Manchester City Thread

You're just looking at debt from a Utd perspective tho. Just because Utd can handle huge debts in the long run it doesn't mean other clubs can. Debt is just another form of losses. FFP not taking into account debt is farcical.

But then FFP is just a farce to placate the naive. It's another crony tool added on top of the PL and the CL for the elite to remain the elite via shady off the field means.
If the PL and UEFA were interested in fairness they would go back to how football was before they made it largely noncompetitive.

As for Mansour walking away, if that did happen it would not be a Leeds, nvm "far worse". We have no debt. All that would happen would be that Mansour would be out of pocket and we'd have to lower the wage bill. We would be weaker but in no way a Leeds.
I'm glad he doesn't go to games btw. It shows that he's not got a huge ego like some other owners and that he leaves the football entirely to people with far more knowledge than himself.
 
Last edited:
Godotelli said:
You're just looking at debt from a Utd perspective tho. Just because Utd can handle huge debts in the long run it doesn't mean other clubs can. Debt is just another form of losses. FFP not taking into account debt is farcical.

But then FFP is just a farce to placate the naive. It's another crony tool added on top of the PL and the CL for the elite to remain the elite via shady off the field means.
If the PL and UEFA were interested in fairness they would go back to how football was before they made it largely noncompetitive.

As for Mansour walking away, if that did happen it would not be a Leeds, nvm "far worse". We have no debt. All that would happen would be that Mansour would be out of pocket and we'd have to lower the wage bill. We would be weaker but in no way a Leeds.
I'm glad he doesn't go to games btw. It shows that he's not got a huge ego like some other owners and that he leaves the football entirely to people with far more knowledge than himself.
Click to expand...

Your biggest sponsor is his cousin. You think your revenues - propped up by all the Emerati funds - are going to stay that high? Erm. K.

So you have an owner who has sunk a billion pounds into something that will never pay him back as an investment, and doesn't care enough about it to come to games, and you're happy he leaves that to football people.

Do you think he's a philanthropist with a soft-spot for Manchester, England?

That's what I just don't get. Abramovich I dig - he needs to get his money out of Russia 'cleanly' plus he seems to quite enjoy himself, at a staidum near to where he owns half the f*cking post code.

Then again, these are the same people that built a ski resort in a desert. So yeah. It's almost a race to see who can piss through their country's natural resources the fastest...
 
Our revenue won't be as high, that's why I said we'd need to lower the wage bill.

Yes, I'm happy he leaves the football to football people. Much happier with him than an Ambramovich or a Tan.
 
I don't think FFP were implemented to have a "fair" competition. The FFP were implemented to stop people to buying clubs, injecting money and if things don't go according to their plans leave the club with massive debts, or worse not be able to paying the transfers to other clubs. And thus creating a "snow ball" effect. Just think of Malaga, some guy bought the club, bought great players and in two years he was out, leaving them with massive debts to other teams. That's the problem, teams that have nothing to do with that are harmed. Now they don't have the player or the money, and probably bought other players to replace the star (imagine if Real folded and Bale wasn't paid, how Tottenham would repaid all the teams that they bought players from?).

FFP is a good thing for football. Teams have to sell to buy in some way, instead of just buying without sense (like Man City). Good examples are Chelsea and Real this season, sold Mata and Özil/Higuain to buy a future striker for Chelsea and Bale for Madrid.
 
Doesn't matter what those pushing FFP say the intentions of FFP are. Should you not be allowed to spend in order to grow?* Good chairmen shouldn't be punished because there are bad chairmen. This old 'we have to do this to protect the small people' is a line used by every self-serving figure in the history of civilization.

If someone could come up with a regulation that doesn't have bad unintended (if we take the naive interpretation) consequences I wouldn't be against it. I do not think FFP is that regulation however. We will pay for FFP in the coming decades when football is even more noncompetitive than it is now.

