rick261979 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 now man city have got all this cash and are buying all these players with obseen about of money and wages the transfer market as we know it will be wrecked Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Aja Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I think they've made FM better. They buy all my dead wood, which can't possibly be a bad thing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverride Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Im in 2016 and all that money has brought them one Premier League trophy. Cant say its ruined my FM, plus they do like to spend money on the players Im trying to get rid of:D EDIT : Oh the won a league cup too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zico Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 You could also say Man City are threatening to ruin football in real life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richardav Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 You could also say Man City are threatening to ruin football in real life. yeh then the game is like real life lol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micado Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I think they've made FM better. They buy all my dead wood, which can't possibly be a bad thing That is indead a handy thing, just offer them all the deadwood and rich you will become. OT. Just like in real life, aprox €100M for 1 player and wages of 400 ~ 500K Euro per week is just making it difficult for other teams to compete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoollenGreg Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I think they've made FM better. They buy all my dead wood, which can't possibly be a bad thing I'm exactly the same. I've bought alot of fringe players from the big clubs who are unhappy, transfer listed or just not wanted and play them after a season. After that one season Man City buy 50% of these players off me for ridiculous amounts, for example I bought Alexandre Song for 2 million and then at the end of the season Man City offered me an unhappy goalkeeper (Joe Hart) and £10m. I was well happy with this deal as you can imagine. But overall I think they have made it more interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gleesefc Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 they are going to ruin football in real life chelsea started the rot - city will make it worse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richardav Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 probs the only good thing to come from the man city thing in real life is that they might offer poor teams lots of money for there players.then that help the poor teams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gleesefc Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Depends if the Sheik gets his dream team or not. If he does then he'll just be giving already rich clubs more money, making them even richer. I just think that Man City will do what Chelsea did when Abramovich took over and inflate the market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy38 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 OT.Just like in real life, aprox €100M for 1 player and wages of 400 ~ 500K Euro per week is just making it difficult for other teams to compete. No, not Euros. POUNDS. The guy is going to make so much more in a few hours than doctors, nurses, soldiers etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron_AO Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 It makes the game too easy. You can sell them practically anyone for minimum 2x their normal price. Its stupid and unchallenging. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mihk3l Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I have no problem Man City buying good players and challenging me for trophies but I do mind making easy money from them thats why I havent started a game in England yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carradona Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Untick the sugardaddy option in the extra files and start a new game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djwilko6 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 It makes the game too easy.You can sell them practically anyone for minimum 2x their normal price. Its stupid and unchallenging. Then don't sell them to City? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jptykes Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 they are going to ruin football in real lifechelsea started the rot - city will make it worse Blaming Chelsea is a myth. Blackburn bought the title long before anyone had heard of Abramovich. And let's not forget ManU spending £33m on Ferdinand, £28.1m on Veron, £31m for Rooney and £30.75 for Berbatov. Not to mention the £10m+ paid for Stam, Yorke, Ronaldo, Carrick and Van Nistelrooy. Clubs have bought the title for as far back as memory permits to some degree or another (very few of Liverpool's dominant teams were made up of Scousers), Man City are no different really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron_AO Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Those football clubs still produced a majority of their revenue and were based on history. Chelsea and Manchester City came out of no where due to a foriegn entity. And do the person who said don't sell them to City, it'd be ******** for me to never sell my players to make it more challenging. Its the games responsibility to do that, not mine. Its like playing PES 2009 and saying i won't press the through ball button because otherwise its too easy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kopsy101 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 my problem is they go for too many people. they should be buying better players like those in real life Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richardav Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Blaming Chelsea is a myth. Blackburn bought the title long before anyone had heard of Abramovich. And let's not forget ManU spending £33m on Ferdinand, £28.1m on Veron, £31m for Rooney and £30.75 for Berbatov. Not to mention the £10m+ paid for Stam, Yorke, Ronaldo, Carrick and Van Nistelrooy.Clubs have bought the title for as far back as memory permits to some degree or another (very few of Liverpool's dominant teams were made up of Scousers), Man City are no different really. i agree you cant say they bought the title because you need the best players to win so you pay for the best.man city have a decent team but they need to buy to get better players like any other team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGN_1982 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I think they've made FM better. They buy all my dead wood, which can't possibly be a bad thing i agree i think they have added to the game and given it a new dimension.......has anyone hada game where they completely dominate ??? for me, if any team has ruined FM its arsenal ... 