Man City 2020/21 - General discussion

Manchester Dan

Full Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
2,430
Supports
Man City
a state doesnt, its owned by a member of the royal family, not the state
mansour is the deputy prime minister of the UAE and a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family

even if we ignore this factual error, why does who owns a football team ruin your enjoyment of football
Our ownership is actually more commercial now too - 78% is majority owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), 12% by the American firm Silver Lake and Chinese firms China Media Capital and CITIC Capital.

Mansour then owns and runs ADUG.
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
9,830
Location
Sunny Manc
a state doesnt, its owned by a member of the royal family, not the state
mansour is the deputy prime minister of the UAE and a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family

even if we ignore this factual error, why does who owns a football team ruin your enjoyment of football
I'm sure we all think it's great that historically significant clubs like City are backed with the spending and legal power of small countries, and regularly circumvent the rules. They've been a real win for football.
 

jontheblue

Full Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
208
Supports
MCFC
I'm sure we all think it's great that historically significant clubs like City are backed with the spending and legal power of small countries, and regularly circumvent the rules. They've been a real win for football.
One day, someone will explain in a manner that makes sense, what difference 'historically significant' or lack of makes to any argument about he owners and funding of any given club

Until then, it will continue to sound like snobbery

If someone wants to talk about how unfair it is that an owner with deep pockets wants to take the risk of bankrolling their club in the hope it helps them win trophies, or whether certain types of owners should be allowed in football, then providing it's a consistent approach that's fine. But the moment someone drops the word 'history' in there (and you're far from the first, but yours is the most recent post), I'm completely lost
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
9,830
Location
Sunny Manc
One day, someone will explain in a manner that makes sense, what difference 'historically significant' or lack of makes to any argument about he owners and funding of any given club

Until then, it will continue to sound like snobbery

If someone wants to talk about how unfair it is that an owner with deep pockets wants to take the risk of bankrolling their club in the hope it helps them win trophies, or whether certain types of owners should be allowed in football, then providing it's a consistent approach that's fine. But the moment someone drops the word 'history' in there (and you're far from the first, but yours is the most recent post), I'm completely lost
Who are we to be snobby about anything. It's just a bit funny that it took the wealth of an entire country to make you a club of any note. But who knows, maybe one day they'll drop you from their leg-up program and you can all go back to Stockport County.
 

manc exile

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
831
I'm sure we all think it's great that historically significant clubs like City are backed with the spending and legal power of small countries, and regularly circumvent the rules. They've been a real win for football.

I know we dont like it but

1.they don't have the spending and legal power of small countries
2.they don't regularly circumvent the rules, they did so once and were fined for it. They were accussed a second time and acquitted on appeal.
3.they have been a real win for the premier league, possibly football as a whole
Look at the premier league from 2000 to the take over and the few years after before their spending catapulted them into the top 4
The top 4 was pretty fixed us, arsenal, liverpool and chelsea.
It would have stayed that way indefinatley without a team being bankrolled from an outside source, because the champions league money meant we and the other three could outspend all our rivals and importantly buy their best players.
The team could have been anyone, it was manchester city. I would much preferred it not to have been our cross town rivals, but it is what it is.
The reason english football is so popular is because many different teams win and we were in danger of losing that. and turning into la liga

for clarity there have now been 7 different english champions since the start of the premier league , in spain there have been 4 and la liga is dull as dishwater because of it.
Before the money went to man city the premier league had 4 different champions, the same as la liga and would not have changed significantly without outside money for a different club.
For the period after the money went into man city, the premier league has had 5 different champions of which 3 hadnt won the premier league previously, la liga has had 3 different champions and they were the same as previously

and for some historical context, there have been 24 different english champions and only 9 different spanish champions since the start of league football in both countries.

Football is only interesting if there is hope of getting to the top.
We do not want to be la liga (dominated by 2/3 teams) or the bundesliga (bayern have won the last 8 years), serie A (Juve have won the last 9).

The enemy isnt sugar daddy clubs its UEFA and FFP, which will turn us into la liga with 4 dominant unchanging teams after a period of adjustment following the investment in city. It will not be shaken up again because the type of investment city had is no longer allowed. The premier league will then stagnate and slowly die.

we need FFP to be updated so that clubs cant borrow excessively but can have outside investment.
If that was in place in the early years of this century the glazers could not have bought us and loaded us with debt and then sucked money out of the club for the next 15 years.

sorry for the rant but i do feel strongly about this
 

jontheblue

Full Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
208
Supports
MCFC
Who are we to be snobby about anything. It's just a bit funny that it took the wealth of an entire country to make you a club of any note. But who knows, maybe one day they'll drop you from their leg-up program and you can all go back to Stockport County.
What's funny is that you just proved the point I was making. But go on, just for a laugh, whilst we are all being funny, what exactly is it that turns a club into 'one of note'.
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
9,830
Location
Sunny Manc
What's funny is that you just proved the point I was making. But go on, just for a laugh, whilst we are all being funny, what exactly is it that turns a club into 'one of note'.
Hard to quantify. Robinho didn’t even know there was such thing as Man City until he realised he hadn’t been driven to Old Trafford, but that’s Man City. I guess actually having fans is a start.
 

footballistic orgasm

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
200
Supports
No team in particular
Hard to quantify. Robinho didn’t even know there was such thing as Man City until he realised he hadn’t been driven to Old Trafford, but that’s Man City. I guess actually having fans is a start.
How many fans (minimum) does a club need to have then to be considered one of note?
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
9,830
Location
Sunny Manc
I know we dont like it but

1.they don't have the spending and legal power of small countries
2.they don't regularly circumvent the rules, they did so once and were fined for it. They were accussed a second time and acquitted on appeal.
3.they have been a real win for the premier league, possibly football as a whole
Look at the premier league from 2000 to the take over and the few years after before their spending catapulted them into the top 4
The top 4 was pretty fixed us, arsenal, liverpool and chelsea.
It would have stayed that way indefinatley without a team being bankrolled from an outside source, because the champions league money meant we and the other three could outspend all our rivals and importantly buy their best players.
The team could have been anyone, it was manchester city. I would much preferred it not to have been our cross town rivals, but it is what it is.
The reason english football is so popular is because many different teams win and we were in danger of losing that. and turning into la liga

for clarity there have now been 7 different english champions since the start of the premier league , in spain there have been 4 and la liga is dull as dishwater because of it.
Before the money went to man city the premier league had 4 different champions, the same as la liga and would not have changed significantly without outside money for a different club.
For the period after the money went into man city, the premier league has had 5 different champions of which 3 hadnt won the premier league previously, la liga has had 3 different champions and they were the same as previously

and for some historical context, there have been 24 different english champions and only 9 different spanish champions since the start of league football in both countries.

Football is only interesting if there is hope of getting to the top.
We do not want to be la liga (dominated by 2/3 teams) or the bundesliga (bayern have won the last 8 years), serie A (Juve have won the last 9).

The enemy isnt sugar daddy clubs its UEFA and FFP, which will turn us into la liga with 4 dominant unchanging teams after a period of adjustment following the investment in city. It will not be shaken up again because the type of investment city had is no longer allowed. The premier league will then stagnate and slowly die.

we need FFP to be updated so that clubs cant borrow excessively but can have outside investment.
If that was in place in the early years of this century the glazers could not have bought us and loaded us with debt and then sucked money out of the club for the next 15 years.

sorry for the rant but i do feel strongly about this
1) They do
2) They do
3) You’re a bit backwards in your thinking here. The answer to breaking monopolies in football isn’t to bankroll a single club into being more powerful than the others put together. City group aren’t doing anything other than tipping the scales further. Any diversification of the top 4 is a result of increased TV money. To suggest City are the reason for increased competition IMO is absurd.
 

manc exile

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
831
1) They do
2) They do
3) You’re a bit backwards in your thinking here. The answer to breaking monopolies in football isn’t to bankroll a single club into being more powerful than the others put together. City group aren’t doing anything other than tipping the scales further. Any diversification of the top 4 is a result of increased TV money. To suggest City are the reason for increased competition IMO is absurd.
1)and your evidence for this is?
2)and your evidence for this is?
3)i dont see how that works, how does that overcome the champions league money only going to 4 clubs
 

Tallis

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
213
I know we dont like it but

