Manchester City 17/18 discussion | "If you're here for the Champions clap your hands" (#6505)

[Openshaw53]

There was MASSIVE celebrations around the Emptyhad on Sunday evening !!! Three blokes and a dog with a City scarf were seen wandering around the empty concourse.
And Vincent Kompany ruined pub quiz night in Hale ( that hotbed of football ) on Sunday night when he called in at the gastro pub for a half of lager.

 

[RedCurry]

Without being drawn into the rights and wrongs of America's foreign policy and their treatment at home of certain groups

How is it so difficult for you to understand that we are not owned by America? We are owned by a business family. But while we're at America's foreign policy, it's pretty similar to that of UK's and even if it wasn't it doesn't make an ounce of a difference because we are owned by a business and run like a business. Compare that to rulers of UAE owning Man City and club being their pet project.

On the other hand I find the argument that a monarch cannot own a football club somewhat baffling. If it is because he is wealthy should there be a blanket ban on wealthy people owning football clubs or do we discriminate against royalty.

You really find that baffling? Monarchs of UAE have used billions of dollars of money earned through the resources of UAE to fund a sports team that has nothing to do with the people of UAE. You can personally not find anything wrong with that but plenty of people in the world do.

 

[GeorgieBoy]

Did anyone take your bet?

Haha! Damn!

 

[hubbuh]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Deserve a points deduction for this shite. I know United are corporate but nothing we have done has EVER made me cringe as hard as this.

feck me

 

[17Larsson]

That video is the most out of touch thing I've ever seen. The old guys singing hip hip hooray in the pub with pints of water is the best part

 

[P-Nut]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Deserve a points deduction for this shite. I know United are corporate but nothing we have done has EVER made me cringe as hard as this.

Absolutely terrible.

 

[Andy_Cole]

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...er-city-avoid-transfer-ban-benjamin-garre-cas

"Guardiola can expected to be handed a budget of at least £200m by the City hierarchy..."

Chequebook madness, whatever happened to St Pep blooding in youngsters? It's not like City need to lavishly spend money.

Good if they do spend this money. It would unbalance them.

 

[sebsheep]

1 - Our commercial records and finances seem to strongly imply the opposite.

2 - Wrong on every level.

3 - Yeah football was much better when you could dominate the spending on your own with no competition except Arsenal right? And then your ideals of whats right in football Real Madrid... lol, I suggest you read up on Madrid and their state funding from selling their training ground to wipe out their enormous debt. Probably the most blatant cheating in top level european football bar the Calciopoli in Italy. Seems to me your idea of whats bad for the game is everything you're jealous of buddy.

4 - Wrong again. You think City and PSG are the reason its stupidly expensive to watch Arsenal? Why then are Liverpool and United around the same price as City, cheaper than Brighton, and one of the teams accused of financial doping by most, Chelsea are the 2nd most expensive

https://www.statista.com/statistics...-teams-ranked-by-most-expensive-ticket-price/.

You can't suggest someone is wrong and then say this
Plenty of clubs have matched/outspent United at different times.


On the topic of the celebration video, that bit at the start when Foden goes to start clapping, stops suddenly and awkwardly joins in the hugging is a personal highlight

 

[padr81]

You can't suggest someone is wrong and then say this
Plenty of clubs have matched/outspent United at different times.


On the topic of the celebration video, that bit at the start when Foden goes to start clapping, stops suddenly and awkwardly joins in the hugging is a personal highlight

You think United didn't have financial dominance over the entire league pre-what most refer to as financial doping?

Of course they did and had it not been for Abrahmovic the PL would probably be pretty much the BL or La Liga without one of the big two by now. United had huge financial domination over the rest of the league. Any other club in England that could have made the Ferdinand deal? Or the Veron deal? Hell even the Rooney deal was right as Chelsea were taking off.

02/03 season, England most expensive transfer: Rio for €46m the next most expensive signing was Anelka to City for €15m (figures from transfermarkt)
01/02 season, you bought Veron for €42.6m and RVN for €28.5m, the 3rd highest incoming transfer to the league was Robbie Keane to Leeds 18m, followed by Steve Marlet.
00/01 season, was Rio to Leeds for €26m and Hasselbank to Chelsea for €22m

You could simply dwarf everyone else in the market, it was pure and utter financial dominance. That's not even a slight against United, they ran the club brilliantly and built that financial dominance pre-Chelsea, but you guys had exactly that.

 

[Raru9]

In modern football, big spend and the power of the money is vital for any club who wants to be in the elite. But its only a part, the other is having a good project and sign players who fit in that project.

 

[sebsheep]

You think United didn't have financial dominance over the entire league pre-what most refer to as financial doping?

Of course they did and had it not been for Abrahmovic the PL would probably be pretty much the BL or La Liga without one of the big two by now. United had huge financial domination over the rest of the league. Any other club in England that could have made the Ferdinand deal? Or the Veron deal? Hell even the Rooney deal was right as Chelsea were taking off.

02/03 season, England most expensive transfer: Rio for €46m the next most expensive signing was Anelka to City for €15m (figures from transfermarkt)
01/02 season, you bought Veron for €42.6m and RVN for €28.5m, the 3rd highest incoming transfer to the league was Robbie Keane to Leeds 18m, followed by Steve Marlet.
00/01 season, was Rio to Leeds for €26m and Hasselbank to Chelsea for €22m

You could simply dwarf everyone else in the market, it was pure and utter financial dominance. That's not even a slight against United, they ran the club brilliantly and built that financial dominance pre-Chelsea, but you guys had exactly that.

I guess if you pick out specific transfers then it can look like we were blowing everyone out of the water.

United - (1) 136.85m (2) 59.96m
Arsenal - (1) 134.29m (2) 44.22m
Liverpool - (1) 145.425m (2) 81.785m
Chelsea - (1) 136.49m (2) 68.945m
City - (1) 87.71m (2) 56.872m
Spurs - (1) 90.4m (2) 52.05m
Newcastle - (1) 174.515m (2) 85.54m
Leeds - (1) 137.13m (2) 87.985m

That's spending for a few of the clubs over the first 10 years of the premier league (1) is total transfer spend and (2) is net spend.
In 1999/2000, the season after the treble, Liverpool, Chelsea and even Spurs out spent us in gross and net. In the 00/01 season Leeds outspent us by over £20 million net. Yes in the next 2 seasons we quite heavily out spent these teams, but that is pretty much it. There were very few years that United could be considered dominant financially, and they pale in comparison to Chelsea spending £150+ million net when Abramovic bought them, we spent nearly £60 million that year (about £23 million net). City's spending after the takeover blew us out of the water. That's financial domination.

 

[padr81]

I guess if you pick out specific transfers then it can look like we were blowing everyone out of the water.

United - (1) 136.85m (2) 59.96m
Arsenal - (1) 134.29m (2) 44.22m
Liverpool - (1) 145.425m (2) 81.785m
Chelsea - (1) 136.49m (2) 68.945m
City - (1) 87.71m (2) 56.872m
Spurs - (1) 90.4m (2) 52.05m
Newcastle - (1) 174.515m (2) 85.54m
Leeds - (1) 137.13m (2) 87.985m

That's spending for a few of the clubs over the first 10 years of the premier league (1) is total transfer spend and (2) is net spend.
In 1999/2000, the season after the treble, Liverpool, Chelsea and even Spurs out spent us in gross and net. In the 00/01 season Leeds outspent us by over £20 million net. Yes in the next 2 seasons we quite heavily out spent these teams, but that is pretty much it. There were very few years that United could be considered dominant financially, and they pale in comparison to Chelsea spending £150+ million net when Abramovic bought them, we spent nearly £60 million that year (about £23 million net). City's spending after the takeover blew us out of the water. That's financial domination.

Yeah but thats not taking in the fact of how much you were outrgrowing all those clubs by that stage. Fact is if Jose and Chelsea hadn't arrived, you probably be the PL's Bayern, when you opened the purse strings that time, you showed the league just what you were and what you had built. Any United fan who denies that you didn't have financial domination before Chelsea is in denial. As I said it's not a slight, its the result of running the biggest club in England the right way and a great, great manager.

Chelsea's spending for Jose blew ye out of the water and they had financial domination but you quickly caught up and of course so did ours when we got our new owner but again you quickly loosened the purse strings and caught up. Fwiw, I'm still unsure you couldn't have matched our early spending, I just think Ferguson chose not too... Moyes wasn't trusted enough and with LVG and Jose you've pretty much matched us but of course thats hugely debatable.

It's not an insult by the way, its a credit to United that they can match the City's, PSG's of the world along with the Madrid's etc.. a testament to the way the club have been run and though a lot won't like it to the Glazers. But it doesn't change the fact in the early 2000's you could blow teams away and if not for Mr. Abramovich we could very well be looking at a one horse race.

 

[C3Pique]

By spending money earned by winning competitions and attracting fans. Not by whoring ourselves out to slavers.

 

[padr81]

By spending money earned by winning competitions and attracting fans. Not by whoring ourselves out to slavers.

What a classy post. You seem like a lovely guy. How about you read what I have actually written. Also if you think you never had a sugar daddy you should look up your teams history... Stay classy.

Anyway any idea who United's longest serving commercial partner is buddy? I'd be wary of calling people slavers btw...

 

[rotherham_red]

You think United didn't have financial dominance over the entire league pre-what most refer to as financial doping?

Of course they did and had it not been for Abrahmovic the PL would probably be pretty much the BL or La Liga without one of the big two by now. United had huge financial domination over the rest of the league. Any other club in England that could have made the Ferdinand deal? Or the Veron deal? Hell even the Rooney deal was right as Chelsea were taking off.

02/03 season, England most expensive transfer: Rio for €46m the next most expensive signing was Anelka to City for €15m (figures from transfermarkt)
01/02 season, you bought Veron for €42.6m and RVN for €28.5m, the 3rd highest incoming transfer to the league was Robbie Keane to Leeds 18m, followed by Steve Marlet.
00/01 season, was Rio to Leeds for €26m and Hasselbank to Chelsea for €22m

You could simply dwarf everyone else in the market, it was pure and utter financial dominance. That's not even a slight against United, they ran the club brilliantly and built that financial dominance pre-Chelsea, but you guys had exactly that.

Have a look at Liverpool, and then Leeds in the 90s. They spent a metric feckton money chasing success and never really getting anywhere, bar the odd cup and mickey mouse treble in Liverpool's case. The difference was that while Utd spent on quality over quantity, Leeds and Liverpool especially, spent it on quantity.

EDIT - So while we did indeed break the transfer record in those instances you highlighted, you'll find that we rarely outspent anyone in total transfer outlay.

 

[OldSchoolManc]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Deserve a points deduction for this shite. I know United are corporate but nothing we have done has EVER made me cringe as hard as this.

Mansour with his brother Mohammed (the crown prince of Abu Dhabi)

The Manchester City of now, have nothing to do with the Manchester City pre Abu-Dhabi. New Stadium that isn’t even theirs, new players that wouldn’t have been afforded by the old version and new finances that are totally unrelated to the old Man City accounts.

Man City now are nothing but a franchise for Abu-Dhabi. A McDonald’s or a Subway type operation. An MK Dons.

 

[padr81]

Have a look at Liverpool, and then Leeds in the 90s. They spent a metric feckton money chasing success and never really getting anywhere, bar the odd cup and mickey mouse treble in Liverpool's case. The difference was that while Utd spent on quality over quantity, Leeds and Liverpool especially, spent it on quantity.

100% the point is the gap was ever increasing and by the early 2000, it was you guys dominating, and dominating on merit because of the amazing way you built your club, but you can't argue that by that point your were men in a league of boys financially with Arsenal being a teenager. If not for Roman, how many titles do you think you'd have won between 01 and 2011? I'd say pretty much them all bar Arsenals invincibles... The PL would be the BL.

