Murder on Zidane's Floor
You'd better not kill Giroud
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 28,987
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm not sure if the bit about children supporting whoever their father supported is necessarily true anymore. With social media most young people now either follow whomever their favorite player plays for or whoever is successful.Have not seen a massive increase of people wearing City tops in Manchester.
Support of a club is in the main passed through generations. A child supports who his father & Grandfather supported.
You will obviously see more City tops in the Blue areas of Manchester now than before the takeover. Many of these fans wouldn't have worn their colours on the streets before as it invited ridicule if they visited a Red area of Manchester.
The Blue areas of Manchester are very small though compared to the Red areas.
It would obviously concern me if I started seeing City tops being worn in traditional Utd areas. As it is I rarely see anyone in a City top while I'm out & about.
This. They are now doing what we used to do: Targeted improvements and maintenance of a title-winning squad. And they're doing it well, and not at excessive cost. In fact, they will very likely spend less (net) than us or Spurs, or Arsenal the previous summer window.Even after signing Haaland (including the ridiculous agent fees), Alvarez, Phillips and potentially Cucurella for £50m, they would still be under £100m net if they sell Sterling for anything above the initially mentioned £35m (and it seems like they'd be able to get more than that for sure).
Sure they're spending a lot but it's no more than United, they are simply making far better decisions. See the incoming free transfer signing of Stefan Ortega as well for an example, a keeper who United should have been all over as a potential short-term #1 in ETH's system.
Exactly this. That’s why City’s success is so hollow though, every other team so far (even Chelsea) looks like they managed to win trophies without breaching FFP. City just ignored it for years and now are in a position where they likely don’t need to breach it and everyone is talking about how ‘well run’ they are. Even Woodward could run that business model.This. They are now doing what we used to do: Targeted improvements and maintenance of a title-winning squad. And they're doing it well, and not at excessive cost. In fact, they will very likely spend less (net) than us or Spurs, or Arsenal the previous summer window.
That was the same story with United in our heyday too - we were not the biggest net spenders in the PL during the Ferguson area. That comes from being in the same sweet spot that City are in now. Catching up is more expensive than staying on top - and fraught with more uncertainty. More uncertainty means more misses, which again requires further investments, and on it goes.
I’d imagine Chelsea would have breached the current FFP rules had they been introduced in 2003 rather than 2011.Exactly this. That’s why City’s success is so hollow though, every other team so far (even Chelsea) looks like they managed to win trophies without breaching FFP. City just ignored it for years and now are in a position where they likely don’t need to breach it and everyone is talking about how ‘well run’ they are. Even Woodward could run that business model.
This is a great example of how the narrative has changed on spending. Chelsea were taken over in 2003 and FFP wasn’t introduced until 2010 (just after the City takeover). Nobody remembers Chelsea breaching FFP because it never existing and the goalposts were moved. Hard to feel particularly passionate about financial rules that never existing through others teams dominance and spending sprees.Exactly this. That’s why City’s success is so hollow though, every other team so far (even Chelsea) looks like they managed to win trophies without breaching FFP. City just ignored it for years and now are in a position where they likely don’t need to breach it and everyone is talking about how ‘well run’ they are. Even Woodward could run that business model.
Things like inflation, and memory, make comparisons like these really tricky, but I certainly remember Chelsea’s spending at that time to appear to be absolutely huge compared to their rivals, more so than I remember after the City takeover.This is a great example of how the narrative has changed on spending. Chelsea were taken over in 2003 and FFP wasn’t introduced until 2010 (just after the City takeover). Nobody remembers Chelsea breaching FFP because it never existing and the goalposts were moved. Hard to feel particularly passionate about financial rules that never existing through others teams dominance and spending sprees.
Chelsea spent £154m in 03/04, £150m in 04/05, £82m in 05/06, £80m in 06/07, all when FFP didn’t exist and £500m could buy you a lot more than it could today and you could pick up Drogba & Robben for £50m combined.
