No club really cares about any other though do they?
But which is better for football in general?
A)Uniteds owners taking money out of the game
B) City's owners pumping money into the game
Bluemoon goes into Meltdown
- Thread starter Logan!
- Start date
No club really cares about any other though do they?
But which is better for football in general?
A)Uniteds owners taking money out of the game
B) City's owners pumping money into the game
Opposition camp
Neither is good for football. Its not much of an argument.
City unchecked would destroy the game. PSG will destroy the french league with 3 years. At least in England clubs like United,Arsenal might be able to hold out a bit longer but within five years the PL will be destroyed.
United havent a hope against city long term. Even without the debts United cant afford to compete with city.
FFP will be got rid of. Its a restriction of trade IMO.
How can City bringing money from outside the game and investing it in it not be good for the game?
Now the argument will come that we are responsible for high wages and transfer fees but that is not the case at all. We don't pay the most out in wages in Europe and we have not even got the highest transfer fee. We have just played by the rules already in place.
Now it seems we are trying to be more sensible and get value for money
Yeah but if City had not been took over then we would never have been able to compete with you. you did not see City fans running round saying the rich clubs are destroying football and its not fair.
Is it not a case of what City are doing does not fit in with Uniteds agenda and because things are not all going your way and to your advantage anymore then you don't like it?
I bet you would not be moaning about the state of English football if you were getting champions league money every year and getting richer while the likes of city were scraping the barrel trying to survive, you would not give a toss about English football. You would think it was great, United getting richer and winning everything every season.
Their wont be a competitive league in france from next season onwards.
If Chelsea werent such a circus their wouldnt be one in England.(till of course city came along)
If City upper management do the thing right the PL wont be competitive within three years. It will be a two team league at best if Chelsea stops the bad decision making.
I dont know how you can expect United,Arsenal,Liverpool,Spurs to compete without serious financial doping.
So whats changed from Previous years??
Your argument is void. The most competitive Spuds have been in my lifetime has been in the last 4 years and while City have had money. Arsenal have not won anything for 7 years and the last time they did win anything, City had no money.
City/Chelsea will be their till the sugar daddy gets bored.
The PL was a much closer thing in terms of spending till Chelsea came along.
United ran away with leagues because Fergie is just such a great manager.
I am not saying it was perfect before the sugar daddies but they have made the gap bigger. Its unbridgeable without silly money now.
Well it hard to win stuff when man city keep buying your players and doubling their wages.
Also your success is on the back of the oppressed people of the UAE. The money should be spent on their education system,health system,public infrastructure.
The oil money is the peoples money and shouldnt be used to fund this joke of a club.
Dave,
But why City? Why not Crewe Alexander, Preston North End or Norwich? No offense, but City has always been some kind of a joke club with a small fan base. Why should such a club dominate football? At least United's wealth is homegrown - funded by the legacy of being a legendary club and being the best supported club in the country for the better part of the past 70 years.
I don't take offence and as for why City, well here's my reasoning
Firstly your wrong about always having a small fanbase. check the records, City have the highest ever attendance for a football league ground. Uniteds wealth is not home grown, they do not earn all their money from within the city of Manchester. United have been able to take advantage of lucky breaks and moments of fortune that have happened throughout their history so why should City not be afforded the same luxury?
I will not lecture you on United's history but you should read up on it.
As for the buy out and why City. We were prime candidates really. We had a new ground, we were relatively cheap to buy. We were shit but we still had one of the largest fan bases in the premier league that contributed money to the club and there was room to increase the fan base.
There was land around the stadium to expand and build plus the fact United came from Manchester probably helped us. It was a rivalry that could be played up and it gave it an angle. The media love it and it increases attention. Because of United, Manchester was already on the map and from a global point of view it really did help us.
We were extremely lucky in that we were in the right place at the right time and had everything going for us in regards to a take over.
The thing now is that we need to take advantage of the opportunity we have been given. There is scope to grow, to increase revenue and fanbase. Hopefully we will build for the future and long term we will not be so reliant of the Sheikh.
In short we were extremely lucky and like United in the past, we should be afforded the opportunity to make the most of our luck.