9.2 and they are still unstoppable in 2015. Please tone them down further !!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristoaster Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Blaming Chelsea is a myth. Blackburn bought the title long before anyone had heard of Abramovich. And let's not forget ManU spending £33m on Ferdinand, £28.1m on Veron, £31m for Rooney and £30.75 for Berbatov. Not to mention the £10m+ paid for Stam, Yorke, Ronaldo, Carrick and Van Nistelrooy.Clubs have bought the title for as far back as memory permits to some degree or another (very few of Liverpool's dominant teams were made up of Scousers), Man City are no different really. The difference between Blackburn/Man Utd/Liverpool and Chelsea/Man City is that the former group MADE money based on success and popularity. They earned their money. Chelsea and Man City had massive cash injections that weren't based on popularity or success. That is the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gleesefc Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Blaming Chelsea is a myth. Blackburn bought the title long before anyone had heard of Abramovich. And let's not forget ManU spending £33m on Ferdinand, £28.1m on Veron, £31m for Rooney and £30.75 for Berbatov. Not to mention the £10m+ paid for Stam, Yorke, Ronaldo, Carrick and Van Nistelrooy.Clubs have bought the title for as far back as memory permits to some degree or another (very few of Liverpool's dominant teams were made up of Scousers), Man City are no different really. I agree to some extent your argument. I wasn't really old enough to fully understand what Blackburn were doing when they bought the title, so i couldn't say whether they created an atmosphere at the time where players prices were inflated. But with regard to what i said about Chelsea inflating the market, you've made one excellent example in your argument which is Carrick, who was never worth £18 million (i seem to remember) when Man Utd bough him, nor was Wright-Phillips worth £21 million, the list goes on and on. I am also not against 'buying the title' as money is what it takes to buy a title. But when your throwing about such vast sums of money, which in no way relates to the current economic market, then your creating an inflated market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HL7 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 The difference between Blackburn/Man Utd/Liverpool and Chelsea/Man City is that the former group MADE money based on success and popularity. They earned their money. Chelsea and Man City had massive cash injections that weren't based on popularity or success. That is the difference. Tbh, Blackburn are hardly world renowned for their title winning successes. They bought that title when they had the likes of Shearer and Sutton. Liverpool and Man Utd are different from the likes of Chelsea and Man City though. However, when their rich chairmens get bored they will return to earth and leave more than a crater I should think. The EPL is getting to big to sustain itself. I can easily (read hopefully) see the tops clubs imploding if they keep spending the way they have been. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HL7 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Btw, £30 is a steal for Berbatov Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blitzzzy Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I'm yet to play in England but here's what they've spent so far in my game: 08/09 - 13mil pounds 09/10 - 36.5 mil pounds 10/11 - 15.75 mil pounds (haven't reached january window yet) It's not that unrealistic I don't think... They've bought some bad players but they've bought some good ones as well. Still quite a few players such as Hart, Ball, Dunne, Onouha, Richards, Johnson, Zabaleta and Robinho are in the squad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mihk3l Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 The difference between Blackburn/Man Utd/Liverpool and Chelsea/Man City is that the former group MADE money based on success and popularity. They earned their money. Chelsea and Man City had massive cash injections that weren't based on popularity or success. That is the difference. When City/Chelsea get taken over by Sheik Mansour/Abramovich they get massive cash injections while Blackburn/Utd/Liverpool get taken over by Walker/Glazer's/Hicks & Gillet they get money from their popularity and success, you sir are a bloody hypocrite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jptykes Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 The difference between Blackburn/Man Utd/Liverpool and Chelsea/Man City is that the former group MADE money based on success and popularity. They earned their money. Chelsea and Man City had massive cash injections that weren't based on popularity or success. That is the difference. Huge fees are huge fees. They inflate the market and create instability whether funded by popularity, debt or takeover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
