I think you'll find players care less about wages and what a team is winning today.
A survey of 100 players showed the number one concern for players when choosing where to go, is club history and size of fan base.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
I think you'll find players care less about wages and what a team is winning today.
A survey of 100 players showed the number one concern for players when choosing where to go, is club history and size of fan base.
If that's the only comment you have on that whole post, I think you have to concede they are making at least one point you can't refute.
Tell me honestly that you would engage with that chap’s angry ranting! More fool you if you would. I’ve tried to respond to every post on here, whether I agree with it or not, and I’ve remained polite. I’ll engage on that basis with absolutely anyone, but I draw the line at posters with zero emotional regulation, posters who can apparently effortlessly spot the bias in other people’s arguments, but don’t have the basic self awareness needed to recognise it in themselves. I think I’ll pass!
It’s actually ‘ability to waken a sleeping giant’ that they go for!
There’s nothing angry in that post is there? Not that I can see.
He actually makes some good points about how uncompetitive the state owned monstrosity have made the league and cups.
Seems you responded in that way as you couldn’t really refute his points so tried some form of gaslighting by claiming him to be angry?
His literal first sentence is that i’m
‘Shrouded in bitterness’. If you don’t think that’s an angry, ad hominem attack then I don’t know what to say.
I have tried to respond to the points he raised, on other replies to other posters (there’s a lot of replication of arguments so I’m not avoiding anything).
As for the competitiveness issue, City have done nothing that hasn’t already been done by Utd. If you didn’t complain about it back in the 90s and 2000s, yet you are complaining about it now, then I think you need to be honest and say it’s not the competitiveness that’s the real problem, it’s the fact that the dominant team is not Utd.
What angry ranting?
Methinks you're seeing something you want to see, not what's actually there.
What absolute drivel. Please enlighten us all when did Utd repeatedly break the rules and over inflate sponsorships etc. in the 90’s and 2000’s??
Great post.
When did Utd breach the rules of the league and manipulate financial agreements to cover it up?
Utd were only the biggest spenders in the league 3 times between 1992 and 2014.
There’s clear bitterness in your postings on this subject, calling that out isn’t an angry reaction, it’s calling a spade a spade.
Oh Yeah, all us United fans were desperate to make the league anti competitive and get taken over by BSkyB.
Oh wait….
Not been following what else you wrote, but surely you are on the wind up with this?
Everybody accepts that success is comes in cycles, but what no one can accept is a club doing it through breaking all the rules, and all for the ultimate gain of sportswashing, as lets face it their owners never gave a toss about City the football club, how is this good for football in any way?
United have actually been fortunate, as City's 'success' has come when we have been at our worst for decades, it's Liverpool it's stopped in their tracks who should have been winning way more than they have.
Spot on
It’s an utterly bizarre argument, as if we’d be complaining now about anti competitiveness and cheating if Liverpool were the dominant team, with Leicester, Spurs, Liverpool & Arsenal winning leagues since SAF retired.
Makes absolutely zero sense.
It’s as though City stopped our dominance rather than things post Fergie going back to how they were pre Fergie.
Odd.
In fact, how anyone can argue it’s a good thing for an entire state to own a football club and for competitiveness is absolutely nuts.
When did I SAY they did?!
Didn't say that they did. Nor do I think that they did. I was talking about football achievements like winning the treble, winning three premier leagues in a row, multiple CL finals in a short space of time. If you look you’ll see I was clearly responding to a post about competitiveness, not financial fair play. So my point stands. Everything City have won has been done already by Utd.
Ha ha, ‘clear bitterness’. I think you are projecting there, fella.
Hope they're guilty but Pep will go down as probably the best manager in history and KDB is probably the best PL midfielder at this point.
City are financial dopers in my eyes, but take nothing away from their recruitment.
City are financial dopers in my eyes, but take nothing away from their recruitment.
in which the context was about competitiveness, not spending. Apooogies if that wasn’t obvious, but it’s been cleared up now.
I do not care that you call me a City-fan. I am just sick and tired of people like you talking about things they have not a clue about. You talk about cheap signings indicating that City officially pay one transfer fee while paying more under the table. That means that the 56 clubs City has bought players from the last 16 years has been part of the fraud accepting money under the table. Don't you understand how braindead that argument is ?
You said City did nothing that hadn’t already been done by United.
It IMPLIES that United had success by unfair means
Nothing serves as a better admission of guilt than seeing the overcompensating sportswashing fans trying to derail this thread. They know, deep down, that the success of the soulless institution that usurped their football club is hollow and fraudulent. Otherwise they wouldn’t feel this giant need to reassure themselves by telling each other how great they are and the need to explain to their enemies how fair everything was. They aren’t trying to convince anyone from us. They are trying to convince themselves.
Last edited:
Even then if someone takes issue with someones accomplishments because of the underhanded way in which they were achieved would you not say that is slightly different then just being annoyed that they are winning and you aren't?
I’ve no idea how you reach that conclusion from my post? I felt it was researched and reasoned with plenty of acceptance of Uniteds current position, our history and how I feel succes in football should be achieved.
Perhaps the fact that im Not desperate for United to dominate and therefore confirm your preconceived notions puts you at a loss?
No idea how this fits my post either
It’s braindead if you think the extra money went to those clubs rather than the agents and the player/manager (eg. Mancini).
Not sure where I’ve talked about cheap signings, you’ve just made that part up lad.
But sure, 115 charges… nothing to see here
Get out you City wum.
Angry ranting = you’re right but can’t engage with that.No idea how this fits my post either
Y
Yes and I’d have sympathy with those for whom this is *genuinely* about fairness and consistent respect for the rules. But I have less sympathy for those who hide behind that reasoning when this is just about your rivals going through a period of success whilst your team stagnates.
Yes and I’d have sympathy with those for whom this is *genuinely* about fairness and consistent respect for the rules. But I have less sympathy for those who hide behind that reasoning when this is just about your rivals going through a period of success whilst your team stagnates.
I think you would be surprised how many Utd fans are genuinely just really turned off by how City have got to where they are rather than just looking for an excuse for our annoyance. There is no excuse needed, if it was just that we were annoyed by City being great that would be a totally logical feeling for a Utd fan to have.
But for all clubs in this country they stagnate more than they are successful? That is the beauty of football. I genuinely don’t see that anyone in here believes that the minute City are relegated, United will become dominant. The two have zero correlation.
There’s a reason why people don’t acknowledge what Ben Johnson achieved or Lance Armstrong. The same reason why the majority of United fans don’t care what City win, just that they win, if it stops Liverpool winning.
Outside of that though, like most rational people, surely you just want to see cheaters punished? And success be achieved rightfully and fairly. You’d have to question why anybody would be against such a premise. It isnt rational.
Of the 3 clubs who can, I would rather Arsenal won the league this year, followed by Liverpool, followed by City, so yes, to an extent I’d prefer to see a club doing it under their own steam. And a club who hasn’t done it for a while. And when it comes to the matches in Europe I’ll probably make more effort to watch almost all other English clubs than I will to watch City. I just don’t draw the same line as you when it comes to assessing competitiveness. If City have a 20 year period from 2013-2033 like Utd did from 1993-2013 I’d definitely find it boring and want it to stop*. Whether they got their money from selling noodles in Taiwan or profits from a state business would be neither here nor there for me. But I appreciate I might be a minority on this board with that view!
*however I don’t see that happening, I think that Pep is their Alex Ferguson and when he goes, probably next summer, they’ll stop dominating as much,
And there lies the root of your rationale. You see the thing is is that you’re happy to wrap everything up in the same bundle and ignore financial doping, because to you it’s the thing that made it stop.
To United fans it’s not about making it stop. In fact if City go away suddenly then Liverpool may well overtake our total of 20 league titles.
But in all honesty who reads that a football club have signed up to rules that everyone is adhering to, has 115 charges of breaching those rules, refuses to cooperate with the governing body, externally it’s owners and directors are running a racket job with governments and councilors….and equates all of that with selling noodles in Taiwan.
If you can see it, it’s bizarre.
I suppose I’m taking the 115 charges thing with a pinch of salt. They may be the same charge repeated 115 times, or they may be all different. For what it’s worth, regardless of how many of them are actually proven (or not) and what the punishment is (or isn’t), I’m not debating whether or not they’ve spent more than they’ve earned. Basic maths tells me there is no other explanation. But these rules didn’t exist at all for the first 100 years of football, I don’t see it as being essential to the integrity of the game or anything. If you took out the teams bought by Jack Walker and Abramovic Utd would have won 17 out of 20, or something ridiculous.
I do agree that I’m ‘wrapping everything up in the same bundle’, it’s not something that I’ve ever sought to deny. From my perspective I want to see a premier league with as many potential winners as possible, and with as much variation as possible. That’s what makes it exciting for me. It was boring when Utd were so dominant and I think we’re not far off the time where it’ll become boring that City are so dominant. I accept that one bought success through oil riches and one through legitimate income, but strictly speaking from the point of view of a watcher looking for excitement, the source of the money is not relevant. All I see, and all I’m interested in, is the end product. The absolute worst scenario for me would be a Bayern Munich situation, and I think that’s where we were headed without rich owners putting their own money in.
It didn't come across as angry to me. They took multiple paragraphs to explain how they feel, and to be fair, I agree with what they're saying. If anything, City have done United a favour, as they've prevented Liverpool dominating the last decade, but they've also stood in the way of other established clubs who haven't had the benefit of being the playing of the rulers of an oil state, and shut them out of contention while not playing by the same rules.
I think they should just have a lottery at the start of every season and declare a winner, but then the winner isn't allowed to win it the next season.
Gives it more variation and makes it more interesting for the neutral fan that isn't really interested anyway.
Or better yet, make winning contingent on who is the best managed and coached team. Not on who won stuff in the 80s and has a crazy advantage due to that, or who has a oligarch as an owner.
Crazy right?
I'm pretty sure @NicolaSacco has made the argument a few times. I get the sentiment well enough, even if i think its a weak argument. The idea United were an unstoppable juggernaut that could only be stopped by City just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. I suppose Arsenal, Liverpool or Spurs winning leagues isn't exactly a fairy tale ending for underdogs but they look a hell of a lot easier, for a much wider range of clubs to catch up with than a doped up City.
Still, he's kind of right and some kind of across the board salary cap is probably the fairest way forward
Still, he's kind of right and some kind of across the board salary cap is probably the fairest way forward
Do you have more respect for the achievements of a boy born in a council house that gets rich by being very shrewd, taking a bunch of risks, working tirelessly and building a huge noodle selling business in Taiwan than a lad who has a rich uncle he has no connection to die and leaves him a fortune then he breaks a bunch of tax rules to end up more successful than our self made noodle salesman?
That's all the view is, as simple as that.
I think in some minds there is this desire/fantasy/wish that a state sponsored sugar daddy would (or did) purchase their club.