Never claimed there is no difference and still get bombarded about it.
Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million
- Thread starter roonster09
- Start date
Football comes in cycles. Some teams dominate and then fade away. Others come back from the ashes. Right now it should have been the golden age of the PL if it weren't for Chelsea and City. Thanks to the TV sponsorship and Sir Alex's retirement the PL is a more even ground than it has ever been.
Teams like Leicester, Tottenham and Everton have pulled up to the top. While teams like us and Arsenal have faded. It should have been a free for all and the emergence of the new footballing elite, but instead we have a sidebob circus of City and Chelsea winning it non stop and we all know why it is.
It's a shame since if these 2 weren't around, our league would have reverted to how it was back in the 60's. I mean Leicester won it just a few years ago for God's sake. And since
Your club on the other hand...
Last time I checked the Glazers didn't have to torture, maim or blow up anyone to get and maintain their wealth. And while they did rub shoulder with the American politics, they only got political scraps. They're not a monopoly. It's not like the Glazers can pick up a phone and bomb a country in the middle east. The only way this would be comparable is if Donald Trump or the Clinton Foundation would've been our owners.
Don't get me started on the Mansour family, but since you've absolved him of any blame let's talk about Abramovich.
As someone who grew up in eastern Europe and fluent in russian I've kept up with the news religiously. Abramovich is part of the russian oligarchs who built their wealth in the 90's. Now the thing that nobody talks about in the west is how these oligarchs where "privatizing" the state owned property back then. Except there was no privatizing, it was an economic war.
You'd blow up your competitors or shoot them on the streets in broad daylight. You'd break unwilling sellers by having your muscle pay them a visit while paying off the cops. It was literally the complete wild east. People who had a stake in the gas or oil companies were left to fend for themselves. There were no sherifs or Clint Eastwood to uphold the law. There was even a court battle in the UK between Abramovich and Berezovskii(another russian oligarch) where they had to explain to the court what a "krysha"(organized racket group) is and how it worked.
And no, we're not even remotely close to any of these guys, and that's not even the problem. This isn't an ethics debate, it's a footballing one.
The problem is that these guys use the funds that they've collected though ill gotten means to gain an advantage over the rest of the league. Their "advantage" is literally funded by human suffering and death while other "historic elite" clubs such as us, Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle are saddled with the owners debts.
There is no sucking up to be done to clubs that literally can print money out of thin air if they needed to. These guys are playing using cheat codes, and for any non gamers on here, cheat codes are bannable offense in any gaming server. Not in football apparently.
Teams like Leicester, Tottenham and Everton have pulled up to the top. While teams like us and Arsenal have faded. It should have been a free for all and the emergence of the new footballing elite, but instead we have a sidebob circus of City and Chelsea winning it non stop and we all know why it is.
It's a shame since if these 2 weren't around, our league would have reverted to how it was back in the 60's. I mean Leicester won it just a few years ago for God's sake. And since
I hate posts like yours, because it down plays Sir Alex's brilliance and equals all our success to the money we spent. But as numerous posters already pointed out, we've never been top spenders during the 90's overall. And ironically we were still dominating the league when we had our "no value in the market" policy and our CM's were consisting of Ando, Cleverly, Scholes on his last league and an ancient Giggs.
Your club on the other hand...
Absolute trainwreck of a post and the fact that you got a like for it makes it even funnier.
Last time I checked the Glazers didn't have to torture, maim or blow up anyone to get and maintain their wealth. And while they did rub shoulder with the American politics, they only got political scraps. They're not a monopoly. It's not like the Glazers can pick up a phone and bomb a country in the middle east. The only way this would be comparable is if Donald Trump or the Clinton Foundation would've been our owners.
Don't get me started on the Mansour family, but since you've absolved him of any blame let's talk about Abramovich.
As someone who grew up in eastern Europe and fluent in russian I've kept up with the news religiously. Abramovich is part of the russian oligarchs who built their wealth in the 90's. Now the thing that nobody talks about in the west is how these oligarchs where "privatizing" the state owned property back then. Except there was no privatizing, it was an economic war.
You'd blow up your competitors or shoot them on the streets in broad daylight. You'd break unwilling sellers by having your muscle pay them a visit while paying off the cops. It was literally the complete wild east. People who had a stake in the gas or oil companies were left to fend for themselves. There were no sherifs or Clint Eastwood to uphold the law. There was even a court battle in the UK between Abramovich and Berezovskii(another russian oligarch) where they had to explain to the court what a "krysha"(organized racket group) is and how it worked.
And no, we're not even remotely close to any of these guys, and that's not even the problem. This isn't an ethics debate, it's a footballing one.
The problem is that these guys use the funds that they've collected though ill gotten means to gain an advantage over the rest of the league. Their "advantage" is literally funded by human suffering and death while other "historic elite" clubs such as us, Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle are saddled with the owners debts.
There is no sucking up to be done to clubs that literally can print money out of thin air if they needed to. These guys are playing using cheat codes, and for any non gamers on here, cheat codes are bannable offense in any gaming server. Not in football apparently.
Quoting myself from the last time a City fan talked shite about how much we spent in the 90s:
In the ten years between the appointment of Sir Alex Ferguson and the end of the 95/96 season, City spent more on transfers than United did. That season, of course, ended with United's third league title (and second double) in four years, and City getting relegated.
In the ten years between the appointment of Sir Alex Ferguson and the end of the 95/96 season, City spent more on transfers than United did. That season, of course, ended with United's third league title (and second double) in four years, and City getting relegated.
that’s very surprising.
They should be celebrating that gobshite Barton more than agueroooo.
Without that colossal bellend, none of that happens.
Chelsea? Chelsea have 3 titles in the past 10 years just like us. We have spent more than Chelsea since Fergie retired.
I don't think that's true. Liverpool, Blackburn, Newcastle, Everton and Spurs all spent more than us during that period, but I'm pretty sure City spent around £10m less.
You can get a general grasp of the figures involved on transfermarkt.com. I wouldn't say it's super accurate but it's in the right ballpark.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/pre...&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0
edit: not sure where that site you linked is pulling its figures from. It says we paid £7,650,000 for Keane. That’s not only more than twice what has always been reported as the fee, it would have absolutely smashed the then British transfer record by several millions.
Last edited:
edit: not sure where that site you linked is pulling its figures from. It says we paid £7,650,000 for Keane. That’s not only more than twice what has always been reported as the fee, it would have absolutely smashed the then British transfer record by several millions.
Which site did you get these numbers from mate?
Various, mostly by checking contemporary press reports where available.
No worries, was hoping they were on a site somewhere. As they look pretty accurate from what i remember of those transfers. Other sites vary wildly in their records of transfer fees.
I've used transferleague in the past, don't think they're 100% accurate but I found them better than transfermarkt.
Never even knew this
edit: not sure where that site you linked is pulling its figures from. It says we paid £7,650,000 for Keane. That’s not only more than twice what has always been reported as the fee, it would have absolutely smashed the then British transfer record by several millions.
Probably because city fans have spent years saying the opposite.
I’ll be sure to bookmark this post.
Thanks I'll check it out.
edit: not sure where that site you linked is pulling its figures from. It says we paid £7,650,000 for Keane. That’s not only more than twice what has always been reported as the fee, it would have absolutely smashed the then British transfer record by several millions.
This is a bit flawed, doesn't account for inflation.
Doesn't negate the brilliant job done by SAF, mind
@Chabon check your math - has 7m for all of 94-95 but doesn't add May's fee in that total. It's in the separate list, however. Keane's fee isn't part of 93-94 total. He cost just under 4m in 93, guess they added it to 92-93.
If it's net total there could be explanation perhaps.
If it's net total there could be explanation perhaps.
Surely there are two separate arguments against City/PSG but slightly different with Chelsea?
1. Cheat code spending: Create fake sponsors or just say f*ck it we buy who we want. Spend a literal multiple of the average of other teams in the league. Create a squad with 2/3 full internationals at every position, buy and then sell if players don't work out and just keep buying til they do. Then, once squad is assembled at huge cost, laude over everyone how much better it is, while they play signings that haven't worked out and youth players, beacuse you know, only you can do it this way.
2. Sportswashing: Use your football team to endear yourself to the Western world so they a: do business with you and b: ignore all those nasty murderous things you do.