makelele696 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 No, not Euros. POUNDS. The guy is going to make so much more in a few hours than doctors, nurses, soldiers etc. by the way Euro is pretty much equal to the pound Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyinuk Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 The difference between Blackburn/Man Utd/Liverpool and Chelsea/Man City is that the former group MADE money based on success and popularity. They earned their money. Blackburn MADE money based on success and popularity? Is that poor research or bad memory? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomHAVFC Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I'm yet to play in England but here's what they've spent so far in my game:08/09 - 13mil pounds 09/10 - 36.5 mil pounds 10/11 - 15.75 mil pounds (haven't reached january window yet) It's not that unrealistic I don't think... They've bought some bad players but they've bought some good ones as well. Still quite a few players such as Hart, Ball, Dunne, Onouha, Richards, Johnson, Zabaleta and Robinho are in the squad Are you being serious? In my game they've spent over £75mil every season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blitzzzy Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Are you being serious? In my game they've spent over £75mil every season. I'm dead serious. Oh I should note however that I turned off the transfer budgets during the first transfer window. Maybe that helps balance the game more? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro007 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I agree to some extent your argument. I wasn't really old enough to fully understand what Blackburn were doing when they bought the title, so i couldn't say whether they created an atmosphere at the time where players prices were inflated.But with regard to what i said about Chelsea inflating the market, you've made one excellent example in your argument which is Carrick, who was never worth £18 million (i seem to remember) when Man Utd bough him, nor was Wright-Phillips worth £21 million, the list goes on and on. I am also not against 'buying the title' as money is what it takes to buy a title. But when your throwing about such vast sums of money, which in no way relates to the current economic market, then your creating an inflated market. You say that Carrick is not worth £18m but look at the facts. United finished 2nd in the league with 83 points. In the summer they signed one player, Carrick and then went on to win the league with 89 points. If Carrick the the differnce between 1st and 2nd then I would take him every day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gleesefc Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 You say that Carrick is not worth £18m but look at the facts. United finished 2nd in the league with 83 points. In the summer they signed one player, Carrick and then went on to win the league with 89 points. If Carrick the the differnce between 1st and 2nd then I would take him every day. at the time though it was widely considered that his transfer fee was massively inflated im not questioning his ability or the impact he's had, im saying that chelsea did originally cause an inflation in transfer fees Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I'm in the Premier League right now with Barnsley and they just bought Diego Leon for like 4.3m off me, now I can buy some more players . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cityull Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I haven't read any of this thread so I don't know whats been said but I do think that with money being unlimited it has the potential to ruin the game in real life doesn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlo116 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 my problem is they go for too many people. they should be buying better players like those in real life I agree their targets should be more limited and aimed at better players. Mind you they bought Higuain on my game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsharck Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I haven't read any of this thread so I don't know whats been said but I do think that with money being unlimited it has the potential to ruin the game in real life doesn't it? I reckon it all depends on where you live. I live in England and used to look forward to watching the best players in the world play on tv when the world cup was on. Dreaming of seeing players like Baggio and Romario, etc playing in England week in and week out but in those days all the best players went to Italy or Spain. So even though I hate Man city and Chelsea as teams, I love the fact that there buying up all the best players in the world and bringing them to England where I can watch them every week as apposed to every four years. I say to them "Keep spending! and keep bringing the worlds best players to England!" Spain and Italy had there turn in the 70's-80's-90's now its Englands turn to have the worlds best. The bad thing is when teams want to buy titles and try to build an instant squad, they end up rushing too much and buy loads of crap players instead of spending the money on team facilities and proper scouting. For my fellow country men moaning at man city, I'll just say "Nothing lasts forever, enjoy it while you can." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamielvo Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 It makes the game too easy.You can sell them practically anyone for minimum 2x their normal price. Its stupid and unchallenging. Gah, I must be doing something wrong. They won't offer for ANY of my Guiseley BSN fringe-players. Not one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoseIsGod Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 at the time though it was widely considered that his transfer fee was massively inflatedim not questioning his ability or the impact he's had, im saying that chelsea did originally cause an inflation in transfer fees originally? no chance mate! roy keane,rio ferdinand, seba veron??? would i be right in saying these were all british record breaking transfer fee's? i think i would. what were the dates of these transfers?? before roman abramovic took over chelsea! fact. so i think that you should retract that statement buddy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamenaglar Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 At least they haven't ruined real-life football. Oh, wait... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cityull Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I reckon it all depends on where you live.I live in England and used to look forward to watching the best players in the world play on tv when the world cup was on. Dreaming of seeing players like Baggio and Romario, etc playing in England week in and week out but in those days all the best players went to Italy or Spain. So even though I hate Man city and Chelsea as teams, I love the fact that there buying up all the best players in the world and bringing them to England where I can watch them every week as apposed to every four years. I say to them "Keep spending! and keep bringing the worlds best players to England!" Spain and Italy had there turn in the 70's-80's-90's now its Englands turn to have the worlds best. The bad thing is when teams want to buy titles and try to build an instant squad, they end up rushing too much and buy loads of crap players instead of spending the money on team facilities and proper scouting. For my fellow country men moaning at man city, I'll just say "Nothing lasts forever, enjoy it while you can." I think your are right, success can't be gotten over night. many years need to be taken for a truely success full team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsharck Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 im saying that chelsea did originally cause an inflation in transfer fees Dont forget Leeds United Brought Rio Ferdinand for something like £15 million from West Ham, and then went on a huge spending spree. Look at them now ;> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsoluteGenius Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 In my game (2014 now) all it's bought them is a UEFA Cup. They should do what I do and invest in youth. I haven't missed a Champions League final for the past five years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsharck Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 In my game (2014 now) all it's bought them is a UEFA Cup. They should do what I do and invest in youth. I haven't missed a Champions League final for the past five years. Gratz on your champions league run, glad Man city are still crap 5 seasons later. I started with Newcastle and had 4 million transfer funds, had a board takeover and new owners announced they wouldn't give me any money, but I still won the F.A Cup and semi final of League cup in my first season and done it with same squad and a couple of loan in players. Am currently thinking of ditching this game to start at a harder level. I might try and rescue struggling Man city <hehe> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atonement Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 yeah, the man city in FM are willing to spend 15 million pounds odd on an aging, injury prone, primadona, ungrateful waster like craig bellamy which theyd be mad to do in real life carlton cole for england! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almondo Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I'm only in my second season with man utd but just looking at citys transfers for this season they have just spent £32.5 million on gareth bale, £15.25 million on aiden mcgeady and £15.75 million on gianni zuiverloon and that's just the january window. they've spent £95 million this season alone, but they've sold Petrov, zabaletta and bojinov for a combined £20 million. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gleesefc Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 originally?no chance mate! roy keane,rio ferdinand, seba veron??? would i be right in saying these were all british record breaking transfer fee's? i think i would. what were the dates of these transfers?? before roman abramovic took over chelsea! fact. so i think that you should retract that statement buddy! nah i'll stick with my statement thanks very much i'll also point out roy keane - was at the time the best young cm in england rio ferdinand - was one of the best young cb in the world veron - was considered one of the best midfielders in the world carrick - was considered a good prem player, by no means a world beater also were not talking about record breaking fee's, so please read what my argument is before posting replies, i'm simply saying chelsea inflated the transfer market, and man city are going to do the same - brilliant example this morning £14 million bid for Bellamy, who a week ago was valued at £8 million Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomis07 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 originally?no chance mate! roy keane,rio ferdinand, seba veron??? would i be right in saying these were all british record breaking transfer fee's? i think i would. what were the dates of these transfers?? before roman abramovic took over chelsea! fact. so i think that you should retract that statement buddy! Perhaps he should put it a different way then. Chelsea caused an inflation of the transfer fees for "decent" players. Whilst the players you mentioned did have a large fee they were, at the time, some of the best players in the world and as such commanded those fees. Paying £24m for SWP is a more appropriate example of how a team caused an inflation in transfer fees for "decent" players and IMO Chelsea have to be considered responsible for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderblue Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 United, Chelsea, Real Madrid, they've been ruining football for years then. City come along, buy a couple of players and all of sudden are ruining the game. B0llocks mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomis07 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 United, Chelsea, Real Madrid, they've been ruining football for years then.City come along, buy a couple of players and all of sudden are ruining the game. It's a conversation for the football forum, but you can't seriously be comparing the money spent by United, Chelsea or Real to the fees being touted around for Citeh. The fact that their bid is twice even the highest amount any of those clubs has ever spent on a player, means nothing all of a sudden. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.