* The class of '92 are often heralded as the basis of Utd's recent massive success, but just prior to Scholes firing his first crossfield ball at OT, Utd spent well over the income they generated. Fast forward a few decades and a club like Southampton, with a nice set of youngsters of their own, won't be allowed to add a few Pallister's, Hughes', McClair's, Robson's etc. to their squad, and make a real effort to create something really special, but not today "Sorry Southamption, good effort, here's a pat on the back, now step aside and go back to where you came from", says FFP.



Anyway, in other news, if City score 2 goals tonight we will break the record for the number of goals scored in all competitions. Busby's Utd currently hold the record with 143 goals.


And something a little less likely...

Ten reasons why Messi should join City
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...manchester-city-transfers-ten-reasons-7009376

Makes sense, Leo. Put down the tapas and grab yourself a Rusholme curry ;)
 
Last edited:
I agree that the amount of losses you can carry out is too low with FFP, but cases like City are not example of good management. Losing 500 million pounds in 5 years is way too much, no way the club will have a change of return on such investment. Just to give a perspective, Real Madrid has a debt of 500 million Euros and everyone agrees that it's way too much. And we talk about a club, that has a much bigger capability to generate money, and if need they have players that can be sold for hundreds of millions. City, on the other hand, relay almost upon the wealth of one guy. Your squad has so many holes, that you will need to once again invest quite a bite.

The way football is heading is only an excuse to money laundering or some wealthy guy eccentricity (or to be put in the map, like seems to be Mansour's case). Either way, the risks are far superior to the gains. What the sport achieved in the last years? A crazy increase in wages, the rise and fall of clubs in a few years (Malaga, Anzhi, Birmingham, Portsmouth). And as for competition, It can be achieved without spending like there’s no tomorrow. Just look at Borussia Dortmund, Atlético and at a smaller degree Spurs a few years back.

How a club like Monaco that has a averange attendance below 10k can be profitable when they have spend 150 million euros on tranfers on a year?
 
Godotelli said:
Anyway, in other news, if City score 2 goals tonight we will break the record for the number of goals scored in all competitions. Busby's Utd currently hold the record with 143 goals.
Click to expand...

Something for the end of season DVD! 90 million quid to beat a pointless record! :BOP:
 
LFC Albania said:
City do yourself a favour lose today and don't hope for anything , its more easy now , it will hurt more in last week.
Click to expand...

The pressure of being clear favourites is clearly getting to you :SMUG:

We've shown we're capable of coming back from a hopeless position to triumph and I can hear your knees knocking as King Jose marches on Anfield. :SMUG:
 
Godotelli said:
* The class of '92 are often heralded as the basis of Utd's recent massive success, but just prior to Scholes firing his first crossfield ball at OT, Utd spent well over the income they generated. Fast forward a few decades and a club like Southampton, with a nice set of youngsters of their own, won't be allowed to add a few Pallister's, Hughes', McClair's, Robson's etc. to their squad, and make a real effort to create something really special, but not today "Sorry Southamption, good effort, here's a pat on the back, now step aside and go back to where you came from", says FFP.
Click to expand...

Care to back that up with figures? I'm curious how much 'well over' we spent in a season.

I'm curious how much 'well over' aligns with cities 197m losses from a few year's back. relative to inflation, revenue and so forth, of course.
 
Godotelli said:
The pressure of being clear favourites is clearly getting to you :SMUG:

We've shown we're capable of coming back from a hopeless position to triumph and I can hear your knees knocking as King Jose marches on Anfield. :SMUG:
Click to expand...

i´m more affraid of Pulis away tbh...
 
beachryan said:
Care to back that up with figures? I'm curious how much 'well over' we spent in a season.

I'm curious how much 'well over' aligns with cities 197m losses from a few year's back. relative to inflation, revenue and so forth, of course.
Click to expand...

'Well over' = nearly double income at that time.
 
The crowd AGAIN last night was a complete joke. Going for the title and it was SLIENT at times.

And loads of empty seats WTF?! Why are Man City even considering extending stadium, they simply dont have enough fans of the club!

No chance of title now, Everton and Palace will smash you once Yaya does his dissapearing act (which always happens away from home).
 
:LOL:

This is brilliant, just don't mess it up again.

Liverpool failing to win it and City limping over the line would be perfect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom