The all-new Premier League thread Page 4580

  • Page

    of 4888 First / Last

  • mikew1985 30 Jan 2014 19:16:14 12,058 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    xuiton wrote:
    @mikew1985 it works toways. you can't say everyone is on 150k a week then ask for proof when we say bullshit.

    btw google search carlos tevez bank statment. you will see he was on no where near that.
    I never floated anyone's wages or even waded into that stuff. You're just clearly bullshitting.
  • mikew1985 30 Jan 2014 19:17:17 12,058 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    oceanmotion wrote:
    alexm wrote:
    @oceanmotion Nah, the main sponsorship deals like the Etihad one actually look under market value if anything especially compared to what other clubs are now getting in similar deals.

    Also I don't think you quite understand the concept of 'market value'. You have to remember City are trying to compete with Bayern, Barca and Real, not just their Premiership rivals.In that context our wagebills and transfer fees are pretty much where they need to be and recent projections shows that revenue is well on its way too.
    Quite the premium.

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways
    Lol. Totally in line with market value :D
  • alexm 30 Jan 2014 19:18:04 178 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    @oceanmotion Look at when that was written and then compare it to deals being lined up for other clubs in 2013 and it is clear that the Guardian jumped the gun on that one.
  • xuiton 30 Jan 2014 19:18:52 286 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    mikew1985 wrote:
    alexm wrote:
    @oceanmotion Nah, the main sponsorship deals like the Etihad one actually look under market value if anything especially compared to what other clubs are now getting in similar deals.

    Also I don't think you quite understand the concept of 'market value'. You have to remember City are trying to compete with Bayern, Barca and Real, not just their Premiership rivals.In that context our wagebills and transfer fees are pretty much where they need to be and recent projections shows that revenue is well on its way too.
    Because other clubs have larger fan bases and a lot more genuine revenue.

    Cities fan base is relatively tiny and they could not fairly command the same market value as arsenal or united for example.
    really because city are now the second in the PL for generating revenue.

    lol genuine revenue. the club has done more than buy players, they have heavily invested in marketing it as well. unlike chelsea who have had just as much money but all they have done is just spend on players.

    how is 40 million a year even that bad? arsenal just got a sponsorship from a sports company for 30 million a year...

    Edited by xuiton at 19:20:09 30-01-2014
  • RedSparrows 30 Jan 2014 19:21:59 20,756 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Man City are taking their place at top table, but they got there by wiping their ass with money, rather than merely blowing their nose with it.

    What an awesomely wank analogy, I'm so proud.]

    p.s. the revenues et al being similar to other clubs isn't the issue for most people, one suspects. City wouldn't be anywhere near anything like this (projected) success without a fucking massive bit of doping. End of.

    Edited by RedSparrows at 19:23:00 30-01-2014
  • vijay_UK 30 Jan 2014 19:34:52 1,670 posts
    Seen 55 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Punctum wrote:
    Apart from Dempsey, who else did Spurs 'steal' from Liverpool's shortlist?
    Willian was interesting Liverpool before Tottenham came in for him, and then Chelsea nabbed him.
  • alexm 30 Jan 2014 19:36:25 178 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    By 'doping' if you mean a massive injection of cash over a sustained period then you're right we wouldn't be ...a bit like every other club who has had sustained success since the 50s. But as I said, all signs point to us coming into full compliance with FFP on schedule so what will the detractors say then.

    The bitterness and snobbery on this thread as the realisation dawns that City are likely to be a major presence for the forseeable future is pathetic. I'm still waiting for someone to just come out with it and admit they think we are a poxy little Northern club who they're jealous of and wish we were back to being a nice comedy team who got battered every week :)
  • kalel 30 Jan 2014 19:42:38 83,875 posts
    Seen 42 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    vijay_UK wrote:
    Punctum wrote:
    Apart from Dempsey, who else did Spurs 'steal' from Liverpool's shortlist?
    Willian was interesting Liverpool before Tottenham came in for him, and then Chelsea nabbed him.
    It's so laughable that Liverpool fans have got a complex about this. Utterly ridiculous.
  • SolidSCB 30 Jan 2014 19:47:07 5,824 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Liverpool fans have got a complex about everything. It's their 'thing'.
  • Youthist 30 Jan 2014 19:50:05 9,900 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @alexm

    I don't mind city but you on the other hand sound like a right cunt! 😃

    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that

  • alexm 30 Jan 2014 19:50:47 178 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    @Youthist Haha, that's alright then.
  • arials101 30 Jan 2014 20:10:41 831 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Manchester City have got a massive sponsorship deal - that is completely out of line with the actual value of sponsoring the club - from Etihad Airways. Manchester City are owned by Mansour Al Nahyan, Etihad Airways are owned by his brother Hamdan Al Nahyan.

    The club that makes the most money from commercial sponsorship in the world (more than the likes of Man United and Real Madrid) is PSG. They are owned by the Qatari government and a truckload of their sponsorship comes from other Qatari state owned companies like Ooredoo and the Qatar Tourism Authority.

    Both clubs may well "comply" with FFP, but you'd have to bury your head under a mile of sand not to know that their accounts are as dodgy as fuck.
  • xuiton 30 Jan 2014 20:27:28 286 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    united had fuck all success for years until the teams broke away and created the premier league. Oh look they started winning when the league and foreign money started pouring in.

    while united brought through a FEW players, they have been buying the league just like chelsea and city get accused of. Just it wasn't a big deal back then. they bought players not just from europe but a lot from their rivals as well and while they were stealing other rival players, they were also setting transfer records left right and centre.

    if it weren't for chelsea and now city we would have a very one sided boring league, even worse then the two horsed spanish league. united generate the most money no argument there, how else can anyone compete with that. its nice saying bring players through, but nobody could challenge them til money was spent especially once arsenal dropped off the radar.

    some teams can't compete with city's spending, but until the money came along, no one could realistically compete with united either. unless you want to carry on believing all their players are home grown or sign for free.
  • RedSparrows 30 Jan 2014 20:44:03 20,756 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Of course teams could realistically compete - Blackburn, Chelsea and Arsenal all beat them to it, and Newcastle and Liverpool almost did; money helped, but Alex Ferguson was priceless.
  • Latin 30 Jan 2014 20:44:08 3,372 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    To be fair, the league would be boring. I'm a Utd fan and had Chelsea not got their billions it would have been a piss take for us after Arsenal built their stadium and financially handicapped themselves.

    At least now it's exciting. Fair enough, we're shit this season but had we had a decent manager the league could be a 4 horse race.
  • TheSaint 30 Jan 2014 20:46:50 13,629 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    We should have had a boring one horse league ever since City were taken over. It's been generous of them to keep appointing shit managers to keep things interesting.
  • jamievilla 30 Jan 2014 20:52:38 464 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @xuiton my word you're tiresome.
  • arials101 30 Jan 2014 20:55:20 831 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    @xuiton Your position seems to be that people should be grateful that a dominant team that earned their wealth through on pitch success has been replaced by an even more dominant team that didn't earn their even vaster wealth. Funnily enough I am not grateful for that.

    And if Chelsea and City didn't exist our boring, one sided, league would currently have Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and Tottenham finishing ahead of Manchester United.

    Edited by arials101 at 20:56:27 30-01-2014
  • Dougs 30 Jan 2014 20:56:37 64,905 posts
    Seen 14 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Arsenal only dropped off the radar when Abramovic turned up and we moved stadiums in order to generate the sort of revenue needed to compete with Utd, you know paid for with a sustainable plan. Which finally seems to be paying off. Except the goalposts have moved again. And that's fine but if you can't see the difference then there's no point going round in circles.
  • xuiton 30 Jan 2014 20:59:44 286 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    @RedSparrows .... fuck me.

    are you joking?

    I said arsenal could compete til they dropped off the radar. Blackburn had money to compete with and if it were not for chelsea's billions they would not have been able to compete and win it. fact is, chelsea, and blackburn would not ahve won if it were not for the money. Almost did win it, is different from actually winning. Someone has to come second even without money....

    at the least the rag below you has the grace to admit it. :)

    arials101 wrote:
    @xuiton Your position seems to be that people should be grateful that a dominant team that earned their wealth through on pitch success has been replaced by an even more dominant team that didn't earn their even vaster wealth. Funnily enough I am not grateful for that.

    And if Chelsea and City didn't exist our boring, one sided, league would currently have Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and Tottenham finishing ahead of Manchester United.
    united became successful due to the massive income from the premier league and overseas expansion. that allowed them to be successful on the pitch and then proceed to dominate for years. I don't think anyone should be grateful for city but city shouldn't be 'hated' just for competing in the only realistic way left.

    earned their wealth through success on the pitch plz.... why didn't pool have the same riches then? they were more successful up until the PL creation.

    Edited by xuiton at 21:06:58 30-01-2014
  • thedaveeyres 30 Jan 2014 21:09:44 9,711 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    If you'd done your due diligence and read through the thread from the beginning you'd know that we've done this shit to death over 170-odd thousand posts.

    If I were you I'd get cracking. See you in a month.

    D****** ******r

    XBLA: Hamster Trippin
    Steam: thedaveeyres
    PSN: HamsterTrippin

  • jamievilla 30 Jan 2014 21:11:54 464 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @thedaveeyres exactly, it's fucking dull. Plus the use of phrases like 'hoover lips' and 'rags' make him sound like a child.
  • Dougs 30 Jan 2014 21:18:37 64,905 posts
    Seen 14 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Proper and old school don't you know. There was someone on Twitter cock-a-hoop that City were charging peanuts for tickets compared to Arsenal, seemingly oblivious to the glaringly obvious reasons why that is.
  • xuiton 30 Jan 2014 21:26:34 286 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    You're right considering the size of the thread it has been done before and I'm sorry. Just as soon as I posted in here, a bunch of you jumped down my throat for the audacity to even post in the thread or whining at me for the sake of it, yourself included.
  • robc84 30 Jan 2014 21:29:57 4,357 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    @xuiton

    To be fair, I think it's the way you entered the thread all guns blazing, claiming bias against city etc that rubbed everyone up the wrong way.
  • arials101 30 Jan 2014 21:53:41 831 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    xuiton wrote:
    united became successful due to the massive income from the premier league and overseas expansion. that allowed them to be successful on the pitch and then proceed to dominate for years. I don't think anyone should be grateful for city but city shouldn't be 'hated' just for competing in the only realistic way left.

    earned their wealth through success on the pitch plz.... why didn't pool have the same riches then? they were more successful up until the PL creation.
    Every top flight club had an equal opportunity to gain additional wealth when the PL was formed (unlike when City were bought out with oil money), United benefited most because they had the best management when the transition occurred(and for 15+ years after the transition). The contract that all 22 forming clubs signed didn't stipulate that United would get rich at the expense of everyone else.

    The season before the PL started Liverpool came 6th and United came 2nd, so at that time Liverpool were not more successful.

    Imagine if United and Liverpool's fortunes were swapped over so Liverpool were the most successful club of the PL era and at the same time Everton and City's fortunes were swapped over so Everton got bought out and started winning everything with oil money while your club City were still relegation fodder... I very much doubt that you would still be so happy with the situation.
  • SolidSCB 30 Jan 2014 22:03:18 5,824 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    City can knob right off. It isn't their fans' fault they've been given infinite backing and you can't begrudge them the right to celebrate their victories or whatever, but there's no doubt they've utterly broken football as we know it in this country. There's no point trying to compare their situation to anyone else from the past, because there is absolutely no situation to liken it to. Even Chelsea have pocket change in comparison, no one has ever had the advantage they enjoy. The long term effects are yet to be seen too.
  • King_Edward 30 Jan 2014 22:06:54 11,454 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    ^ Total BS. It's an advantage that the rich have always had over the poor.
  • Subquest 30 Jan 2014 22:09:06 300 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    There's lots of waste in life. History won't look back on any of us too kindly, we're all culpable in our waste of resources. So perhaps we shouldn't judge Abramovich and the Saudis for taking their oil profits, hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds, and flushing them away at their respective playthings. Fans of those clubs might as well enjoy it as best they can, it's not like they have any influence either way.
  • mcmonkeyplc 30 Jan 2014 22:14:15 38,899 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Where the fuck did all these city fans suddenly spawn from?!

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Page

    of 4888 First / Last

Log in or register to reply