As I said its a credit to United, not a slight or a dig, or me saying you only own because of your money. Its more me praising you while at the same time saying if not for Roman... your dominance would be absolute by the time Cities money came along.

 

[hasanejaz88]

I like how they put local lad Phil Foden up in front with Aguero, most likely to promote that they have some connection with the community, as if he had a fcuking role to play in their win.

 

[padr81]

I like how they put local lad Phil Foden up in front with Aguero, most likely to promote that they have some connection with the community, as if he had a fcuking role to play in their win.

Connection enough with the community for you?

 

[rotherham_red]

100% the point is the gap was ever increasing and by the early 2000, it was you guys dominating, and dominating on merit because of the amazing way you built your club, but you can't argue that by that point your were men in a league of boys financially with Arsenal being a teenager. If not for Roman, how many titles do you think you'd have won between 01 and 2011? I'd say pretty much them all bar Arsenals invincibles... The PL would be the BL.

As I said its a credit to United, not a slight or a dig, or me saying you only own because of your money. Its more me praising you while at the same time saying if not for Roman... your dominance would be absolute by the time Cities money came along.

http://www.football365.com/news/the-biggest-spender-in-every-pl-season-and-how-they-fared

Here you go, take a look and see how often we were the biggest spenders in the PL era...

 

[Denis' cuff]

What a classy post. You seem like a lovely guy. How about you read what I have actually written. Also if you think you never had a sugar daddy you should look up your teams history... Stay classy.

Anyway any idea who United's longest serving commercial partner is buddy? I'd be wary of calling people slavers btw...

He’s pointing out the truth, pal. We earned our position where we could spend big money. If you can’t see the difference.... and you talk about classy. Get a mirror.

 

[VorZakone]

That corporate video still gives me nightmares.

 

[padr81]

He’s pointing out the truth, pal. We earned our position where we could spend big money. If you can’t see the difference.... and you talk about classy. Get a mirror.

Are you him in disguise... I said in 3 posts including the one he commented on you earned that position. Sometimes I wonder if people actually read before wading in guns blazing.

In fact my exact words in the post he commented on are "It's not an insult by the way, its a credit to United that they can match the City's, PSG's of the world along with the Madrid's etc.. a testament to the way the club have been run and though a lot won't like it to the Glazers. But it doesn't change the fact in the early 2000's you could blow teams away and if not for Mr. Abramovich we could very well be looking at a one horse race."

Honestly I wish people would actually read what they are getting involved in...

 

[padr81]

http://www.football365.com/news/the-biggest-spender-in-every-pl-season-and-how-they-fared

Here you go, take a look and see how often we were the biggest spenders in the PL era...

You
Thats not the point though, the point is ability to spend when needed, and consistency of spending over the period. You had complete and utter financial dominance. You were also the biggest spenders in 3 of the 5 seasons pre-Chelsea. Leeds being one of your closest rivals tell a tale as they nearly bankrupt the club in trying to match you. As I said don't take this as an insult, if anything its a compliment. There is nothing wrong with being the richest, the best run and the most successful in that period. I don't even know why you guys are getting so defensive over it.

 

[Oscie]

A lot of fans see being the biggest spenders of the season as a 'trophy' by itself. Indeed given the opinions many seem to have about Fergie's last few years I'd say a good chunk of our fanbase wished he'd have won the 'Big Spenders' league more than winning the league titles.

 

[esmufc07]

What the feck is that video

 

[padr81]

What the feck is that video

Its when we decide whats the most City thing we can do after dominating the league to feck it up? It's so bad, it's still bad.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

http://www.football365.com/news/the-biggest-spender-in-every-pl-season-and-how-they-fared

Here you go, take a look and see how often we were the biggest spenders in the PL era...

@padr81 .... read your posts on subject. Think (1) we werent spending as much as people said (our big transfers got the headlines and people just thought "United, just spending" (2) we'd earned it (3) we balanced the Rios and Verons with the Solskjaers and promoting youth and (4) we did have competition in the transfer market.

(Edit. I think one big issue with City for a lot of people is the speed/ease you've got it... bit like a Blackburn on steroids).

Not looking to argue, honestly interested to see if the figures (per link) make any difference to your view about United being completely financially dominant.

 

[LoneStar]

So by that padr81 guy's logic, it's okay to cheat a test if the other guy consistently gets 1st in class, because that is intellectual dominance and not good for the class.

If you can't understand the difference between money earned through winning and sugar daddy money, no one can help you.

 

[PepG]

 

[padr81]

@padr81 .... read your posts on subject. Think (1) we werent spending as much as people said (our big transfers got the headlines and people just thought "United, just spending" (2) we'd earned it (3) we balanced the Rios and Verons with the Solskjaers and promoting youth and (4) we did have competition in the transfer market.

(Edit. I think one big issue with City for a lot of people is the speed/ease you've got it... bit like a Blackburn on steroids).

Not looking to argue, honestly interested to see if the figures (per link) make any difference to your view about United being completely financially dominant.

You weren't but you were capable of spending what others were not. As I said I'm not being critical I'm just saying you built an amazing club that was tremendously well managed. You stormed ahead of the league on merit financially and fair play for it, but those who pretend you weren't the most dominant club and far richer than the rest are in denial. Nothing more nothing less.

I completely understand why other fans feel that way about City too buddy.

They don't really... as I've watched you spending and while its never been City/Chelsea levels till a couple of years ago, you could clearly do what other clubs couldn't and were easily the financially dominant force in the league. it's something you should be proud of and I don't know why some of your fans are jumping through hoops to deny.. If you take out Chelsea coming along to compete with you, do you think the gap to Liverpool, Arsenal would have gotten smaller of bigger?

You are still the richest club in the England with the highest income by a country mile and have been for a millennium or there abouts. Without a Chelsea or City the gap would probably be bigger and you'd more than likely have 9 or 10 titles between 99 and 2011. It's something United fans run to deny but I don't know why as its something you should be proud of.

 

[padr81]

So by that padr81 guy's logic, it's okay to cheat a test if the other guy consistently gets 1st in class, because that is intellectual dominance and not good for the class.

If you can't understand the difference between money earned through winning and sugar daddy money, no one can help you.

Wtf another one who doesn't read... I swear there must be a bout of dyslexia spreading through this forum... fecking hell. Tell me what a single thing you posted has to do with my posts or where I said anything like that?

Your post is full of rubbish because A, nobody cheated, B, I never said any of that. C, who said anything about money, you obviously have no clue what I can or can't understand when you are incapable of reading my posts.

But I suggest you look at your own history for the leagues first sugar daddy around 100 years ago, pretty sure it saved you from going out of existence, built you an amazing stadium for the time and set you on a great path.

 

[sebsheep]

Yeah but thats not taking in the fact of how much you were outrgrowing all those clubs by that stage. Fact is if Jose and Chelsea hadn't arrived, you probably be the PL's Bayern, when you opened the purse strings that time, you showed the league just what you were and what you had built. Any United fan who denies that you didn't have financial domination before Chelsea is in denial. As I said it's not a slight, its the result of running the biggest club in England the right way and a great, great manager.

Chelsea's spending for Jose blew ye out of the water and they had financial domination but you quickly caught up and of course so did ours when we got our new owner but again you quickly loosened the purse strings and caught up. Fwiw, I'm still unsure you couldn't have matched our early spending, I just think Ferguson chose not too... Moyes wasn't trusted enough and with LVG and Jose you've pretty much matched us but of course thats hugely debatable.

It's not an insult by the way, its a credit to United that they can match the City's, PSG's of the world along with the Madrid's etc.. a testament to the way the club have been run and though a lot won't like it to the Glazers. But it doesn't change the fact in the early 2000's you could blow teams away and if not for Mr. Abramovich we could very well be looking at a one horse race.

You're trying to move the goalposts from what you originally said.

"Yeah football was much better when you could dominate the spending on your own with no competition except Arsenal right?"

