You would say that.
Man City 2020/21 - General discussion
- Thread starter Suedesi
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) review both the Everton and Bodø/Glimt victories at Old Trafford. Listen to the guys discuss 2 wins and 7 goals in the last week, analyse of the Amorim formation, focus on Amad and how he is playing, and also take a look at Hojlund, Rashford & Zirkzee – who starts v Arsenal?
You would say that.
Both things can be true.
. Your revenue is that your owners and their families sign sponsorship deals with club. Your real revenue isn't 10% of that 500milThought we looked tired today, always the case after an away game in Europe - any win is a good win in those circumstances.
I disagree. I don't think that Guardiola ignores the money factor. But yeah, he has said contradictory things in the past.
Yeah he knows deep down that their finances will always give them & Chelsea a huge advantage over everyone else
My heart bleeds for you being 13 points ahead and the league wrapped up
Man Utd have the largest wage bill in the Premiership. Let's not pretend there are not situations where you comfortably outspend your rivals. Some would see that as a financial advantage. I don't think City or Chelsea could be clamed for spending a higher proportion of their available player budget on transfer fees and a lower proportion on wages. That's a choice that's made by Woodward and the Glazers.
They’ve had an incredible month with the toughest of fixtures (on paper) and their best player injured. Can’t say they don’t deserve to be champions. We certainly don’t after the month we’ve had.
There is no doubt we have spent and on the whole wasted a lot of money in this past 8 years, however I don't feel there is enough made in the press about just how much those scumbag yankee leeches have taken out in dividends. Do I need to remind you of the infamous no value in the market crap from 09-13 meaning we lost out on the likes of Silva, Sneijder, Modric & Aguero.
Helps they have at least 2 players for every position though and a bench worth a fortune too
Yeah, the only fans I know who are upset about this idea of buying success are those who were previously in the nice cosy position of being the richest club in their league and thus always being able to pay the highest transfer fees and wages and always being the biggest attraction when the next Rooney comes onto the scene. That is the difficult thing for a lot of fans to accept. I'm sure Bayern fans would be the same if say, Union Berlin got a rich backer.
Can you stop comparing us to those sugar daddy oil clubs when we earnt that money with years of success
Yeah that's certainly true, and no doubt it impacted your spending
Exactly and would just be nice if the media crawled out of City's arse and acknowledged it just once
As a Bayern fan, i very much agree with your statement.
Guardiola has his entire career said he's lucky to have both the players he has and the resources he's had at every club but people just don't listen. Even when he comes out and straight up says "yeah having 2 players for each position and loads of money helps" people the say its disingenuous even though he's repeating exactly what they say. He can't win.
You are wrong. All PL clubs except City include the wages of all staff in their wage bills. City have created another company & moved hundreds of their staff wages into this. We are not just talking about groundsmen & cleaners. There is a plethora of very highly paid executives & ambassadors.
Busted
IMO, it’s down to how much a clubs owners care about success on the pitch combined with club turnover.
I know that it may ruffle a few feathers to mention it but FFP means that the most commercially successful clubs can spend more on players and salaries than less successful clubs [for those of us who don’t buy into the more outrageous conspiracy theories]
iirc United have the largest turnover in the PL, so can spend more than any other PL club, they have the largest wage bill in the PL, the highest paid keeper in the known universe and are not shy about spending massively on recruitment as Paul Pogba, Harry Maguire and many others will attest.
I can understand the likes of say Brighton supporters not being overly chuffed that City choose to reinvest in playing staff, but it just seems a bit weird that (some) supporters of the PL club with the greatest earnings and therefore greatest capacity to spend under FFP, and that has the highest wage bill in Christendom, should get uptight about City’s owners showing the kind of generosity of spirit towards their sporting investment that the same United supporters would welcome from their own owners.
BTW, That’s me questioning the anti-City’s owners rhetoric, I’m not trying to say that United can’t do very well under the Glazers, the big name players and big wages pay tribute to the fact that they will spend where needed.
I had my doubts about Ole but he’s proven me wrong. He seems to get better all the time and I think you’re back in the top 4, competing for the PL and all major honours from hereon in if you stick with what’s got you on that steady line of improvement
It's just acknowledging your privilege. As a Bayern fan, I do not hate Leipzig, I admit Bayern has been lucky in the past when other clubs were not ready
In 20yrs time, city fans will be whining about how Newcastle don't deserve their success because it was bought with Saudi money
Good to see Bayern fans acknowledging this. Lots of other fans show a shocking lack of awareness when they complain about the oil money clubs.
It's one thing having money, it's another thing spending it wisely. It's also great having stellar names in your squad and it's also another thing knitting together these big names into a great team.
Pep has done both at Man City. If Pep had our squad he'd have won a couple of trophies already.
Pep has done both at Man City. If Pep had our squad he'd have won a couple of trophies already.
Not sure if you’re on a wind up here. The sports-washing clubs like City, Chelsea and PSG are resented by fans of all sizes of clubs. Its not just exclusive to United fans.
If all of a sudden Union Berlin were able to spend their way to a Bundesliga title are you saying that Hertha BSC fans would welcome it with open arms?
Give your head a wobble.
I think one thing many United fans underestimate is the timing of the Ferguson years. Your domestic dominance coincided with the biggest influx of the money that English and European football have ever seen. That's not something you caused and hence merited to benefit from so much; it just happened to be like that. If ithis growth would have happened in the 70s and 80s, it would have been clubs like Liverpool and Everton that would've established themselves in your current financial position, i.e., global top dogs, and not you. (Although Liverpool is thereabouts anyway, as they somehow refused to completely fade into irrelevance after the 80s.)
Of course, it wasn't a giant gift handed out to a random club, like what happened to City, Chelsea, and PSG. I agree that this is different. But it's hard to get to your current level from nowhere without a financial impulse. For example, fans of a club like Everton would have reason to complain that they can't compete financially with you just because you got lucky with your period of dominance. In that sense, I liked @NicolaSacco's comparison with Bayern above.
As it is, that's the one thing I like about the salary cap, trade, and draft pick systems in the big US sports leagues: it helps create a somewhat level playing field, where every club ('franchise', urgh) has a realistic chance to become the season's best team in the foreseeable future - unlike in football, where a club's richness (be it earned in the past or given) correlates with success very strongly. I'm sure that's nice for a fan of United in the current day (were it not for boardroom mismanagement), but as a neutral, I don't enjoy it.
Very good point. Having spent a billion pounds on players since Ferguson I still continually hear fans complaining about the style of United's football and the lack of a cohesive way of playing. Maybe it has something to do with several different managers in a short period who have very different philosophies on football.
He's a better manager so it's a given he would be doing a much better job but Manchester City is also offering him his dream set up. So something has change in the way United is recruiting managers that have complete different approaches that makes impossible for the team to build into some progression.
In the 90's-00's Liverpool spent money comparable to United's and won nothing.
I am sure back then they also moaning about United spending (Roy Keane, A. Cole, Ferdinand, Rooney, all record transfers at the time).
Spend wisel, and the manager.
BBC running the quadruple talk again.Why don’t they try get a treble first.
I think that the whole problem with this discussion of criticizing City and PSG for their oil money is the talk of "buying sucess, not earning it". All clubs in history became sucessful due to money in some degree. And often corruption. Where do we draw the line of what is and isn't buying sucess, but not earning it?
Think back to Milan in the 80s. Milan had tradition as a big club in the 50s and 60s. But that was completely gone in the 80s. Milan was even relegated to the second division. It was a dark and hopeless age. Milan had truly become an ex-big club.
Then Silvio Berlusconi bought the club, injected insane amounts of money, made a good bet on Arrigo Sacchi as coach, bought stars, made the best squad in the world and the rest is history. Is anyone gonna say to me with a straight face that Berlusconi's money was honest? He wasn't a sheik, but he was still a person with loads of corruption and mafia ties who bought a club and made it big again almost overnight. And yet I never see anyone complaining that Milan bought their sucess and didn't earn it. Maybe people did back in the 80s and 90s, but not anymore. Or does the fact that Milan had been a big club decades before Berlusconi bought it suddenly makes all of that okay? Like small teams such as City are not morally allowed to such?
Last edited:
Well said
Neither do I think Romans money is any cleaner than Mansoor or Nasser.
All the big clubs including Bayern, Barcelona Madrid all take money or sponsorship from Qatar and UAE as well.
Without outside injection of money, no club will be able to challenge the established clubs
if the Sheik's feck off and City go back to being shit I'n sure everyone will forget about it and stop complaining about it in 30 years time
I'm not sure what this example proves other than people forget about stuff after a generation
So, are you saying that Milan bought sucess and deserves the same criticism too? Or did you really miss my main point, which is of where we draw the line between buying sucess or earning it, concepts that are very simplistic, idealistic and black-and-white in a world as muddy and corrupt as football is. I recommend the comment from user kaiser1 replying me, he totally got my point:
Ah yes, i remember the cries in the pub of the early 2000s. "United won the league again after taking everyones best players, but I don't resent them because their money is earned from match-day revenue."
Not the most quotable thing ever heard in the grove on a Saturday afternoon but...
I think we agree for the most part.
I don't think anyone deserves criticism. Buying success is just something rival fans will bring up because that's what football fans do, and it won't change.
'Success earned > success bought' is pretty much ingrained throughout culture. There is a lot of nuance to it in terms of football but you don't get as black and white as City. Going from the likes of Shawn Goater and Danny Tiatto to Aguero and Silva within 10/15 years.
But people will forget about it after a couple of decades like they have with Milan, and if the success continues they'll slowly be given more credence for it.
Milan got relegated for corruption in 1980. Now it barely gets mentioned.
I got it now. If City maintains their sucess, people will forget about the sheik as they forgot about Berlusconi. Berlusconi elevated Milan in the 80s to another. Imagine suddenly having Van Basten and Gullit in your team a few years after you got relegated. And Milan was relegated twice. The first was due to corruption, as you said. The second one because the team was really terrible.
No one's complaining about "buying success". It's becoming a new club operating under an old name that's off pissing. City are brilliant and boring, both of which, whatever they were through the 80s and 90s, they weren't then. Wish it had been Sunderland or Forest or anyone else, obviously. Because they are about to one up Utd and do the quadruple.
its true though. There is an awful lot of resentment to City [and ourselves]; because the Sheikh bought them and turned them into a powerhouse. And its of course jealousy. There is no other explanation for it.
Pretty much it. You simply need huge investment now with the way the sport is going. If the Saudi's had bought Newcastle, within 3 yrs theyd have had a incredible squad and possibly have won the title, too.
Liverpools' dominance in the 80s was funded by the Moore's family who owned Littlewoods. They were kind of the equivalent of City, PSG, Chelsea of the era