More as @NicolaSacco says the rules weren't in place - that said Chelsea were more established, they were the perennial top 6 team, made the top 4 multiple times and weren't below 6th for 6+ years previous to the takeover.. assuming you're not super young (man I sound old) you must remember Gullit player manager and them attracting big names like Desailly, Zola, Vialli etc. I do agree though that I shouldn't have included them in the original post, I guess they 'technically' didn't break FFP but no doubt they would have.This is a great example of how the narrative has changed on spending. Chelsea were taken over in 2003 and FFP wasn’t introduced until 2010 (just after the City takeover). Nobody remembers Chelsea breaching FFP because it never existing and the goalposts were moved. Hard to feel particularly passionate about financial rules that never existing through others teams dominance and spending sprees.
Chelsea spent £154m in 03/04, £150m in 04/05, £82m in 05/06, £80m in 06/07, all when FFP didn’t exist and £500m could buy you a lot more than it could today and you could pick up Drogba & Robben for £50m combined.
I'm torn on this because you have to draw a line somewhere and it shouldn't count against whoever is in the ascendency when that line is drawn, which is easy to say as a United fan but I don't really see any counter argument. I do think FFP is misunderstood and it is a viable way for other clubs to compete, the issue is none of these minted owners have the patience to do it properly i.e. build world class infrastructure and long term plan. United arguing against debt being included is morally wrong because LBO's are immoral but unrealistic to think that wouldn't have happened regardless of United wanting it.I’d imagine Chelsea would have breached the current FFP rules had they been introduced in 2003 rather than 2011.
Also it’s worth noting that the FFP rules were negotiated and agreed by the biggest clubs, who had an obvious vested interest in not allowing smaller clubs to reach their level. I seem to remember that Utd argued for existing club debt not to be included in the calculations, thus conveniently allowing their half billion (or whatever) debt not to affect their spending power. Let’s not pretend that these rules were designed to be morally right, they were designed to stop the ‘old money’ clubs from being outspent. If you can accept that all the ‘new money’ clubs have done all in their power to negate FFP you surely must also accept that all ‘old money’ clubs did everything in their power to make the rules only apply to others.
Agreed. Chelsea were also a top side before the takeover and have ‘only’ won 5 PL titles since there takeover. City have already surpassed that and are much better placed to continue to win more. City have spent a lot of money without question, but have a lot to show for it in terms of domestic trophies and current squad compared to rivals.Things like inflation, and memory, make comparisons like these really tricky, but I certainly remember Chelsea’s spending at that time to appear to be absolutely huge compared to their rivals, more so than I remember after the City takeover.
History suggests he can't. This is pretty much the position we were in ten years ago. Or at least twelve.Exactly this. That’s why City’s success is so hollow though, every other team so far (even Chelsea) looks like they managed to win trophies without breaching FFP. City just ignored it for years and now are in a position where they likely don’t need to breach it and everyone is talking about how ‘well run’ they are. Even Woodward could run that business model.
You're effectively ran by and accountable to a foreign government as a vessel for their business interests. You'll continue to steamroll the game for as long as Abu Dhabi want. It's not really about the football with City, it's all one big political venture which is far more high stakes than the classic ownership model.Agreed. Chelsea were also a top side before the takeover and have ‘only’ won 5 PL titles since there takeover. City have already surpassed that and are much better placed to continue to win more. City have spent a lot of money without question, but have a lot to show for it in terms of domestic trophies and current squad compared to rivals.
You’re right. Now you mention it we should protest anything with Middle East investment. We can start with UAE & Saudi in particular so we can really show our detest for the City & Newcastle ownerships.You're effectively ran by and accountable to a foreign government as a vessel for their business interests. You'll continue to steamroll the game for as long as Abu Dhabi want. It's not really about the football with City, it's all one big political venture which is far more high stakes than the classic ownership model.
Or you could just drop that pointless combination of strawman argument and whataboutism.You’re right. Now you mention it we should protest anything with Middle East investment. We can start with UAE & Saudi in particular so we can really show our detest for the City & Newcastle ownerships.
It’ll be tough though, both countries do run huge wealth funds and own big stakes in things we use everyday; Disney, Apple, Facebook, Boeing, Uber, most banks, and also have stakes in other huge investment funds like Berkshire Hathaway to cover the rest. It gets worse too, what should we do about Aramco providing oil to the rest of the world, as well as all of the Sponsorships they have? I’ll stop watching Formula 1.
Now you mention it, I’m probably just not going to leave my house, and I’ll have to get rid of a few things inside it. Also going to stop being friends with anybody who has ever been on holiday to Dubai, but it’s for the best because you know.. Politics!
I’m in if you are.
All of City’s money spent gets on the pitch. The money that doesn’t make it, is recouped to a large extent through good sale values.Even after signing Haaland (including the ridiculous agent fees), Alvarez, Phillips and potentially Cucurella for £50m, they would still be under £100m net if they sell Sterling for anything above the initially mentioned £35m (and it seems like they'd be able to get more than that for sure).
Sure they're spending a lot but it's no more than United, they are simply making far better decisions. See the incoming free transfer signing of Stefan Ortega as well for an example, a keeper who United should have been all over as a potential short-term #1 in ETH's system.
This is not correct though. In the PL era United were rarely the biggest spenders per season, and the club never even won the PL in over 20 years until the PL started.This. They are now doing what we used to do: Targeted improvements and maintenance of a title-winning squad. And they're doing it well, and not at excessive cost. In fact, they will very likely spend less (net) than us or Spurs, or Arsenal the previous summer window.
That was the same story with United in our heyday too - we were not the biggest net spenders in the PL during the Ferguson area. That comes from being in the same sweet spot that City are in now. Catching up is more expensive than staying on top - and fraught with more uncertainty. More uncertainty means more misses, which again requires further investments, and on it goes.
Fergie overachieved given how much he spent. Klopp is the only one remotely comparable to Fergie in terms of performances to spending ratio.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sterling and Jesus are quality so not sure they are improving that much. We see though if Haaland can play every game they have an elite striker.Even after signing Haaland (including the ridiculous agent fees), Alvarez, Phillips and potentially Cucurella for £50m, they would still be under £100m net if they sell Sterling for anything above the initially mentioned £35m (and it seems like they'd be able to get more than that for sure).
Sure they're spending a lot but it's no more than United, they are simply making far better decisions. See the incoming free transfer signing of Stefan Ortega as well for an example, a keeper who United should have been all over as a potential short-term #1 in ETH's system.
I tend to agree with the last bit. There seems to be an assumption by a lot of people that Newcastle will just replicate what City have done, but I think that’s far from certain.Or you could just drop that pointless combination of strawman argument and whataboutism.
I agree with you though that City have spent their resources well, and I don't think much of the line of thinking often espoused by my fellow United fans to the effect that the money more or less automatically has caused success. It's an absolute prerequisite for becoming a big club, but it's not enough in itself (a fact you wouldn't think United fans needed to be reminded of). You have to use it to build a top organisation, and City has done that.
Er, we seem to be saying the same thing? We were not the biggest (net) spender in the PL during the Ferguson era. Not before either, I would think. We were the biggest net spender during the OGS era though.This is not correct though. In the PL era United were rarely the biggest spenders per season, and the club never even won the PL in over 20 years until the PL started.
Er, we seem to be saying the same thing? We were not the biggest (net) spender in the PL during the Ferguson era. Not before either, I would think. We were the biggest net spender during the OGS era though.
91/92 through 12/13 (Source: Transfermarkt)Fergie overachieved given how much he spent. Klopp is the only one remotely comparable to Fergie in terms of performances to spending ratio.
# | club | Expenditure | Arrivals | Income | Departures | Balance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Chelsea FC | €1.16bn | 377 | €351.61m | 360 | €-812.57m |
2 | Manchester City | €887.33m | 455 | €275.15m | 448 | €-612.19m |
3 | Liverpool FC | €843.36m | 374 | €457.26m | 372 | €-386.10m |
4 | Manchester United | €776.03m | 360 | €394.97m | 360 | €-381.06m |
5 | Tottenham Hotspur | €717.91m | 491 | €395.76m | 482 | €-322.14m |
6 | Aston Villa | €435.88m | 337 | €247.68m | 334 | €-188.20m |
7 | Sunderland AFC | €377.31m | 473 | €192.34m | 469 | €-184.97m |
8 | Newcastle United | €545.26m | 373 | €374.65m | 365 | €-170.61m |
9 | Fulham FC | €259.19m | 424 | €141.48m | 425 | €-117.72m |
10 | Middlesbrough FC | €293.18m | 402 | €182.93m | 394 | €-110.25m |
# | club | Expenditure | Arrivals | Income | Departures | Balance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Manchester City | €1.68bn | 274 | €466.44m | 269 | €-1,212.68m |
2 | Manchester United | €1.14bn | 180 | €423.90m | 187 | €-711.29m |
3 | Chelsea FC | €1.35bn | 328 | €816.84m | 315 | €-537.96m |
4 | Liverpool FC | €1.12bn | 237 | €763.37m | 240 | €-357.01m |
5 | Arsenal FC | €737.40m | 193 | €449.64m | 190 | €-287.76m |
6 | Stoke City | €351.41m | 237 | €112.76m | 231 | €-238.65m |
7 | Everton FC | €588.79m | 194 | €368.62m | 181 | €-220.17m |
8 | AFC Bournemouth | €231.52m | 277 | €53.78m | 272 | €-177.74m |
9 | Crystal Palace | €262.55m | 281 | €88.98m | 283 | €-173.57m |
10 | West Ham United | €444.71m | 264 | €277.56m | 263 | €-167.14m |
# | club | Expenditure | Arrivals | Income | Departures | Balance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Arsenal FC | €459.08m | 57 | €118.40m | 59 | €-340.68m |
2 | Manchester United | €458.60m | 44 | €131.38m | 43 | €-327.22m |
3 | Tottenham Hotspur | €442.10m | 50 | €118.92m | 48 | €-323.18m |
4 | Aston Villa | €445.17m | 68 | €150.27m | 66 | €-294.90m |
5 | Manchester City | €526.32m | 83 | €249.95m | 74 | €-276.37m |
6 | Newcastle United | €309.40m | 41 | €35.92m | 39 | €-273.49m |
7 | Leeds United | €223.54m | 59 | €30.40m | 57 | €-193.14m |
8 | West Ham United | €293.30m | 38 | €105.13m | 48 | €-188.18m |
9 | Liverpool FC | €265.84m | 48 | €147.25m | 47 | €-118.59m |
10 | Wolverhampton Wanderers | €258.80m | 80 | €145.10m | 73 | €-113.70m |
I think they're unarguably improved at this point.Sterling and Jesus are quality so not sure they are improving that much. We see though if Haaland can play every game they have an elite striker.
The others are more backups even if Cucurella can be a starter over Walker.
Haaland is a massive upgrade on Jesus as striker. Sterling was already more or less surplus to requirements due to the acquisition of Grealish and Foden's development. Phillips replaces Fernandinho.Sterling and Jesus are quality so not sure they are improving that much. We see though if Haaland can play every game they have an elite striker.
The others are more backups even if Cucurella can be a starter over Walker.
No, I said we weren't the biggest spenders in the whole period where Ferguson was manager (which is true) and I also said that one reason for that was that we were for most of that period in a position where we could focus on maintaining a dominant squad, similar to where City is now. I did not say that we went through a phase of outspending everyone in order to become the dominant team under Ferguson. Although in actual fact, we did (except for Blackburn):But you said the only reason we weren't the biggest spenders is because we were already the best. City spent the most money to become the best, under SAF for the most part we never spent the most money to become the best. We were never the highest spenders at the start of the PL era when we started winning and we definitely didn't have the best squad just before the PL era began.
# | club | Expenditure | Arrivals | Income | Departures | Balance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Blackburn Rovers | €18.20m | 69 | €3.53m | 59 | €-14.67m |
2 | Manchester United | €23.66m | 63 | €9.15m | 63 | €-14.51m |
3 | Liverpool FC | €28.20m | 51 | €19.53m | 45 | €-8.67m |
4 | Leeds United | €15.28m | 87 | €6.88m | 78 | €-8.40m |
5 | Arsenal FC | €17.71m | 61 | €12.02m | 60 | €-5.69m |
6 | Sheffield Wednesday | €14.75m | 74 | €10.04m | 75 | €-4.70m |
7 | Crystal Palace | €12.78m | 68 | €10.20m | 51 | €-2.59m |
8 | Sheffield United | €4.92m | 78 | €2.73m | 67 | €-2.18m |
9 | Tottenham Hotspur | €27.67m | 94 | €25.55m | 89 | €-2.12m |
10 | Everton FC | €21.87m | 65 | €20.01m | 64 | €-1.86m |
Maybe the Competition and Markets Authority should intervene and break City up into smaller clubs.....Nothing was done over 10yrs ago. If nobody could see this coming they were blind.
It's just going to get worse now, as the Newcastle takeover was allowed! So imo
City now have another free pass just like CAS gave them to do what and when they like. Utd and the others can try and chase to what degree.
When is enough enough. You can now put money on City at winning the league at least CL semi final a domestic final or Semi at least. Is that a fair playing field ?. And odds are not a lot. Bookies don't often get it wrong?
There maybe 1 team that could push them again but is that a good advert for the prem.
It's now going to be even easier for City with 5 subs. They can now change nearly half of there team in every game with there bench. Now there £100m man will get a game.
I don't know, difference between then and now is we would just pay the high agent fees now, previously if you recall we lost out on Hazard, Aguero and others partly du to SAF's reported hatred of agents but also because it was a business decision. Now it's just the norm and it was Chelsea/City who drove the fees up to stupid levels in my opinion because of that, plus an honourable mention to PSG for fecking up the market completely with Neymar.History suggests he can't. This is pretty much the position we were in ten years ago. Or at least twelve.
and fecking up his careerI don't know, difference between then and now is we would just pay the high agent fees now, previously if you recall we lost out on Hazard, Aguero and others partly du to SAF's reported hatred of agents but also because it was a business decision. Now it's just the norm and it was Chelsea/City who drove the fees up to stupid levels in my opinion because of that, plus an honourable mention to PSG for fecking up the market completely with Neymar.
Brilliantly put ... How do you expect Southampton to ever challenge for CL if all their top players are immediately taken away after they come 6th-7th in the league? How do you expect Sunderland to ever attract quality players if players would rather live in London (Spurs/Fulham/Crystal P/Brentford/West Ham) rather than the North East? It's all about money, its always been about money.Also it’s worth noting that the FFP rules were negotiated and agreed by the biggest clubs, who had an obvious vested interest in not allowing smaller clubs to reach their level. I seem to remember that Utd argued for existing club debt not to be included in the calculations, thus conveniently allowing their half billion (or whatever) debt not to affect their spending power.
Annoyingly I think you're correct.I think they're unarguably improved at this point.
Jesus is good but Haaland is a big upgrade for sure.
Phillips at this point is an upgrade over Fernandinho.
Cucurella at this point is pure upgrade a LB - though they might end up selling Zinchenko. If that's a like-for-like swap it's a still a net positive for sure for them.
The only question mark would be essentially swapping out Sterling for Alvarez - however I've a feeling he's going to quickly prove to be a quality player.
It remains to be seen what other business they'll do though. Losing Bernardo Silva would hurt them for sure if that ends up happening.
The typical bollocks response then yeahYou’re right. Now you mention it we should protest anything with Middle East investment. We can start with UAE & Saudi in particular so we can really show our detest for the City & Newcastle ownerships.
It’ll be tough though, both countries do run huge wealth funds and own big stakes in things we use everyday; Disney, Apple, Facebook, Boeing, Uber, most banks, and also have stakes in other huge investment funds like Berkshire Hathaway to cover the rest. It gets worse too, what should we do about Aramco providing oil to the rest of the world, as well as all of the Sponsorships they have? I’ll stop watching Formula 1.
Now you mention it, I’m probably just not going to leave my house, and I’ll have to get rid of a few things inside it. Also going to stop being friends with anybody who has ever been on holiday to Dubai, but it’s for the best because you know.. Politics!
I’m in if you are.
Agree re Haaland, it’d fairly undeniable that it’s a major improvement. Not so sure on Cucurella but I’ve not seen lots of him. Zinchenko is a fantastic player in my opinion so any upgrade would be minor. I’ll be interested to see how Philips changes them, he’s a good player but to me not really a Pep player.I think they're unarguably improved at this point.
Jesus is good but Haaland is a big upgrade for sure.
Phillips at this point is an upgrade over Fernandinho.
Cucurella at this point is pure upgrade a LB - though they might end up selling Zinchenko. If that's a like-for-like swap it's a still a net positive for sure for them.
The only question mark would be essentially swapping out Sterling for Alvarez - however I've a feeling he's going to quickly prove to be a quality player.
It remains to be seen what other business they'll do though. Losing Bernardo Silva would hurt them for sure if that ends up happening.
That's like saying taking a mortgage to own a home or start a business is immoral. Almost all large acquisitions are funded with 70-80% Debt (unless you are a cash rich software company like Amazon/Microsoft/Apple). There is no concept of morality in this. United's owners took a risk of accepting Debt while betting that they could increase cash flows enough to pay off the Debt. Every large corporation you've worked for has done this.LBO's are immoral
Because they are a London-based team ... they have an intrinsic advantage that a player would rather live in a big city like London rather than Vigo, Lens and Cagliari. How can any of these 'small' teams ever grow if they have such a huge disadvantage?Chelsea were more established
Yes outliers exist. After their victory, how many times have they been considered a challenger for a top-4 position at the start of the season? Is it because they lost Mahrez & Kante in succession? Why do they lose key players like Maguire and now Tielemens? Do you think they will challenge for top-4 this season?Leicester even won the league in recent memory
So United/Pool/Chelsea/Spurs/Arsenal owners don't have business interests? They run it as a non-profit? City owners have invested more into Manchester's revitalization than Glazers have.You're effectively ran by and accountable to a foreign government as a vessel for their business interests.
What on Earth are you talking about?United/Pool/Chelsea/Spurs/Arsenal owners don't have business interests? They run it as a non-profit? City owners have invested more into Manchester's revitalization than Glazers have.
Also lets be real here - the problem is that WHITE Europeans subconsciously seem to view anyone from a different system (non-democratic, brown majority) as a bigger threat than they really are, and end up holding them to a higher standard. Not that it stops them from preserving their self interests. Few examples:
In 2008 - during the global credit crisis - Citibank UK was completely f-ed. The only person to provide Citibank funds at a favorable equity stake was a Saudi prince ($600 million all liquid and given immediately). Without his help, the crisis would have made even more people homeless in the UK than what happened. Why did you take this money?
Why does BP still have operating interest in Saudi & IRAN refineries/fields?
Why do you take any kind of American investment in the UK - even Donald Trump (a person who portrays himself as a tough all-American patriot) has said numerous times that America should not have been in Iraq. What was America doing in Iraq that they should not have been there? Are you sure any other country, for example Russia, would be allowed to get away with accusing a country of harboring Nazis and attacking the country with dubious evidence (still waiting on the WMDs)?
I don't think that this should be a part of sport at all ... I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of working with unsavory organizations when it suits you and demonizing the same set of organizations when it doesn't suit you.What on Earth are you talking about?
The fact is a wealthy nation state with a history of human rights abuse is backing a football team far beyond the reach of any other, with the exception of the other couple of teams who are backed by nation states with histories of human rights abuse. If you think that’s all part and parcel of what sport is about then you’re full of shit I’m afraid.
I figured it would end there..The typical bollocks response then yeah