That situation never really occurred. There have always been teams spending around the same and generally more than United during the premier league era. Look at Newcastle's spending over a 4 year period, spending over £90 million and in those same years we spent around £46 million. Look at Blackburn's spending, or Arsenal's, Liverpool's, Chelsea's, Leeds' over a few years. There were always been clubs willing to spend big.

Even if we go along with the whole United were dominant in the market just before Chelsea were bought out, we had spent around £138 million in those 5 years, the teams around us had £93m (Arsenal), £97.5m (Chelsea), £111m (Liverpool), £104m (Newcastle), with most of them having outspent us for years before that. Transfer league is broken for United so if I get time I'll do net in the morning.

We didn't quickly catch up to either Chelsea's or City's spending, it took both of those clubs slowing down their spending for us to start getting close to them. Both Liverpool and Spurs outspent us (similar net spends) during the first 4-5 years of Abramovic at Chelsea. How could that even possible if we were able to dominate them financially?

 

[zing]

You're trying to move the goalposts from what you originally said.

"Yeah football was much better when you could dominate the spending on your own with no competition except Arsenal right?"

That situation never really occurred. There have always been teams spending around the same and generally more than United during the premier league era. Look at Newcastle's spending over a 4 year period, spending over £90 million and in those same years we spent around £46 million. Look at Blackburn's spending, or Arsenal's, Liverpool's, Chelsea's, Leeds' over a few years. There were always been clubs willing to spend big.

Even if we go along with the whole United were dominant in the market just before Chelsea were bought out, we had spent around £138 million in those 5 years, the teams around us had £93m (Arsenal), £97.5m (Chelsea), £111m (Liverpool), £104m (Newcastle), with most of them having outspent us for years before that. Transfer league is broken for United so if I get time I'll do net in the morning.

We didn't quickly catch up to either Chelsea's or City's spending, it took both of those clubs slowing down their spending for us to start getting close to them. Both Liverpool and Spurs outspent us (similar net spends) during the first 4-5 years of Abramovic at Chelsea. How could that even possible if we were able to dominate them financially?

Because United have been spend consistently for years. Impact of transfer outlay is not just on the marginal, but has a cumulative effect.

United were also lucky that the premier league/globalization of football coincided with their peak years. If it had happened a decade earlier, it would have Liverpool.

No doubt United were well run, but they were in the right place at the right time.

 

[SER19]

The notion that United only had competition from arsenal is quite frankly nonsense. In early title years they were not on the scene, Blackburn won it in 1995, Newcastle were challengers in 96 and 97 before United and arsenal engaged in a memorable rivalry over the following 3-4 years. Liverpool finished ahead of United in 2002 and by 2003 the Chelsea money was coming in.

People can pretend the league wasn't competitive and that the likes of city have changed that- but it's not true. At all. Some absolute threadbare rubbish being posted here

 

[meamth]

Oh my gosh that celebration video is fabricated to the maximum.

I'm a Malaysian and even I know the city of Manchester doesn't celebrate like they won a world cup. The cringe is unbearable.

 

[Varun]

Some of you seem to either not read posts you're replying to or choose to ignore it and create an imaginary point to shit on. This really downgrades the quality of discussion in the thread and I'd rather not see @padr81 having to start every post clarifying what he's said or not.

Please don't do this.

 

[sebsheep]

Because United have been spend consistently for years. Impact of transfer outlay is not just on the marginal, but has a cumulative effect.

United were also lucky that the premier league/globalization of football coincided with their peak years. If it had happened a decade earlier, it would have Liverpool.

No doubt United were well run, but they were in the right place at the right time.

Are you saying clubs like Liverpool haven't consistently spent money?

 

[Irrational.]

Everything about City is so staged. They come across as a parody of a big club giving off the illusion of being "the working man's club".

They're the David Brent of football clubs.

 

[SER19]

Everything about City is so staged. They come across as a parody of a big club giving off the illusion of being "the working man's club".

They're the David Brent of football clubs.

This video is as bad, arguably worse than the stomp your feet video. As for the “our city” thing