okay mate any other messages you'd like me to pass on?
The men behind Man city: If you thought Qatar was a problem, wait till you get a load of Abu Dhabi
- Thread starter Maradona10
- Start date
I'll ping you when I think of some.
I'm not being snide, this thread shows I'm prepared to elaborate on opinions and take time to give as balanced a post as I can, but if you think this question needs to be answered I strongly strongly suggest some research. Can't really understand how you can ask that with a presumably straight face
I was genuinely curious. If you mean buying victory, it's not something Real or Bayern haven't done before.
You can't really blame the club for having a particular Owner, can you?
I'm not getting into this at depth, again. Buying victory is the tip of the iceberg, and when you say can't blame the club for an owner, I don't know who you mean by "club". Also to compare Real Madrid and Bayern Munich with city is insane,
Not really. These days the Caf welcomes oppo fans with open arms and let's them WUM and be discourteous frequently in fear of being too right wing.good point to be fair.
This forum has been very nice and complimentary towards City of late (this thread aside) but it takes a thick skin to stomach being on a United forum as a City fan. That applies to the resident scousers on here too. Don't know how you do it.
It's a soft touch.
Reading through that partnership list is interesting. This got my attention:
Since Disney is buying Fox Disney is becoming United partner at long last.
http://www.manutd.com/en/Partners/Global-Partners.aspx?sponsorid={AFF67A74-254E-4407-97E6-D5CC6AEFE830}
About 20th Century Fox
One of the world’s largest producers and distributors of motion pictures, 20th Century Fox produces, acquires and distributes motion pictures throughout the world. These motion pictures are produced or acquired by the following units: Twentieth Century Fox, Fox 2000 Pictures, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Fox International Productions and Twentieth Century Fox Animation.
Not really when you compare turnover it's not. Or wage bills.
Dig about an inch deeper to see the differences between those clubs and how their spending is different
Not in UEFA’s eyes.
You’re one of these calling City’s revenue all linked the owner are you? Which deal in particular? The £40m per year From Etihad to sponsor the stadium, the kit and the campus? If anything it’s now hugely undervalued but it’s up for renewal at the end of next year so I won’t worry too much.
Or do you mean the one with Etisalat for £12m or the single figure million deal with the Abu Dhabi tourist board?
Abu Dhabi accounts for less than 12% of revenue so what’s your problem with that?
Do you really think that of City decided to use no sponsors from the Middle East that they wouldn’t be able to sign a £40m per year deal for shirts, stadium and training ground? Tell me which shirt is shown on TV more in the UK at the moment? Maybe United’s (and that’s fine) and you receive £50m for the shirts alone. You receive a further £15m per season for the training ground sponsorship and you’d receive similar (at a very minimum) if you sold the naming rights to OT.
Isn’t it getting tedious yet talking about spending and turnover and where the money comes from? Until the G14 cartel came up with FFP then no one batted any eyelid at owner investment anyway. It’s how businesses grow and the revenue streams follow.
City are doing nothing that other teams haven’t done before. They aren’t breaking transfer records, they haven’t signed a top 3 most expensive player in English football history, they have simply bought a lot of very good and/or very young players from the next tier down (From global superstar I mean) and at present it’s working fairly well for them.
Having said that at the beginning of last season “Sterling was crap, De Bruyne a Chelsea flop, Silva finished, John Stones a liability, Otamendi(see Stones), Kompany past it, geriatric fullbacks, an over the hill Fernandinho, Ilkay constantly injured, Jesus couldn’t be that great as Barca didn’t sign him, and the less said about Joe Hart or Bravo the better.”
It was a lot better when fans just talked about football rather than accountancy or the human rights of foreign workers (earning considerably more than the likes of Nike pay their factory workers in the countries of original where said foreign workers come from).
The manner in which City "acquired" the funds necessary to buy a winning football team is what urks people somewhat.
There is a distinct difference between City, Bayern, Real and United.
We should traffic a few of these people over to Equatorial Guinea and see how they get on. Let us know how that GDP per capita benefits you.
Well thought out post though I disagree with a lot of it, that's just my opinion. I Can see we will simply never agree on this we're just coming at it from different angles, such is the nature of supporting a rival team.
Some points from my POV
City have spent more money since 2009 than man united have since the premier league began.like it or not it is unprecedented and it has bought them success. for me there are many reasons why this is bad for the game (not from a United standpoint, united should be able to compete given where we were when city took over.) I'm not too pushed to know what they turnover purely as a result of the initial billions, without the unorecendted spend on and off the pitch, the rest doesn't happen. Why is this relevant?....I touch on this further down.
call me a traditionalist but if some dodgy overseas guy comes and pumps billions into foreign clubs and in a few years we have a champions league final of Stuttgart versus Bordeaux, it won't really stir the passion I grew up with for the game. They'd probably be cracking sides with great players and play nice stuff, but that would be it. It would essentially be mayweather vs mcgregor but with a football.
I think the game is stepping further and further away from the fundamental reasons people love it, and sugar daddy billionaire project clubs are just another huge part of what's escalating this departure. (Part of, not sole cause of and Yes, many big clubs including united are part of the problem too). There are multiple reasons why if I was a city fan a lot of it just wouldn't sit right with me, I'd certainly enjoy the ride but I wouldn't be in denial about our place and this eras future legacy in the game. City are doing what no club has done before. There's not a single side in history that has elevated from utter mediocrity to their level in that timeframe and what many city fans don't like to acknowledge is that is hasn't been a Roy of the rovers journey. As I said to another poster, this is said without any agenda against city, youl find many posters on here discuss the differences of united as a club when their support began and now, and many will condem our failings. City , for my money, are a grotesque symbol of the games failings, when we leave their attractive football to one side.
What I wouldn't want you to think is that I just want the status quo, the big clubs stay big and fight among themselves, leaving little city and West Ham toiling. Competition and teams rising to the top is great. Welcome to the top table. But billionaire owners have basically dragged teams to where they've moved the goalposts to and where it was possible maybe ten years ago in:
Spain: Valencia, atletico can not and likely will not ever topple the big 2.
Germany: this league will be/is monopolised
England: city, united and Chelsea are largely untouchable barring the odd anomaly, the only way Tottenham Arsenal and Liverpool will compete consistently is by getting a billionaire owner and literally spending the same as city.
In actual fact leagues were more open years back, as I said the Chelseas, city's and psgs will have to be matched or left behind and only a few clubs can match it. The gap between the top and the teams who might otherwise have Been on their tails widens further. Again, united were lucky to be where we were, but if I were a Liverpool or arsenal fan I'd be incredibly frustrated. (The argument that their owners should spend doesn't fly, a line has to be drawn and for many teams what city spend is well past it)
Lastly without being sanctimonious, i absolutely will talk about off field issues and human rights where football is exploiting them. It has to be part of the conversation, full stop. In my opinion. This is why what I once thought of as the refuge for purists, the World Cup, now also has a big black mark.
Actual fact?
The post new City era had as many winners in 5 years as the 18 years before it.
I mean Europe wide and while one team won most under Ferguson there was at least a chance some teams might come up and be competitive. Not going to happen now. You can hone in on one misplaced word if you like, but my feelings are exactly the same however you want to word it.
Psg have won 5 of last 6 Ligue 1s. Impressive, yep. Worthy of respect? Not really. Exact same worldwide Should city win a few. Everybody knows
PSG won 4.
How could you say there was a chance some team might come up and be competitive when the evidence is just in front of you. It never happened.
In fact the only unconventional winner was Blackburn.
I agree with you that cash helps a lot, but to say the PL was more competitive can not be proven.
The average difference between 1st and 2nd in the last 10 years is 5 points. In the 15 years preceding it, it was 10 points.
Anyway, I don’t know why we are discussing this here, this thread is about how horrible humans beings the owners are.
Last edited by a moderator:
Will be 5 this year then.
Ferguson skewed the titles due to how good he was. But teams could at least be more aspirational then, there's just no chance anybody can compete with city, and as you said, thief horrible human being owners
Yes?
This man knows.Come on, you don't honestly believe this do you?
I work in oil and gas btw. Citizens is a very important word in this discussion.
Hopeful?
Yes!
Vincent Tan.
Apologies for the delay in replying, I only get 3 a day so it may take another day to respond to you if you reply to this although I agree that we are unlikely to ever agree.
That is due to the nature of transfer fees being virtually logarithmic due to football inflation. United spent more this summer alone than they spent in the first 18 years of the Premier League. The TV money alone for the bottom side this season is worth five times more than the capital value of United two and a half decades ago. Heck, you could buy the most expensive player in the world (when football began) in 1992 for £10m where as now you'd be paying 20x that to purchase similar. How much do you think Rooney would cost at 18 in today's market? Considerably more than £28m and probably a lot more than the £44m plus add one we spent on Sterling. Any team that spends big now compared with a team doing it twenty years ago will always have spent a great deal more however City have only spent £13.7m net more per season since first winning the team in 2012 and we both have one PL win since that date. But yes, I'll certainly not argue that we have bought success and until the academy produces 11 of its own then any success will be bought, I'm ok with that.
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/pre...tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons
What City have not done however, is ever broken the British or World transfer record. You say it's unprecedented but it's really not, they in effect bought two teams, one to qualify for gravy train of the CL (more about that later) and the second to compete for the title. The Chairman went on record when FFP was introduced and stated City had spent more than they'd like and accelerated spending to ensure they had CL income before the ladder was pulled up from above by the 'elite'.
A rather clever investment strategy even if we disagree on how many "billions" have been spent. The Guardian's long read suggests "In October 2015, China’s football-loving president, Xi Jinping, visited City’s Etihad stadium; two months later, Chinese investors bought 13% of CFG for $400m (£265m), valuing the whole at $3bn. This was probably well over 30% more than Mansour had pumped into it (no exact figures are available)."
Even the OP's article suggests Mansour has only invested £850m of his own money (or £650m if you ignore the capital purchase value of the club). So you must admit that should Mansour sell the club (and City Football Group) tomorrow, he's be looking at a net capital gain (profit) of £1.15bn. That's some going and also shows why the initial investment of large sums to cover losses was hugely important. The club had to start challenging and being successful to increase its appeal to fans and to maximise commercial revenue streams.
It may not stir yours but it wouldn't put me off at all. Football isn't some gentlemans club or old boys alumni, the likes of Madrid or Barca or United or Liverpool have no divine right to forever buy the best players and win the CL ever other year. That sort of thing may stir your passion but it doesn't mine nor millions of others either.
See above, until Chelsea and City were elevated with initial owner investment then we were stuck in a rather boring duopoly of Arsenal and United carving the league up between them for the better part of a decade. I'm sure you loved it but I didn't. I was over the moon when Chelsea became rich and started challenging you. I loved Jose back then as he was a breath of fresh air for the PL. Since City won the lottery (and we really did) no club has retained the PL, in the ten years prior United retained it four times and Chelsea managed it once.
There are plenty of cases in history of clubs rising above their perceived historical average, the difference is that it looks unlikely City are going to drop off a cliff and disappear as no big boys can raid them of their star players as they have the spending power to turn down offers and they can compete with anyone for wages. Without the CL money and bigger clubs having more spending power the imagine how good West Ham could have been had they been able to hold on to Lampard, Ferdinand, Cole, peak Defoe, Mascerano and Tevez. Or Spurs if they'd been able to keep Carrick, Berbatoc, Modric, Bale, Van der Vart etc and we all know Liverpool have poached any half decent player that Southampton have produced in the last five years.
The game hasn't failed, it's just got more competitors at the top table now.
But that didn't happen, without Chelsea and City then we'd now be looking at Arsenal and United sharing out the PL between them for the last 17 years with maybe a 19th title for Liverpool thrown in.
And that's not down to City, that's down to the way CL money is distributed, clubs outside of the CL have far less money to spend (although that's not diluted somewhat in the PL compared with 10/15 years ago due to the levels of TV money sloshing around for domestic league.)
Also in Spain it’s nothing to do with City and everything to do with Madrid and Barca receiving all the tv money. A situation that’s entirely distasteful and unfair.
But again, this view that all was rosie and the summers were long and warm is just what happens when people look back at prior times with fondness. United and to a lesser degree Arsenal dominated the PL before the "sugar daddy" clubs came in. The stats show the league is more competitive now than ever (this season looks a one horse race but is an anomaly).
There may have seemed a chance but in reality it didn't happen. Four clubs have won the league since the City purchase in 2008 (Chelsea, City, Leicester, United). Three had won the league in the previous ten years (Chelsea, United, Arsenal). And three again between that time and the inception of the PL (Arsenal, Blackburn, United) and one of those was the archetypal sugar daddy club in Blackburn. So it wasn't more competitive at any time in PL history than it is now, the only difference is that the odd club used to retain the title more often.
Anyway, good chatting, I'm sorry we don't agree and I'm not looking to argue, just put forward a different perspective.
Last edited:
Excellent post.
Regarding the quoted part, I discussed exactly this in the main city thread and I can guarantee you that no one from those claiming City is a money losing business will ever answer your post. To them this post never happened.
Note: As you mentioned, Mansour sold 13%, so he will gain 87% of that 1.15bn.
I'm interested to know how you would plan to go about this if City do win the league. Are you going to type us all to death? After all, I can't imagine you're going to personally track down every City fan and have it out with them face-to-face but if you are I'll PM you my home address and you're welcome to knock on. Don't be surprised if I'm out of the house celebrating the title win though. In which case, you can tell the better half what you think instead - she's a United fan by the way.
Again if a neutral read my post and then yours we just have different opinions, there's no definitive contradiction here that would make me change my mind,
Regarding the transfer fees and inflation, this would only be relevant if I was not counting united transfers in that time. So while city have been spending that much United have been buying in the same market. We can go round in circles on the finer details but there's definitely some selective interpreting going on there, in fact in some of the cases where you express a disagreement youre just paraphrasing things I said at a different time of my post, particualrly regarding clubs having a divine right to be at the top, I thought I was clear that I don't think that. I do think Arsenal would be much closer to winning a title for example, had City and Chelsea not been bought, other teams too.
Likely doesn't warrant much chat.
Again as a United fan who spend decades hearing the vile and venom we did and that we bought titles, we were the highest spenders in the league 1 year out of the 8 premier league seasons until we won the treble. I'm not acccusing you of this, but it doesn't sit right that so many city fans now want to reimagine how they feel about money despite so many of them being part of the pure hatred thrown at us for decades.
At least we can agree that city won the lottery.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Wait there. We’re the men behind Manchester City at the moment
What a brilliant article. Deserves its own thread.
The fact that a journalist writing a piece like that and having to load it with disclaimers and qualifiers though, is a symptom of the rabid dog mentality of city fans (and united fans that support city.) and their protectors in the media.
Sadly it says more about the state of libel laws in this country. The media simply cannot report on rich individuals without facing costly legal battles. Cohen has written a lot about this in the past and knows the subject well.
Classic city. Their ‘support’ spend years calling United out for flogging replica shirts, and now say nothing about being bank rolled by a regime that flogs it’s slave labour. It’s sad that Man City, a one proud football club, was so desperate for some success that it had to totally sell its soul and forfeit any claim to the moral high ground.
Fair play to him for nudging the discussion in that case.
No one is bankrolling City now. They make a profit and derive 12% of their income from Abu Dhabi and those income streams are now undervalued.
You may think it’s sad but every City fan I know is over the moon, myself included.
The supposed brilliant article brings nothing to the table. The author has written the same piece half a dozen times and whilst Cohen has no issues with Israel he does have issues with every middle eastern Emirate, weird eh.
There’s also no such thing as slave labour despite what certain sections of the media state. The workers are paid three or four times the amounts they would in their home countries and are flown out and back and have their housing provided. It may not be huge pay by western standards but it’s anything but indentured servitude.
I’m currently working in the Middle East and have been for five years and have many friends that work in HR and health and safety capacities as well as construction and engineering and it’s all complete horse droppings to state any worker is forced to work against their will.
As for certain sections trying to claim any moral high ground? Christ is that the level we as football fans have found? It’s no longer about supporting the players on the pitch or enjoying the game and studying the tactics? It’s now about trying to appear as virtuous as possible for choosing (or in my case being forced) to select a certain club side when we were preteens?
Classic Cohen somehow trying to fit bashing Corbyn into a completely unrelated story.
That’s really irrelevant. The Emirates have pumped more than a billion into the club. That doesn’t become irrelevant because they are now turning a slight profit.
Yeah, that’s Nick Cohen for you.
Football is being used by regimes as a way to express political / financial might. It is a new frontier for “soft-power”. The UAE and Qatar are using football to whitewash their reputations. If we just ignore the financial side, the ownership side, we let them accomplish that aim unimpeded.
£850m owner investment (including purchase price) according to the OP article and Swiss Ramble. Club now valued around £2bn so it appears a wise investment strategy thus far.
Totally agree.
If that was the case then why didn't the Emir or sovereign wealth fund just buy them directly? Khaldoon Mubarak has been at pains to point out that it was a private purchase by Mansour from his own wealth rather than that of the Emirate. I would agree but for the fact that City and Mansour play down the Abu Dhabi link at every opportunity.
Last edited:
Sorry, you're going to have to edit or rewrite that post for it not to smugly imply you get to somehow feck Utd twice.
Surely people know what "emphaty" means, and surely people can apply it to consider how the vast majority of city fans will currently feel about both their position in the league on the one hand and remarks about money, the UAE or even doping. I presume that they are very happy indeed and most willing to shrug those remarks of as inspired by jealousy, which would likely be similar for United or any PL team if they had found themselves in a similar situation.
Last edited by a moderator:
With the help of Cohen and many posters on here, we can finally overthrow our Government. They can then decide who is best fit to rule our country. Only then, we can return back all the workers’ confiscated phones, so that they can call their fellow countrymen back home, and warn them about how shitty it really is down here, and ask them to stop coming for good.
Believe me, with the madhouse that my house is at the moment I don’t get chance to personally feck United at all