You embarrassed youself with some "stats" on Uniteds spending a couple of months back.
https://www.redcafe.net/f6/teams-buy-trophies-352894/#post11592417
Also you city fans always go on about united being rescued from bankruptcy. Their is a big difference between a new owner who gives you the greatest ever adavantage in the transfer market in england,runs up huge losses and a new owner who saves your skin and turns around the club to make a healthy profit of it. United never had a sugar daddy like you lot claim. Our owners have always taken a big cut.
fair enough, I am no expert on finances. I am shit at managing my own so I have no idea on what is going on at United. I hold my hands up to that.
Is that the only point you wish to raise though about what I posted above?
I also said that if City played United 38 times in a season that there would be more than 2 points in Citys favour. I got ridiculed for that as well. Would people wish to discuss that again seeing as you are bringing shit up I said months ago?
My point is that United were given an opportunity that they took full advantage of, why should City not be afforded the same luxury.
If you can tell me any other way City could have realistically gone about things to win the title than the way we did it then I am all ears.
You've got to be joking mate.
Congrats on the league btw
We were too busy worrying about getting relegated mate to worry about what the rich clubs were doing at the top mate.
Cheers mate, it was a great day for me, not so for you lot. That's the last thing I will say on last season though. It has been and gone. Don't get me wrong, it feels great but lets look forward to the upcoming season now :-)
Why have we stuck to the current model then? Why do we not argue that big clubs had to have control over their own TV rights in the same way Real Madrid and Barca do?
I think as a City fan perhaps you have become so sick of watching United win things year after year, that you are willing to throw out the entire integrity of the game in order to get a quick fix to a point where you could win the league.
I would love to know what your opinion of Roman Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea was 8 years ago.
Citys success is obscuring the grim nightmare of life in Abu Dhabi for many people who are political prisoners, the very poor and the oppressed.
Of course, football owners have rarely been held up as saints, but it's one thing to have a gangster views in the boardroom, quite another to be in a position to enforce them on a whole state. The league champions are autocratic rulers of a country whose wealth comes through the continued consumption of the fossil fuels which is destroying our planet.
Most of the league's owners are part of the 1% whose greed is a defining issue of our time, spending money with impunity while national exchequers are emptied and the public realm gets degraded in an age of austerity even in places such as the UAE where school children lack basic facilities.
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/minister-admits-many-uae-schools-lack-basic-facilities-17043.html
Man citys cheerleaders will urge us to ignore these mere trifles, and focus on the drama; escapism has always been part of its appeal. But English football, is taking its place on the wrong side of the key dividing lines of our century, and we can't– and shouldn't – escape from that.
When City got took over i was part of they will buy the league brigade etc etc, but now my mindset has shifted - this happened over 3 years ago- a marker has been laid down- it is up to Utd to rise to it. Some of our fans sound exactly like what we accuse City fans of sounding like. Utd do not have a god given right to win everything just becuase we have a 'history'. People will lay claim that City and Chelsea with their money have ruined the competiveness of the league etc etc- they have in a sense but the have also attracted a higher calibre of player to the league and it makes it more enjoyable to watch even if it is through gritted teeth. I could rant all day but i wont.
I come on here to talk football and I am keeping to that. If you wish to talk politics or energy then pm me and I will gladly talk to you about them.
I know all about energy from my studies and i am a big fan of renewables so I will gladly talk over your points via pm.
I dont want us to rise to the challenge in a highly unstable manor. We have to live within our means and if that means we arent challenging for the title so be it.
We have to be realistic going foward. We cant match citys spending and wages(I dont think FFP will happen) unless we broke up the TV deal(which I wouldnt want us to do). Even then City could still out spend us.
Basically you couldnt give a dam who owns city once the money comes in like the rest of the city fans.
The records are telling me that United have had a MUCH higher attendance than City every single year since World War II. Now tell me about those lucky breaks in the late 40s...
City is a small club with a very small and not very loyal fan base. Let's assume that the fan base is loyal: Surely there would be more than barely 20.000 fans who attend cup games, right?
This is even more astonishing considering the fact that City probably has the lowest ticket prices in professional football.
Tell me, Dave, 5 quids for people under the age of 15. We're basically talking free tickets here. Shouldn't the Mancunian youth alone fill up the entire Etihad every game? Where are they? Why are there so many empty seats?
If City had not been invested in, United would have walked the league by 20ish points last season and been their 3rd title on the run. Please explain to me how that is competitive?
As for Roman taking over at Chelsea. I am a Manchester City fan who 8 years ago had nothing to look forward to apart from relegations and relegation dog fights. i also happen to live in a big rag area, if not the biggest rag area on the planet. I got Citys flaws rubbed in my face on a daily basis. The rise of Chelsea challenged United so you can probably understand why I would be all for that.
Matt Busby not taken the Liverpool assistant job when he was offered it and heading to OT.
Go check citys attendances for our seasons in the lower divisions. If you want a decent discussion on the merits of City's owners and what they offer to football to degenerate into an empty seat disscussion then go look at pictures from when you played Crystal Palace last year.
A few facts about Manchester for you to chew over. It is one of the poorest places in the country, with some of the lowest employment and education figures in the country. City do damn well to get the fans they do.
As for your point about uniteds figures since world war 2. United did not begin after world war 2 so what was going on before that??
Indeed. Perhaps not that simple but raises a good point.
Not sure whether the sugar daddy approach per se is the way to go, but they seem sensible an seem to be trying their best to do things the right way by building a sustainable model based on success.
It may result in huge losses in the beginning but there's simply no other way to break into the elite. Once you're in it becomes very hard to move you.
How about City arranging fund raising dinners and benefit functions to stop you going bankrupt? How about at what one of these functions City arranged, United finding an investor who stopped you going bankrupt.
How about City siding with United to stop Manchester Central getting your league place who you were again on the verge of going pop and losing your place in the league.
Pretty lucky breaks if you ask me.
We never would have walked the league last season. For one thing Arsenal would be much stronger having not had all their hard work, scouting and resources being bought and used against them, even loaned out to a rival who was competing against them for fourth place.
I can absolutely understand you enjoying United's dominance being challenged and ultimately ended, and maybe watching Chelsea lose their souls as a result was worth while but isn't the club being the club more important to you the winning the league? I mean can you really feel as connected to these players, or to 'the Etihad Stadium' (of which there are many) as you did to City before? They are there for one reason
At last some sense. I would have loved for city to produce 11 world class players and we grew that way and go on to win the league. The reality is though if we had produced top players, they would have been poached from us by the rich clubs before we had any chance to succeed.
There was no other way for City to go about things.
Hardly the same as having the greatest every advantage in the transfer market in England.
United had plenty of bad lucky too with the stadium being bombed and having to pay city rent and a percentage of gate receipts for the use of maine rd.
I don't like the City or Chelsea business model...but I certainly couldn't bugrudge any City fan enjoying it. It's a far cry from ten or even five years ago.
That is a recent re-writing of history with barely any credibility. United held a bazaar at St James' Hall on Oxford Street. City kindly donated £10. They did not arrange it by any means.
Central were not about to get "our" league place, they were bidding to be allowed to join the league in general. Both City and United were against the extra competition - City especially so as the club was founded as a way for all the football fans left behind when City moved from Ardwick to Moss Side to continue to go to a local game. They even had "MCFC" on the gates of their ground.
Someone is always going to have an advantage. Yes it is City at the moment and because it us and no longer you, you are upset about it.
- United's league cup game last season against Chrystal Palace had an attendance of 52,624. What a shitty attendance! Tell my Dave, when was the last time City had a shitty attendance like this?
- I know Manchester very well thank you very much. If United would give away tickets for 5 quid we would have 200.000 - not 20.000 - at every game. Again: Why is the Mancunian youth not going to City games even though the tickets are basically free?
- I didn't find reliable numbers for the pre World War II era. Sorry for only looking AT THE PAST 70 YEARS...
At the end of the day City can only do this for so long. If they invest in their youth academy (which it seems to be doing) and then goes on to blood homegrown talent (which I they will happen) as well as bring i what they need I imagine this to be the long term future.
I don't like how it's happened...but I doubt City fans will care given the last 40 years.
Who benefited most from central not being allowed to join and who was most at risk from them being admitted?
The point I am trying to make is that United have took advantage of every bit of luck that has come their way and fair play to them. That is not to say they have not worked hard, had a good manager, good strategies etc as they have. United had the model that every club should follow. The point is why should City not be allowed to take advantage of the extra huge bit of fortune we have been given??
It's not quite as simple as that though. I think you know that.