For the record, while Roman definitely did nasty stuff to get to where he is, I don't think he uses Chelsea as sportswashing, more likely a way to get money out of Russia into GBP, and because it's just a fun way to spend money, like his fleet of super yachts.
1. Cheat code spending: Create fake sponsors or just say f*ck it we buy who we want. Spend a literal multiple of the average of other teams in the league. Create a squad with 2/3 full internationals at every position, buy and then sell if players don't work out and just keep buying til they do. Then, once squad is assembled at huge cost, laude over everyone how much better it is, while they play signings that haven't worked out and youth players, beacuse you know, only you can do it this way.
2. Sportswashing: Use your football team to endear yourself to the Western world so they a: do business with you and b: ignore all those nasty murderous things you do.
For the record, while Roman definitely did nasty stuff to get to where he is, I don't think he uses Chelsea as sportswashing, more likely a way to get money out of Russia into GBP, and because it's just a fun way to spend money, like his fleet of super yachts.
The literal opposite has happened. More people are aware of Middle East stuff. They just don't care outside of this debate, because people.
And I don't recall Chelsea getting any plaudits for avoiding being "owned" by a nation, before City/PSG came along. They were the original horsemen of the apocalypse to pristine football.
I feel like there are two parts to this. The actual owners versus the ownerships models.
The first, which is the most important, is the humanitarian angle and for which there is zero defence from anyone associated with City. People can spin it how they want and say 'we're bad but you're not much better' but it is a club owned by serial human rights violators who are well on their way with the long term strategy of sportswashing. What amazes me is they aren't even hiding anything - they self sponsored their stadium with Etihad who probably paid 400% over market value, if that wasn't obvious enough, when the Etisalat payments were uncovered and they went to court they hired (bearing in mind CAS states you must hire someone without any connection to either party) Andrew McDougall QC the chair of White & Case's EMEA office whose clients are Etisalat & Etihad
However....if you strip away the off the field issues (which are massively important but just for the sake of argument) and purely look at from an ownership model perspective, I have no issue with Chelsea, minimal issue with City and much more issue with Gazers, Kroenke, Ashley style models.
Chelsea - basically a super rich dude who has completely transformed the club, wiped out their debt and transformed (positively) the area around the stadium.
City - aside from the CFG multiple club network (which makes FFP impossible, probably by design) - I don't see much wrong (ignoring the cheating) with the actual model itself. If a fund wants to pump money into a club that's cool as long as they play by the rules and they're also doing a huge amount for Manchester with the renovations alongside the council.
United - Not a penny, to my knowledge, has come into United from the Glazers' pockets, OT is a battered husk and I can't think of any major improvements they have made since 2003. In 2018 there was Guardian article which calculated the Glazers had taken out roughly the same amount of money ($1b) to that put into City by the Sheikh ($1.3b) which really is all you need to know. United are the blueprint for what every club will become once they are successful enough - even City - long term . When you reach a certain size of fanbase, reputation and revenue, someone will come in, acquire the club through a leveraged buyout and then just keep the club ticking along, whilst taking out money every year.
The first, which is the most important, is the humanitarian angle and for which there is zero defence from anyone associated with City. People can spin it how they want and say 'we're bad but you're not much better' but it is a club owned by serial human rights violators who are well on their way with the long term strategy of sportswashing. What amazes me is they aren't even hiding anything - they self sponsored their stadium with Etihad who probably paid 400% over market value, if that wasn't obvious enough, when the Etisalat payments were uncovered and they went to court they hired (bearing in mind CAS states you must hire someone without any connection to either party) Andrew McDougall QC the chair of White & Case's EMEA office whose clients are Etisalat & Etihad
However....if you strip away the off the field issues (which are massively important but just for the sake of argument) and purely look at from an ownership model perspective, I have no issue with Chelsea, minimal issue with City and much more issue with Gazers, Kroenke, Ashley style models.
Chelsea - basically a super rich dude who has completely transformed the club, wiped out their debt and transformed (positively) the area around the stadium.
City - aside from the CFG multiple club network (which makes FFP impossible, probably by design) - I don't see much wrong (ignoring the cheating) with the actual model itself. If a fund wants to pump money into a club that's cool as long as they play by the rules and they're also doing a huge amount for Manchester with the renovations alongside the council.
United - Not a penny, to my knowledge, has come into United from the Glazers' pockets, OT is a battered husk and I can't think of any major improvements they have made since 2003. In 2018 there was Guardian article which calculated the Glazers had taken out roughly the same amount of money ($1b) to that put into City by the Sheikh ($1.3b) which really is all you need to know. United are the blueprint for what every club will become once they are successful enough - even City - long term . When you reach a certain size of fanbase, reputation and revenue, someone will come in, acquire the club through a leveraged buyout and then just keep the club ticking along, whilst taking out money every year.
I guess the question is if/how much you want clubs to be able to spend above their earnings, and more importantly what that means for any 'competition'.
In a sense, United fans' opinions hold less water here - we're rich enough that we're fine.
But for almost every other club, they simply can't compete. And nor should they. It just makes no sense fundamentally to me.
It would be like having a car race between 20 cars, where 18 of them have to be built by the driver, with the drivers' skill, expertise and own funds. There will be variance in thoes factors, but it's still about the driver. Then the other 2 clubs are able to hire Ferrari and Honda or whatever to come in with professional, bleeding edge technology, and lo and behold thoes cars go faster.
It's worse with PSG, but I don't understand how you can even call it a competition at that point or take it seriously at all.
In a sense, United fans' opinions hold less water here - we're rich enough that we're fine.
But for almost every other club, they simply can't compete. And nor should they. It just makes no sense fundamentally to me.
It would be like having a car race between 20 cars, where 18 of them have to be built by the driver, with the drivers' skill, expertise and own funds. There will be variance in thoes factors, but it's still about the driver. Then the other 2 clubs are able to hire Ferrari and Honda or whatever to come in with professional, bleeding edge technology, and lo and behold thoes cars go faster.
It's worse with PSG, but I don't understand how you can even call it a competition at that point or take it seriously at all.
If that is true then why are City only enormously successful under Pep? Pellegrini/Mancini didnt achieve as much. And why (Given all the funding) hasnt ole/LVG/Moyes etc have Utd not succeeded?
You know as well as me it is the manager. Utd had SAF, City now have Pep. And if you believe that City are going to be forever top dog just because of money even when Pep has gone then you're mad. Football doesnt work like that, it takes a brilliant manager to make it work, the money makes it easier.
You can dispute which ‘season’ a transfer took place in, especially in the time before modern windows, but the claim I made was that in total over that period Fergie spent less on transfers than City, (no idea about wages, mind) which the full list of transfers shows to be true.
Last edited:
Is inflation relevant?
This is an account of money spent by both clubs over the same period of time.
The Glazers actively funded Trump. Actively assisted a deluded racist to get into power . . and their man organised and funded atrocities in Venezuela, maintained the USA’s torture & deaths camps at Guantanamo et al and etc.
If you think that the billionaires that pay for presidential campaigns, to put in place their chosen man, can wash their hands of what their man does, then I call you out as being Trump himself and claim my $5.
The point about transfers/spending (above) is well made - in general. It's true that United spent relatively "little" compared to what Chelsea and City were up to some years later. Not comparable at all - and also worth noting that United were frequently outspent by the likes of Liverpool (and others - Newcastle, Blackburn, even Everton as mentioned above) both in individual seasons and over longer periods.
However, it has to be said that just looking at total transfer spending over X years might be slightly misleading. The bigger picture also involves salaries - not least. But also the fact that United's financial position allowed us to target the best of the best domestically - and outmuscle rivals. Keane was a record transfer - as was Andy Cole. Both crucial signings that made sure the dominance we were in the process of establishing could continue. City - to make an obvious example - back then wouldn't have been in a position to make those signings - even if they had otherwise been a plausible destination for those players (which they weren't, of course). They spent a lot of money in total - yes - but they didn't have the financial muscle United had in terms of signing the biggest/most expensive targets.
If you (already) have a great team (or even a great team in the making), you don't need to spend a shitload on transfers every season - an obvious point to make, but there you go, it's also part of the bigger picture.
However, it has to be said that just looking at total transfer spending over X years might be slightly misleading. The bigger picture also involves salaries - not least. But also the fact that United's financial position allowed us to target the best of the best domestically - and outmuscle rivals. Keane was a record transfer - as was Andy Cole. Both crucial signings that made sure the dominance we were in the process of establishing could continue. City - to make an obvious example - back then wouldn't have been in a position to make those signings - even if they had otherwise been a plausible destination for those players (which they weren't, of course). They spent a lot of money in total - yes - but they didn't have the financial muscle United had in terms of signing the biggest/most expensive targets.
If you (already) have a great team (or even a great team in the making), you don't need to spend a shitload on transfers every season - an obvious point to make, but there you go, it's also part of the bigger picture.
Some good points but to be fair the best salaries in England during the 90's weren't on offer at United.
They also donate to democrat presidential campaigns. Most of these US billionaires donate to both parties.
The glazers donated to Clinton too. All the big wigs play both sides mate.
Probably true - I would guess that individual players elsewhere made more than United's top earners (the old plc had a policy with regards to that). But it strikes me as a complicated question - would like to see some numbers posted.
It would also be a question of total wages (compared to rivals) - not just who the biggest individual earners were at the time. And a question of bonuses, etc.
Pretty sure Shearer - to make an obvious example - was on more money than any United player at the time in terms of his basic contract.
It would be interesting to see an overall wage expenditure for all the top clubs back then. Not sure if that info is available anywhere though.
I'd say most PL teams certainly the top 10 back then would have had players on more than Uniteds top earners. Going off Middlesbrough and Chelsea having Ravenelli and Desailly respectively on 40-50k almost double anything United could offer. I'm nearly sure that's why we lost out on Desailly to Chelsea back then.
And there's been loads of stories from Ferguson and Edwards over the years of how we couldn't attract numerous players from England and Europe because of the relatively low wages on offer at United because of the PLC's rigid wage structure.
I could be wrong but I think I remember reading somewhere the top wages at United £20-25k stayed the same level from the late 80's early 90's right up until Keane got his new contract in 2001 which broke the wage structure. And explains how we could finally sign a genuine world star like Veron in the summer of 2001.
It wouldn't be if both clubs spent at the same rate over the same period of time. But that's not the case. But ignore me I'm being a nerd
I get you. To be fair, I'd imagine the effect of inflation is pretty negligible looking at the spread of fees per season!
I'm pretty sure Football365 did an article about 'buying' the league a couple of years back. Basically, Utd have only spent the most in a summer 1-2 times from the 90's onwards but we are consistently top 2-3 so taken over a period of several years we could be 'accused' of buying the league.
That being said it always seems difficult to ascertain what spend to count and discount. A number of posters reguarly throw out our total spend since Fergie for example but this includes Di Maria, Lukaku and Sanchez amongst others. Surely, the best measure is the total spend on players currently contracted to the club (similar to how Sky occasionally show transfers to demonstrate the price of squads on Manchester Derby day). I imagine City and Chelsea are way out in front as they have big squads with big fees for most players while Utd have more homegrown players.
That being said it always seems difficult to ascertain what spend to count and discount. A number of posters reguarly throw out our total spend since Fergie for example but this includes Di Maria, Lukaku and Sanchez amongst others. Surely, the best measure is the total spend on players currently contracted to the club (similar to how Sky occasionally show transfers to demonstrate the price of squads on Manchester Derby day). I imagine City and Chelsea are way out in front as they have big squads with big fees for most players while Utd have more homegrown players.
I might do a progress chart thing of the spending at some point, which would illuminate this a little. We were relatively consistent over the decade, whereas City splurged massively a couple of times either when coming up or worrying about going down (which they did anyway.)
When Roman arrived, wasn't a key factor that Chelsea were suddenly offering the full fee up front (or bulk of) whereas most clubs paid a portion here and there?
On top of offering more wages. Seem to recall after United lowballed PSV for Robben, Chelsea swooped in, met PSV's valuation, permitted the player to remain at PSV for a few more months, and offered Robben double (or near that) what United had offered. It was a huge benefit for Chelsea in transfers whereas United were still haggling with a PLC board.
On top of offering more wages. Seem to recall after United lowballed PSV for Robben, Chelsea swooped in, met PSV's valuation, permitted the player to remain at PSV for a few more months, and offered Robben double (or near that) what United had offered. It was a huge benefit for Chelsea in transfers whereas United were still haggling with a PLC board.
He's spent what... £500m-£600m in the last four seasons? Pretty sure that helped as while previous managers supported, don't think to this level.
But that's not the main issue for this thread. To be clear, I don't care if City spend billions, IF they earn it.. they don't, they think of a number, double it, add a zero and stick it on a sponsorship contract.
And don't link Pep and Fergie and imply they've done similar things in a similar manner. Not even close.
Man City fans
There are some decent folk among you, but then there are the likes of you.Trainwreck of a post after trainwreck of a post.
This is a footballing forum, but since you like to bring up politics let's discuss it.
There is a difference between donating to a political campaign and being part of an organized racket group. Learn the difference.
You mentioned Guantanamo being a death camp. Name me one person that died in it in the last 10 years. Pro tip, you can't because there weren't any. And here's another interesting statistic for you. Under Trump the number of detainees went down from 785 to just 55.
If you want to talk about war, then Trump is the only US president that didn't start a new war or conflict in more than 1 century. That thing alone should blow your mind. This also explains why the numbers went down at Guantanamo. No new conflicts, no new POWs.
And if you want to talk about Venezuela, then a group of 20 mercs that got rounded up in 20 minutes is hardly a war crime considering what the previous administrations did to Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria, Middle East in general.
Also Trump wasn't elected by the Glazers. It's not like they put him in power via proxy. USA has such a thing called democracy(technically Federal Republic) something that Monsour can learn a thing or two about. And guess what, the same system decided in 2020 that they don't want him as President. And all of that despite the Glazers funding him.
Your attempt at somehow trying to paint the Glazers as this crime syndicate that plays GoT style games within American politics is laughable. The Glazers only care about the money. They don't care if the US bombs a God forsaken country or not. The only reason they donated to the Trump campaign is to get tax cuts, which he delivered. Not saying the Glazers are saints, but you're just trying to whitewash away the crimes of your sugar daddy by making the Glazers x1000 worse than they are.
Also, let's keep this football related. I'm not in the mood to discuss politics right now.
Nobody is downplaying the level of coaching and club maintenance that SAF did. Man Utd was a top club through both on field and off field management. That gave them a dominant advantage to bring in top players. That was also a time when TV money was individual to each club. Man Utd was raking in TV money while other clubs were getting scraps. All that exposure also drew in players who could get big endorsements. So yes clubs that could use funds, had to spend to get the same level of players. Man Utd was still in a dominant position and in the last 20 years has been spending as much as Chelsea and City. It is really disingenuous to say these clubs are spending their way to the top, Man Utd has just not got the return for their money. Some of that is probably due to a drop in managers since SAF retired. Look at the difference between Lampard and Tuchel with the same players. The other is your management and transfer deals are bizarre. Whom ever is trying to put these deals together is acting like they are going to dictate what other clubs will sell players for? Let alone the agents are never going to advise their clients to accept these deals. Man Utd are no longer the dominant club in the EPL, and most of the reasons are internal, not because City and Chelsea ruined anything. It would be different if you weren't buying expensive players and paying high wages. If Man Utd wants be dominant again, it will take getting back to having a well run club with top management. That does not exist right now and I am pretty sure level headed fans know that. Man Utd no longer values dominating the league. The club owners and management value top 4 for income and selling merchandise. It is who Man Utd is until the people running the club go back to valuing trophies. Right now even the manager says that winning trophies is just an ego boost. If the manager of Chelsea made that statement, I would count the days until he was sacked. You play to win.
I agree.
And both hues of US government are equal in their position as being the worlds biggest human rights abusers - both sides fund the brutal and racist military occupation of Palestine, both sides fund the US torture camps, the illegal wars, the tearing down of legitimate governments etc.
No country invades, interferes, bombs and murders like the USA does and those US governments are put in place by US billionaires (including the Glazers) and my point was that those lemon sucking United supporters calling out City for being supposedly funded by ‘dirty’ money are being ridiculous in a scenario where United is controlled by people who sponsor the US government.
People in glass houses / pot, kettle, black etc.
And democratic presidents don’t carry out illegal invasions / drone assassinations on foreign soil /run torture camps / fund the ongoing genocide in illegally occupied Palestine etc?
Point being that those throwing out accusations of sports washing at other clubs should look to who owns their own club and how clean their hands are.