer from another Premiership club in favour of a club which is much closer to him in terms of football and traditions.

Ronaldinho refused to go to Chelsea too in the last 2 seasons, choosing AC Milan in spite of much less financial rewards to himself.

 

[dontcallme]

While I agree wiht most of the thread I do think we should stop thinking about players caring about the size of a club or its history.

Traditionally we're a bigger club than Chelsea but once they started getting CL football (before Roman as well) players started wanting to join them ahead of us. Money may have played a part but players will care about the here and now and once Roman came in with his money top players saw this as an ambitious project and saw themselves joining a team who could be at the very top.

Right now I can't imagine players joining us ahead of Man City because we're traditionally a bigger club, nor do I see world class players signing for them unless they really want the money. But if you ask most people who can get into the top four I think Man City will be the answer.

So most players who aren't wanted by the top four but want to play in the Prem will see Man City as the most attractive destination. It isn't just about the wages though.

 

[cabinfever]

Remember too that the vast majority of players will not win anything in their time as a footballer - so yes, it is about the money.

 

[WhiteHeartLowe]

Your point about the two clubs' history is not really valid, for two reasons. First because you gloss over the fact that City had a pretty bloody good trophy-winning team in the 60s and early 70s, and have won the league more recently than us. Secondly because it counts for f-all when you are choosing a club to play for. I suggest that players are interested in what they might win rather than how full the trophy room is.

Exactly right.

 

[DC_Boy]

Hi pezinho

Just a couple of points - I don't count the Charity shield as a major trophy - neither should any reputable reference source

It's a two team friendly competition

From memory City's last major trophy was the Lge Cup in 1976 featuring a famous overhead kick from Dennis Tueart

this is a good source for trophy lists

http://www.krysstal.com/trophies.html

Incidentally Toon's last major trophy was in 1969, we have won nine since then, - that didn't stop players like Duff and parker preferring them to us - I believe wages may have been a factor ;-)

However both players would probably have cited the fact they believed Toon had ambition etc.

City are similarly placed, except they have more financial clout it sems than Toon ever had.

It's a logical choice for Barry.

I wouldn't like to predict which of our two clubs will next win silverware or indeed reach the Holy Grail of modern football - 4th place in the Premiership

 

[DC_Boy]

Lucas Neill famously chose West Ham over Liverpool

Perhaps he thought that after nearly 30 years without a major trophy the Happy Hammers luck was about to change

Then again money may have been a factor

 

[ultimateloner]

money = career success

A club is willing to pay massive wages becuase it aims for immediate success - therefore it Barry's move makes sense.

Club tradition doesn't matter to a player because you judge a player by what they have achieved; not WHICH club they have achieved it with.

You lok at C.Ronaldo - full of silverware, individual honours. what matters is that, and not the fact that he got them with Man U.

That is provided you dont' aim to be a club legend. Players in the past want to be club legends, less so for modern footballers (as is the case for all industries). Loyalty is worth nothing.

 

[SouthLondonSpur]

I was mystified that he chose Citeh. I thought he would go to Liverpool. He has at least two years before he can possibly play CL, and he'll be 30. Thats if they even qualify. However when I saw he will earn 130k a week, it became a lot clearer.

 

[sebo_sek]

I can't believe no one is mentioning Bent. He turned down 20k a week to play for us. For that I will always have a soft spot for him. A true pro. Just like Diarra when moving to Portsmouth to better his career.

There are still real players out there.