1.they don't have the spending and legal power of small countries
2.they don't regularly circumvent the rules, they did so once and were fined for it. They were accussed a second time and acquitted on appeal.
3.they have been a real win for the premier league, possibly football as a whole
Look at the premier league from 2000 to the take over and the few years after before their spending catapulted them into the top 4
The top 4 was pretty fixed us, arsenal, liverpool and chelsea.
It would have stayed that way indefinatley without a team being bankrolled from an outside source, because the champions league money meant we and the other three could outspend all our rivals and importantly buy their best players.
The team could have been anyone, it was manchester city. I would much preferred it not to have been our cross town rivals, but it is what it is.
The reason english football is so popular is because many different teams win and we were in danger of losing that. and turning into la liga

for clarity there have now been 7 different english champions since the start of the premier league , in spain there have been 4 and la liga is dull as dishwater because of it.
Before the money went to man city the premier league had 4 different champions, the same as la liga and would not have changed significantly without outside money for a different club.
For the period after the money went into man city, the premier league has had 5 different champions of which 3 hadnt won the premier league previously, la liga has had 3 different champions and they were the same as previously

and for some historical context, there have been 24 different english champions and only 9 different spanish champions since the start of league football in both countries.

Football is only interesting if there is hope of getting to the top.
We do not want to be la liga (dominated by 2/3 teams) or the bundesliga (bayern have won the last 8 years), serie A (Juve have won the last 9).

The enemy isnt sugar daddy clubs its UEFA and FFP, which will turn us into la liga with 4 dominant unchanging teams after a period of adjustment following the investment in city. It will not be shaken up again because the type of investment city had is no longer allowed. The premier league will then stagnate and slowly die.

we need FFP to be updated so that clubs cant borrow excessively but can have outside investment.
If that was in place in the early years of this century the glazers could not have bought us and loaded us with debt and then sucked money out of the club for the next 15 years.

sorry for the rant but i do feel strongly about this
Not sure why I am bothering but your understanding of facts is very loose.

For instance on your point 2 - they were not acquitted on appeal. Their punishment was changed to a fine - which is not the same as acquittal. In terms of the breaches - they didn’t do it “once” but systemtatacially cooked the books to show compliance with the FFP rules.

So
 

manc exile

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
831
Not sure why I am bothering but your understanding of facts is very loose.

For instance on your point 2 - they were not acquitted on appeal. Their punishment was changed to a fine - which is not the same as acquittal. In terms of the breaches - they didn’t do it “once” but systemtatacially cooked the books to show compliance with the FFP rules.

So
on point two the fine was due to non co operation, they were acquitted of the charges

where is your evidence that that they systematically cooked the books, just saying it doesnt make it so
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
9,830
Location
Sunny Manc
1)and your evidence for this is?
2)and your evidence for this is?
3)i dont see how that works, how does that overcome the champions league money only going to 4 clubs
Calm down, this isn’t the CAS. And even if it was, your legal team doesn’t worry about such trivial matters do they. I don’t really know what you’re trying to get at on point 3, but do carry on thinking you’re the saviour of English football.
 

manc exile

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
831
Calm down, this isn’t the CAS. And even if it was, your legal team doesn’t worry about such trivial matters do they. I don’t really know what you’re trying to get at on point 3, but do carry on thinking you’re the saviour of English football.
firstly i am a united fan, so the use of your is wrong and i dont think they are the saviour of english football, however i do think that overall the injection of money has been good for english football over the last 10 years or so, but this effect is temporary due to FFP and UEFA.
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
9,830
Location
Sunny Manc
firstly i am a united fan, so the use of your is wrong and i dont think they are the saviour of english football, however i do think that overall the injection of money has been good for english football over the last 10 years or so, but this effect is temporary due to FFP and UEFA.
And I’m actually a City fan
 

N1nja-Frog

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
34
Supports
Red Devils
i apologise, i assumed your were a fellow red
I think @Zehner is being sarcastic due to the fact that you're replies in this thread are making it very hard to believe you're anything other than a Man City fan (you know, that club that raffles tickets in order to increase attandance ;) )
 

footballistic orgasm

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
200
Supports
No team in particular
I think @Zehner is being sarcastic due to the fact that you're replies in this thread are making it very hard to believe you're anything other than a Man City fan (you know, that club that raffles tickets in order to increase attandance ;) )
So anyone with a different opinion is a City fan?
 

manc exile

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
831
I think @Zehner is being sarcastic due to the fact that you're replies in this thread are making it very hard to believe you're anything other than a Man City fan (you know, that club that raffles tickets in order to increase attandance ;) )

why?
outside investment is the only way most clubs can compete at the highest level.
more clubs competing at the top end of the premier league is the only thing that keeps the premier league strong.
i believe owners forcing debt onto clubs is a bad thing.
i have seen no evidence of city systematically cheating, but have seen lots of unsubstantiated allegations

how does any of that make me a city fan?
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
26,762
So anyone with a different opinion is a City fan?
Look at his posting history. It’s almost always about Man City and always in defence of them.
:lol: people are so clueless. There are so many rival fans pretending as ManUtd ones. Many got banned, few got their support field updated and few are still active posters. This MancExile is obvious one.
 

