Abu Dhabi boss plans Ronaldo swoop

[Adebesi]

If the Glazers were trillionaires, the takeover hadn't been leveraged and they did their damndest to spend 30 million quid on our local rivals main summer signing, before going on to nick Chelsea's main target, from right under their noses, I reckon their reception would have been very, very different.

Do you think? I guess it would have been different. But some of the comments that have been posted on here in the last couple of days make me wonder. Obviously part of it is down to jealousy that it happened to our rivals, therefore the natural thing is to demean it. But some of the points raised are valid:
1) they know feck all about football
2) it is distoring and detrimental to football generally (OK I doubt United fans would generally care about the rest of the football world) But at least we can say it is our own success - albeit commercial, as well as footballing - that has got us to where we are. Which gives us bragging rights over Chelsea - and, now, City.
3) it is lacking in class
4) what happens if they get bored and decide to feck off?
5) what does the pressure of having an ambitious owner and fan place on the manager and the team? Doesnt seem conducive to the kind of stability we pride ourselves on here.

I take your point. I am sure it wouldnt be like the Glazer takeover. But it may not have been as widely popular as it was at City.

 

[Sir A1ex]

I take your point. I am sure it wouldnt be like the Glazer takeover. But it may not have been as widely popular as it was at City.

Indeed. The lack of worry over debt would mean opposition would be much less vociferous, but I don't think most fans would welcome them... it's demeaning to become a billionaire's play-thing. You don't see women with well paid, satisfying jobs deciding to sell their bodies, do you?

 

[Adebesi]

Indeed. The lack of worry over debt would mean opposition would be much less vociferous, but I don't think most fans would welcome them... it's demeaning to become a billionaire's play-thing. You don't see women with well paid, satisfying jobs deciding to sell their bodies, do you?

Well... some women who sell their bodies are very well paid. As to job satisfaction, I have no comment. Its just a shame for them I am monogomous.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Well... some women who sell their bodies are very well paid. As to job satisfaction, I have no comment. Its just a shame for them I am monogomous.

I'm sure they're crying themselves to sleep as we type.
Either that, or trying to come up with a scheme to somehow break up the seemingly rock-solid relationship between you and your right hand.

 

[Julian Denny]

But these people don't understand / give a toss about history, heritage and all that. All that matters is the biggest and most expensive. In fact, being shiny and new is a more desirable quality than having a great past. Just take a look at the hideous things being constructed in the Emirates, such as "The World" and "Dubai Land".

They may not, but if they want the biggest and the most expensive then that's United and certainly not City. By comparison City is a second rate club with nothing going for it except the prospect of millions coming into it from the new owners. Millions which could be squandered - if things don't gel. As I've said, money does not guarantee success and neither will it guarantee quality and prestige. One can certainly understand Abramovich buying Chelsea after he found United too expensive. But City - give us a break !

 

[Adebesi]

Ha ha. They can try. But my right hand and I are very much in love and have been for a very long time.

 

[BahamaRed]

It's probably a good job they only had ONE DAY to deal in!
That's some serious $$$ they got and they could do a lot with that. Shucks, If I had trillions I'd like to buy me my own real FM footy team.

Mind you, have to say if shitty spent a trillion on players they'd still be shitty.

 

[Sir A1ex]

They may not, but if they want the biggest and the most expensive then that's United and certainly not City.

But they can construct a new biggest shiniest club in the world (or so they hope). It's all about having built the biggest and best yourself - just like their crazed construction projects.

 

[RedPhil1957]

Their aim apparently is a top four position this season and to win the League and maybe the Champs league next. All very ambitious. What will become clear is that you can't necessarily buy a successful football team. It take a lot more than that. I think perhaps that's one thing Abramovich has learned. He still has some way to go to be the greatest football power on the planet - the stated aim I believe. At the moment, who really wants to play for City ? Robinho of course but not everyone will want to go there just for the cash. They want the glory as well and to play at the top level and that's not guaranteed.

I'm still wondering, if money is absolutely no object, why they didn't go for the real thing and buy United. Everything is in place and by that I mean better than anything City has right now - from playing staff, to management, to the ground, the training facilities, the history, the tradition and not least the greatest brand in world football.

You have just answered your own question ....... whatever they spent at United could only slightly magnify what we already are......... you can see already it's all about what they can turn City into

 

[T2000]

With these new owners, does this mean I have to stop singing 'this is how it feels to be city, this is how it feels to be small, this is how it feels when your club means nothing at all'?

 

[RedPhil1957]

With these new owners, does this mean I have to stop singing 'this is how it feels to be city, this is how it feels to be small, this is how it feels when your club means nothing at all'?

no that song is still true and always will be!!!

 

[vijay]

That gulf businessman isnt a thug like Roman to work over time to launder his stolen money. He has more clues about football and business models than many here presume.

 

[Wonder Pigeon]

Nah, as they proved both Zola and Desailly had plenty of years left in them.

Chelsea was already an attractive destination, more so than Manchester City.

And still, Chelsea did not manage to wrestle the top, top players away from the top clubs when Abramovich came in.

City are even less likely to manage it.

Cnut is talking a lot of sense here, I wouldn't be too worried if I was you lot. Don't forget that Chelsea had already qualified for the Champions League when they were took over, whereas City where a midtable club. Chelsea also talked about signing Nesta, Ronaldo, Figo, in the end they signed none of these players. Plus, Hughes, or any other sensible manager they bring in, would not allow them to bring in players that would make the City team unbalanced.

I wish Arab trillionaires had more interest in the League of Ireland

 

[Kinky Melinky]

Except that Sloane Street is in Knightsbridge (OK, just Chelsea by the time you get to the Square) and Stamford Bridge is actually in Fulham, NOT Chelsea.

Yeah Yeah. My geographic grasp of London isn't the best but you know what I'm getting at. The general area is nicer than Moss Side

 

[Sir A1ex]

With these new owners, does this mean I have to stop singing 'this is how it feels to be city, this is how it feels to be small, this is how it feels when your club means nothing at all'?

This is how it feels to be City
This is how it feels to be rich
This is how it feels when you're still Alex Ferguson's b1tch....

 

[FlawlessThaw]

I'd like to see you walk just under two miles in 15 minutes!

I have variously lived five minutes' walk from Loftus Road and a similar distance from the Bridge. Nothing much to choose between Fulham Broadway and Shepherd's Bush Green IMO.

To be honest even that's not true least in the opinion of a student. Fulham Broadway is a lot more nicer than Shepherd's Bush. But it's no Sloane Square.