The Red Thinker

Full Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
3,638
Location
Knowhere
Sooooooo.... City have shown the world that if you get one, really top quality, reliable centre back... and as long as you have the other pieces, the defence will click.

Ruben Dias is ridiculously good. City have unearthed an Kompany level player.
 

Noot

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
64
Supports
Manchester City
I would make you strong favourites to sign Haaland and don't believe the supposed issue between Guardiola & Mino will prove to be any kind of obstacle either because think Erling just wants to compete for trophies and you will always be doing that with your squad.
It's City. The second we have to compete with any other interested club, we'll pull out and sign 21-year-old from the Brazilian league instead.
 

Noot

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
64
Supports
Manchester City
Was Ruben Dias always this good? I remember someone who watches the Portuguese League regularly said that Lindelof was the better defender then. :eek:
Wouldn't Dias have been barely an adult yet last time Lindelof was playing in Portugal?
 

Noot

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
64
Supports
Manchester City
I guess actually having fans is a start.
Because United's 650,000,000 fans have nothing to do with how successful they used to be. Nothing at all...

It's how football works. You win trophies and you attract a load of fans from around the world and most (not all) of them will stick around after you stop winning. City have only been at the top for ten years, so it'll still be decades before our global fanbase emerges.
 

Pep's Suit

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
1,140
Socanalysis: "Man City have now gone away to Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs, Man Utd & Arsenal and have restricted Salah, Firmino, Mane, Werner, Kane, Son, Rashford, Greenwood, Aubameyang, Lacazette to just 4 shots on target in those games combined."
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
9,830
Location
Sunny Manc
Because United's 650,000,000 fans have nothing to do with how successful they used to be. Nothing at all...

It's how football works. You win trophies and you attract a load of fans from around the world and most (not all) of them will stick around after you stop winning. City have only been at the top for ten years, so it'll still be decades before our global fanbase emerges.
We just naturally accumulated fans from the Busby era. Even during extended periods of being rubbish, we were one of the biggest clubs in the world. City on the other hand... well, the desperate pleas for popularity are a bit cringe.

You're not even a football club anymore, you're just the sportswashing pin-up boy for a big conglomerate.
 

Pep's Suit

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
1,140
Ohh let's be real here: most people have poor lives so just like to be 'connected' to something / someone successful. They like to 'touch' it, to feel like they're a part of it. Of course United will have millions of fans when they were winning for years and years. Hiding behind 'pride' or 'glory' or whatever, that's just nonsense.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
40,007
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Socanalysis: "Man City have now gone away to Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs, Man Utd & Arsenal and have restricted Salah, Firmino, Mane, Werner, Kane, Son, Rashford, Greenwood, Aubameyang, Lacazette to just 4 shots on target in those games combined."
That's Chelsea 2005 levels of defending. They went 1 goal up and you might as well go home then.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
26,762
Socanalysis: "Man City have now gone away to Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs, Man Utd & Arsenal and have restricted Salah, Firmino, Mane, Werner, Kane, Son, Rashford, Greenwood, Aubameyang, Lacazette to just 4 shots on target in those games combined."
That's Chelsea 2005 levels of defending. They went 1 goal up and you might as well go home then.
So is this stat about restricting team to just 4 shots on target or specific players to just 4 shots on target.

If it's a team, it's wrong. If it's just players then it's a hilariously cherrypicked stat.

ManUtd have now gone away to Leicester, Liverpool, Arsenal and have restricted Vardy, Firmino , Laca , Pepe, Martinelli, Mane, Salah, Origi, Maddison, Perez, Tielemans to just 3 shots on target in those games combined.
 
Last edited:

teteus

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Messages
32
Supports
Flamengo
In modern football, it's impossible for a club to truly match the biggest ones and be as rich as them, being able to buy the best players and keep them, without doing the City or PSG route. That's a fact. Bosman Law changed everything and made the gap between the top clubs and even mid-tier ones pretty much unbridgeable. That's the reality. Football isn't like in the 70s, 80s or 90s anymore. Just see what happened to Ajax after their great Champions League campaign in 2019.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheimoon