Varchester City 18/19 discussion

[andyox]

What was the attendance for the trophy parade? As big as the one in 2012? On a personal note, Liverpool winning the champions league will hurt big time but as I said, the City Treble didn't seem as insufferable as i thought it would be in the media. Genuinely surprised at this.

No idea on comparative attendance, but both had good crowds (articles from google have estimates of 100,000 for both actually). The atmosphere around the club is definitely very different now though, obviously. The FA Cup parade in 2011 and the league title parade in 2012 were a celebration of ending 35 years without a trophy/44 years without a title win. There was a lot of agony in between that needed to be let out, so those trophies were much more emotional for me. The mindset now is just celebrating achievement, without the baggage of prior failure.

We were competitively irrelevant to you for so long, so makes sense to me that the United vs Liverpool trophy race/rivalry takes precedence.

 

[andyox]

Are you really a City fan? You're blowing smoke up utds backside and seem to have already found our club guilty of all charges. If you are a City fan have a look at yourself.

Haha, have a look at my posting history if you're worried. The treble including the CL is objectively a harder achievement, I say that having little to no personal interest in the CL by the way. The second bullet point is not my opinion, it's my interpretation of how non-City fans have reconciled or downplayed our achievements. I don't agree with that interpretation, nor do I particularly care what non-City fans think of our achievements.

 

[burnageboy]

Not sure what your beef is but the reality of football inflation is that Qatar and the UAE have upped the ante to an outrageous degree.

Their distortion of the market came about precisely because they are not legitimate football money. Neither City nor PSG are operating on the same level as self financing football clubs. Neither club is investing hard earned football money. Rather both Qatar and the UAE are spending whatever they like to sportswash their image.

Both projects are operating outside of the regular and regulated market. City in particular are being investigated for alleged wrongdoings by almost all of our regulatory bodies.

City have outspent their closest rivals and fellow gulf oil money project PSG by double in the last 5 years.

The only correct response is to ban them from the champions league and they should be severely punished by the premier league too. If that means stripping their titles purchased under cheating ways, then so be it.

Nobody likes cheaters and especially when it's cheating by arrogant billionaire nation state cheaters.

I was getting interested in what you were saying until you lost the plot with entirely incorrect facts. If you want to compare City to PSG spending, you can only compare based on like for like periods ie since the 2011 takeover over PSG. On that basis, the sending on buying players is almost identical at just over £1bn each. But let me also correct you about your statement that City have outspent PSG by double in the last 5 years. City spent £797m since 2014/2015 - PSG £720m. Oh and by the way, United have spent £734m in the same period

The only correct response, is to wait until all of the investigations are completed - and then and only then, if City are found to have broken the rules, the appropriate bodies will hand out the regulated punishment. Your arguments fall of the cliff based on hearsay and conjecture.

 

[burnageboy]

He said we, like every other club, have benefitted from the sugar daddy and state-sponsored spending of Chelsea, City and PSG.

That is the very definition of delusion.

The market is absolutely upside down thanks to those clubs and their dubious ownership.

You just don't get it do you. The money that the owners of Chelsea, City & PSG (approx £4bn) has circulated throughout 100s of clubs. City pay £50m for KDB to Wolfsburg who in turn spend all/some of that money on their own purchases from other clubs. That is £50m that was not in the Football business until City put it in (not as a loan or debt) and is now washing around the football system. No delusion there and if you cannot see or accept that, then you are just being a bitter rival supporter rather than accepting the facts. You might not like the facts, but they are as set in stone as can possibly be.

 

[DevilAgeIdiot]

I was getting interested in what you were saying until you lost the plot with entirely incorrect facts. If you want to compare City to PSG spending, you can only compare based on like for like periods ie since the 2011 takeover over PSG. On that basis, the sending on buying players is almost identical at just over £1bn each. But let me also correct you about your statement that City have outspent PSG by double in the last 5 years. City spent £797m since 2014/2015 - PSG £720m. Oh and by the way, United have spent £734m in the same period

The only correct response, is to wait until all of the investigations are completed - and then and only then, if City are found to have broken the rules, the appropriate bodies will hand out the regulated punishment. Your arguments fall of the cliff based on hearsay and conjecture.

At Wembley, City brought on three substitutes – Kevin de Bruyne, Leroy Sané and John Stones – each of whom would have been the best player in Watford’s team. There’s no magic or mystery about why their squad is so strong. They have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United.

Closest comparison
Football has not seen anything like this before. The closest comparison is with Chelsea after the 2003 Abramovich takeover, but their spending was nowhere near as sustained or comprehensive. Yes, in the 11 seasons from 2003-4 to 2014-15 Chelsea were football’s biggest spenders, but their net outlay of £751 million was only 10 per cent more than City’s in the same period, even though City spent very little between 2003 and 2007. Chelsea’s net spend in those 11 seasons was 64 per cent of the total combined net outlay of Real Madrid and Barcelona, whereas City’s since 2008 is more than Real Madrid’s and Barcelona’s put together.
Early....for Irish Times

 

[DevilAgeIdiot]

You just don't get it do you. The money that the owners of Chelsea, City & PSG (approx £4bn) has circulated throughout 100s of clubs. City pay £50m for KDB to Wolfsburg who in turn spend all/some of that money on their own purchases from other clubs. That is £50m that was not in the Football business until City put it in (not as a loan or debt) and is now washing around the football system. No delusion there and if you cannot see or accept that, then you are just being a bitter rival supporter rather than accepting the facts. You might not like the facts, but they are as set in stone as can possibly be.

Nope. You are entirely missing the point.
The UAE and Qatar projects certainly have pumped unprecedented amounts of non-football, gulf oil money into our European game thereby distorting the market at an unprecedented level.

Whether you like it or not the Etihad in Manchester and the Qatar project in Paris are simply not welcome in our game.
Their consistent cheating of our fairplay rules and disregard for our values have made sure they will never be accepted by football.
They can buy as many of our pool of players as possible but will never be respected.

This will not all just die out in the way the weaponized UAE cheerleaders that City fans have become, hope for.
City will be banned from Europe and may yet be stripped of the titles they have bought illegally, if guilt is again proven

 

[burnageboy]

At Wembley, City brought on three substitutes – Kevin de Bruyne, Leroy Sané and John Stones – each of whom would have been the best player in Watford’s team. There’s no magic or mystery about why their squad is so strong. They have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United.

Closest comparison
Football has not seen anything like this before. The closest comparison is with Chelsea after the 2003 Abramovich takeover, but their spending was nowhere near as sustained or comprehensive. Yes, in the 11 seasons from 2003-4 to 2014-15 Chelsea were football’s biggest spenders, but their net outlay of £751 million was only 10 per cent more than City’s in the same period, even though City spent very little between 2003 and 2007. Chelsea’s net spend in those 11 seasons was 64 per cent of the total combined net outlay of Real Madrid and Barcelona, whereas City’s since 2008 is more than Real Madrid’s and Barcelona’s put together.
Early....for Irish Times

And your point is? You keep on moving your own goal posts! First you talk about 'spend', then you talk about 'net spend'. What I have been specifically highlighting is the benefit to almost all clubs in the top leagues around europe, with the new investment of over £4bn into the football business from Chelsea, City and PSG. That is not borrowed money and the debt has been written off and will therefore never need to be paid back. No City fan in their right mind will deny that by being able to buy all of these amazing world class players, has been the almost single handed reason why City are now winning trophies for fun in the last 10 years. It is very easy to go back and further back in timelines in order to find figures to try to underpin any argument.

Interested to hear what you have to say about your factually incorrect quote that PSG had spent half of what City had in the past 5 years and especially on the basis that City, United and PSG have spent roughly within 10% of each other in the past 5 years.

 

[DevilAgeIdiot]

And your point is? You keep on moving your own goal posts! First you talk about 'spend', then you talk about 'net spend'. What I have been specifically highlighting is the benefit to almost all clubs in the top leagues around europe, with the new investment of over £4bn into the football business from Chelsea, City and PSG. That is not borrowed money and the debt has been written off and will therefore never need to be paid back. No City fan in their right mind will deny that by being able to buy all of these amazing world class players, has been the almost single handed reason why City are now winning trophies for fun in the last 10 years. It is very easy to go back and further back in timelines in order to find figures to try to underpin any argument.

Interested to hear what you have to say about your factually incorrect quote that PSG had spent half of what City had in the past 5 years and especially on the basis that City, United and PSG have spent roughly within 10% of each other in the past 5 years.

"There’s no magic or mystery about why their squad is so strong. They have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United.

City’s since 2008 is more than Real Madrid’s and Barcelona’s put together."

Which part of this you don't get ?
The UAE city project has spent 50% more than their closest rival Qatar PSG and half a billion more than United.
That is the blatant broad daylight facts of the UAE's sending.
Now bote I say broad daylight. And that is precisely said because whi knows how much the UAE have spunked into the dodgy sponsorships and illegal payments.
Theres no point arguing with me fella. You won't get anywhere. I know exactly the kind of outfit the UAE lot are. Dont try to put a respectable face on their racket.

 

[burnageboy]

Nope. You are entirely missing the point.
The UAE and Qatar projects certainly have pumped unprecedented amounts of non-football, gulf oil money into our European game thereby distorting the market at an unprecedented level.

Whether you like it or not the Etihad in Manchester and the Qatar project in Paris are simply not welcome in our game.
Their consistent cheating of our fairplay rules and disregard for our values have made sure they will never be accepted by football.
They can buy as many of our pool of players as possible but will never be respected.

This will not all just die out in the way the weaponized UAE cheerleaders that City fans have become, hope for.
City will be banned from Europe and may yet be stripped of the titles they have bought illegally, if guilt is again proven

I really don't think that most City fans and the club owners are really bothered about 'respect' and are Utd fans really bothered 'respect' from other clubs and fans?

City fans are not 'weaponized UAE Cheerleaders'. That is just an ignorant and juvenile statement. As a 50 year supporting fan, I support the players, the team and the manager. I don't get to choose who owns the club I support. City aint going anywhere, nor are PSG. They might well get a transfer ban or CL ban, but they most certainly will not be going away and will continue to challenge the status quo

 

[pacifictheme]

I really don't think that most City fans and the club owners are really bothered about 'respect' and are Utd fans really bothered 'respect' from other clubs and fans?

City fans are not 'weaponized UAE Cheerleaders'. That is just an ignorant and juvenile statement. As a 50 year supporting fan, I support the players, the team and the manager. I don't get to choose who owns the club I support. City aint going anywhere, nor are PSG. They might well get a transfer ban or CL ban, but they most certainly will not be going away and will continue to challenge the status quo

Unwittingly naive or deliberately ignorant. Not sure which.

 

[DevilAgeIdiot]

I really don't think that most City fans and the club owners are really bothered about 'respect' and are Utd fans really bothered 'respect' from other clubs and fans?

City fans are not 'weaponized UAE Cheerleaders'. That is just an ignorant and juvenile statement. As a 50 year supporting fan, I support the players, the team and the manager. I don't get to choose who owns the club I support. City aint going anywhere, nor are PSG. They might well get a transfer ban or CL ban, but they most certainly will not be going away and will continue to challenge the status quo

Ha ha! I am not weaponized. "That is a juvenile statement"
Followed by "...will continue to challenge the status quo".
Self awareness not your forte obviously.
You are the status quo. An illegitimate and by far the heaviest spenders in football history status quo. Forget about the romantic fantasy nonsense of challenging the status quo by investing unprecedented billions.
If you really beleive that guff at 50 then you are indeed a weapon. Excuse the pun

 

[burnageboy]

"There’s no magic or mystery about why their squad is so strong. They have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United.

City’s since 2008 is more than Real Madrid’s and Barcelona’s put together."

Which part of this you don't get ?
The UAE city project has spent 50% more than their closest rival Qatar PSG and half a billion more than United.
That is the blatant broad daylight facts of the UAE's sending.
Now bote I say broad daylight. And that is precisely said because whi knows how much the UAE have spunked into the dodgy sponsorships and illegal payments.
Theres no point arguing with me fella. You won't get anywhere. I know exactly the kind of outfit the UAE lot are. Dont try to put a respectable face on their racket.

No worries. You've moved your goalposts in so many different directions and am not sure what you are trying to say anymore. Any set of figures can be manipulated to back up almost any argument. To get back to my original and only point - it is undeniable that the £4bn of new investment into the Football business and 100% absolutely benefitted most of the clubs in the top european leagues.

 

[Dumbstar]

No worries. You've moved your goalposts in so many different directions and am not sure what you are trying to say anymore. Any set of figures can be manipulated to back up almost any argument. To get back to my original and only point - it is undeniable that the £4bn of new investment into the Football business and 100% absolutely benefitted most of the clubs in the top european leagues.

What, in your opinion, would have happened if this 4bn hadn't been 'invested into football'? Would football, and more likely smaller clubs, have started to die off?

 

[padr81]

What, in your opinion, would have happened if this 4bn hadn't been 'invested into football'? Would football, and more likely smaller clubs, have started to die off?

Nothing.. if City didn't exist nothing in football would be different except the names on trophies though no one likes to admit it. You'd for example still for spent £150m on a GK and CB (there was no precedent for those deals) well not you personally but you get my point. Prices would be the same, nothing would change for smaller clubs except Accrington Stanley would have no goal posts.

 

[The Nani]

Nothing.. if City didn't exist nothing in football would be different except the names on trophies though no one likes to admit it. You'd for example still for spent £150m on a GK and CB (there was no precedent for those deals) well not you personally but you get my point. Prices would be the same, nothing would change for smaller clubs except Accrington Stanley would have no goal posts.

You can’t honestly believe that.

Unwittingly naive or deliberately ignorant. Not sure which.

Aye. Plastic apologetics at its finest.

 

[andyox]

Nothing.. if City didn't exist nothing in football would be different except the names on trophies though no one likes to admit it. You'd for example still for spent £150m on a GK and CB (there was no precedent for those deals) well not you personally but you get my point. Prices would be the same, nothing would change for smaller clubs except Accrington Stanley would have no goal posts.

The big, established clubs would have one less competitor in the PL, and the top players would be spread around one less club.

Now that I type that, I'm starting to understand why fans of those big, established clubs don't like it. Football just isn't the same as the good old days is it, all organic growth and romance etc...

 

[DevilAgeIdiot]

No worries. You've moved your goalposts in so many different directions and am not sure what you are trying to say anymore. Any set of figures can be manipulated to back up almost any argument. To get back to my original and only point - it is undeniable that the £4bn of new investment into the Football business and 100% absolutely benefitted most of the clubs in the top european leagues.

The UAE City project has spent 50% more than even their closest spending rivals the lavishly spending Qatar PSG and half a billion more than Manchester United.
The gulf oil money has spent more than Real Madrid and Barcelona together.
That gulf oil money has inflated the market massively, has bought the UAE a sports toy to sportswash their violent regime, has bought an unsporting and illegitimate i.e. cheating advantage to the project and has weaponized the UAE City project support.


Now when confronted with these facts (these are not in any way manipulated figures, so dont even try that strawman defenceand remember we have not added on the dodgy investments, sponsorships and double payments) you all of a sudden can't understand plain English, " I'm not sure what you're saying" ( you know very well what I'm saying). Then you moan "it''s not fair you've moved the goalposts in so many different ways" and continually swoon to the billionaire dopers suggesting that the 11 year old nation state,sugar daddy, gulf oil project is heroically challenging the status quo by outspending United by half a billion +
Listen to yourself please. A 50 year old man talking like a besotted toddler.

Your claim that most of the top clubs have benefitted from the dodgy investment is more utter brainwashed fantasy as it does not take in the reality that any money that the top clubs may have received has to be balanced against the unprecedented gross advantage of non football oil money the UAE City project has injected for themselves plus the unofficial payments and sponsorships being currently investigated along with the artificial hiking up of transfers which clubs have to dish out. And then again there's also the UAE project buying up clubs all over the world to carry out their rule bending, and dodgy player exchange racket.

Then the gulf oil money men have the gall to threaten the football authorities, boasting and chest beating about their vast amounts of money that can be used to sue anyone who tells the truth about the unprecedented nature of the project's spending. The sportswashing project shows complete disregard for our values, our rules and complete contempt for our authorities.

And you say this money has helped all the top football clubs
In relation to the UAE city project it has in fact had the complete opposite effect of your propaganda fueled defence. City are forcing an unprecedented financial advantage of both non-football, oil money and cheating sponsorships, extra payments and so on. You have been absolutely weaponized and are no longer capable of rational thinking.
It's actually quite sad that you lot, supposedly grown men can so easily be manipulated by the chronic human rights abusers.

 

[Tincanalley]

And your point is? You keep on moving your own goal posts! First you talk about 'spend', then you talk about 'net spend'. What I have been specifically highlighting is the benefit to almost all clubs in the top leagues around europe, with the new investment of over £4bn into the football business from Chelsea, City and PSG. That is not borrowed money and the debt has been written off and will therefore never need to be paid back. No City fan in their right mind will deny that by being able to buy all of these amazing world class players, has been the almost single handed reason why City are now winning trophies for fun in the last 10 years. It is very easy to go back and further back in timelines in order to find figures to try to underpin any argument.

Interested to hear what you have to say about your factually incorrect quote that PSG had spent half of what City had in the past 5 years and especially on the basis that City, United and PSG have spent roughly within 10% of each other in the past 5 years.

'Factually incorrect' from a purported City fan just doesn't read well.

 

[burnageboy]

What, in your opinion, would have happened if this 4bn hadn't been 'invested into football'? Would football, and more likely smaller clubs, have started to die off?

Who knows what would have happened or not. Speculating on the outcome of an event in the past is just that - pure speculation. But no one can tell me that the 4bn has not benefitted many many clubs and that new money, floating around the football world will have directly saved a small number of clubs in some way

 

[DevilAgeIdiot]

Who knows what would have happened or not. Speculating on the outcome of an event in the past is just that - pure speculation. But no one can tell me that the 4bn has not benefitted many many clubs and that new money, floating around the football world will have directly saved a small number of clubs in some way

Again your repeated claim that most of the top clubs have benefitted from the dodgy investment is more utter brainwashed fantasy as it does not take in the reality that any money that the top clubs may have received has to be balanced against the unprecedented gross advantage of non football oil money the UAE City project has injected for themselves plus the unofficial payments and sponsorships being currently investigated along with the artificial hiking up of transfers which clubs have to dish out. And then again there's also the UAE project buying up clubs all over the world to carry out their rule bending, and dodgy player exchange racket.


And you say this money has helped all the top football clubs.

In relation to the UAE city project it has in fact had the complete opposite effect of your propaganda fueled defence. City are forcing an unprecedented financial advantage of both non-football, oil money and cheating sponsorships, extra payments and so on. You have been absolutely weaponized and are no longer capable of rational thinking.
It's actually quite sad that you lot, supposedly grown men can so easily be manipulated by the chronic human rights abusers.

 

[burnageboy]

'Factually incorrect' from a purported City fan just doesn't read well.

Fact - the owners of Chelsea, City & PSG have invested £4bn into their football clubs and consequently into the football business. Fact - that 4bn is not debt or loan and has been written off by the owners. Fact - that 4bn without doubt entirely benefitted those clubs by way of success in the trophy cabinet.

If you are going to join in the debate, please can you let me know which bit is not factually correct in my statements. As to being a 'purported' city fan, check out my screen name buddy and 30 years a season ticket holder and 50 years supporting probably does make me a fan.

 

[DevilAgeIdiot]

Fact - the owners of Chelsea, City & PSG have invested £4bn into their football clubs and consequently into the football business. Fact - that 4bn is not debt or loan and has been written off by the owners. Fact - that 4bn without doubt entirely benefitted those clubs by way of success in the trophy cabinet.

If you are going to join in the debate, please can you let me know which bit is not factually correct in my statements. As to being a 'purported' city fan, check out my screen name buddy and 30 years a season ticket holder and 50 years supporting probably does make me a fan.

Fact. The UAE City project have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United.

Closest comparison
Fact. Football has not seen anything like this before. The closest comparison is with Chelsea after the 2003 Abramovich takeover, but their spending was nowhere near as sustained or comprehensive. Yes, in the 11 seasons from 2003-4 to 2014-15 Chelsea were football’s biggest spenders, but their net outlay of £751 million was only 10 per cent more than City’s in the same period, even though City spent very little between 2003 and 2007.
Fact. Chelsea’s net spend in those 11 seasons was 64 per cent of the total combined net outlay of Real Madrid and Barcelona.
Fact. The UAE City project'sxner spend since 2008 is more than Real Madrid’s and Barcelona’s put together.
Fact. This is not even taking into consideration the extra payments like Mancini has admitted, the sponsorships and investments under investigation by the authorities.

 

[burnageboy]

Again your repeated claim that most of the top clubs have benefitted from the dodgy investment is more utter brainwashed fantasy as it does not take in the reality that any money that the top clubs may have received has to be balanced against the unprecedented gross advantage of non football oil money the UAE City project has injected for themselves plus the unofficial payments and sponsorships being currently investigated along with the artificial hiking up of transfers which clubs have to dish out. And then again there's also the UAE project buying up clubs all over the world to carry out their rule bending, and dodgy player exchange racket.

Then the gulf oil money men have the gall to threaten the football authorities, boasting and chest beating about their vast amounts of money that can be used to sue anyone who tells the truth about the unprecedented nature of the project's spending. The sportswashing project shows complete disregard for our values, our rules and complete contempt for our authorities.
And you say this money has helped all the top football clubs

Let's keep to the main thread of what I have been saying and stop shoving those goal posts all over the place. All I have talked about has been the money spent by City, Chelsea and PSG on the direct purchase of players (the 4bn) and the benefit that has washed out into the football world in general. I am just a 50 year supporting fan of my club. I have absolutely no idea about dodgy sponsorships, unofficial payments, player exchange rackets etc, etc. As I have clearly stated before, if City are found guilty and are punished, then so be it. How you can possibly deny that most of the top clubs have NOT benefitted from seeing that 4bn (of player purchase money!!) circulating around, is quite frankly laughable.

If you want to have a discussion about values, then that is an entire different matter and personally, would love to have that discussion (and that is not saying as a City fan I am just going to defend our owners). But I am not going to get into conjecture and speculation.

 

[DevilAgeIdiot]

Let's keep to the main thread of what I have been saying and stop shoving those goal posts all over the place. All I have talked about has been the money spent by City, Chelsea and PSG on the direct purchase of players (the 4bn) and the benefit that has washed out into the football world in general. I am just a 50 year supporting fan of my club. I have absolutely no idea about dodgy sponsorships, unofficial payments, player exchange rackets etc, etc. As I have clearly stated before, if City are found guilty and are punished, then so be it. How you can possibly deny that most of the top clubs have NOT benefitted from seeing that 4bn (of player purchase money!!) circulating around, is quite frankly laughable.

If you want to have a discussion about values, then that is an entire different matter and personally, would love to have that discussion (and that is not saying as a City fan I am just going to defend our owners). But I am not going to get into conjecture and speculation.

Fact. The UAE City project have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United.

Closest comparison
Fact. Football has not seen anything like this before. The closest comparison is with Chelsea after the 2003 Abramovich takeover, but their spending was nowhere near as sustained or comprehensive. Yes, in the 11 seasons from 2003-4 to 2014-15 Chelsea were football’s biggest spenders, but their net outlay of £751 million was only 10 per cent more than City’s in the same period, even though City spent very little between 2003 and 2007.
Fact. Chelsea’s net spend in those 11 seasons was 64 per cent of the total combined net outlay of Real Madrid and Barcelona.
Fact. The UAE City project's net spend since 2008 is more than Real Madrid’s and Barcelona’s put together.
Fact. This is not even taking into consideration the extra payments like Mancini has admitted, the sponsorships and investments under investigation by the authorities.

P.S. You certainly do not want to get into a debate with me about the dispicable values of your oppressive and violent nation state owners. (Check out what they're up to in Yemen please).
I will absolutely wipe the floor with you on this one .

PSS. Are you actually getting paid to spread your propaganda on here?
It wouldn't surprise me.

I have repeatedly addressed your nonsensical point that all the top clubs have benefitted from the new money by pointing out that said money creates a negative balance for all top clubs when comparing it in reality to the advantage that clubs like Qatar PSG and UAE City project have gained from the unprecedented non-footbal money injection.

Either you are pretending you do not get this reality or you are that brainwashed by the gulf oil dopers that you can no longer see reality and actually beleive in your fanciful claims..

 

[burnageboy]

Fact. The UAE City project have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United.

Closest comparison
Fact. Football has not seen anything like this before. The closest comparison is with Chelsea after the 2003 Abramovich takeover, but their spending was nowhere near as sustained or comprehensive. Yes, in the 11 seasons from 2003-4 to 2014-15 Chelsea were football’s biggest spenders, but their net outlay of £751 million was only 10 per cent more than City’s in the same period, even though City spent very little between 2003 and 2007.
Fact. Chelsea’s net spend in those 11 seasons was 64 per cent of the total combined net outlay of Real Madrid and Barcelona.
Fact. The UAE City project'sxner spend since 2008 is more than Real Madrid’s and Barcelona’s put together.
Fact. This is not even taking into consideration the extra payments like Mancini has admitted, the sponsorships and investments under investigation by the authorities.

OMG. You just cannot keep to the main thread of the discussion which has been specifically on the £4bn that Chelsea, City & PSG have put into football for the direct purchase of players and the DIRECT benefit that money has had on most of the top leagues throughout europe and even further afield. Net spends, third party payments to Mancini, etc, etc, etc are an entirely separate discussion and happy to engage in those discussions (and just because I am a city fan, am not going to bias my answers). If you don't want to discuss my point about the direct benefit of the £4bn of player purchase money benefitting (imo) most of the top leagues, then no worries. I'm not going to waste your or my time.

 

[burnageboy]

The UAE City project has spent 50% more than even their closest spending rivals the lavishly spending Qatar PSG and half a billion more than Manchester United.
The gulf oil money has spent more than Real Madrid and Barcelona together.
That gulf oil money has inflated the market massively, has bought the UAE a sports toy to sportswash their violent regime, has bought an unsporting and illegitimate i.e. cheating advantage to the project and has weaponized the UAE City project support.


Now when confronted with these facts (these are not in any way manipulated figures, so dont even try that strawman defenceand remember we have not added on the dodgy investments, sponsorships and double payments) you all of a sudden can't understand plain English, " I'm not sure what you're saying" ( you know very well what I'm saying). Then you moan "it''s not fair you've moved the goalposts in so many different ways" and continually swoon to the billionaire dopers suggesting that the 11 year old nation state,sugar daddy, gulf oil project is heroically challenging the status quo by outspending United by half a billion +
Listen to yourself please. A 50 year old man talking like a besotted toddler.

Your claim that most of the top clubs have benefitted from the dodgy investment is more utter brainwashed fantasy as it does not take in the reality that any money that the top clubs may have received has to be balanced against the unprecedented gross advantage of non football oil money the UAE City project has injected for themselves plus the unofficial payments and sponsorships being currently investigated along with the artificial hiking up of transfers which clubs have to dish out. And then again there's also the UAE project buying up clubs all over the world to carry out their rule bending, and dodgy player exchange racket.

Then the gulf oil money men have the gall to threaten the football authorities, boasting and chest beating about their vast amounts of money that can be used to sue anyone who tells the truth about the unprecedented nature of the project's spending. The sportswashing project shows complete disregard for our values, our rules and complete contempt for our authorities.

And you say this money has helped all the top football clubs
In relation to the UAE city project it has in fact had the complete opposite effect of your propaganda fueled defence. City are forcing an unprecedented financial advantage of both non-football, oil money and cheating sponsorships, extra payments and so on. You have been absolutely weaponized and are no longer capable of rational thinking.
It's actually quite sad that you lot, supposedly grown men can so easily be manipulated by the chronic human rights abusers.

Hey Devil. Your rant proves my point. You are trying to conduct 17 different arguments, hurling abuse, speculation and jackson pollock-esque thinking without directly dealing with the main fact. And then, when you finish your rant with your sweeping generalisation that 'grown men' ie the vast majority of City fans, are essentially 'human rights abusers' defenders or supporters, is trolling at its finest. I just wanted to have a discussion about 1 specific aspect of the benefit of the 4bn player purchase investment and you have managed divert off at a trajectory that any toddler would be impressed with.

 

[andyox]

Hey Devil. Your rant proves my point. You are trying to conduct 17 different arguments, hurling abuse, speculation and jackson pollock-esque thinking without directly dealing with the main fact. And then, when you finish your rant with your sweeping generalisation that 'grown men' ie the vast majority of City fans, are essentially 'human rights abusers' defenders or supporters, is trolling at its finest. I just wanted to have a discussion about 1 specific aspect of the benefit of the 4bn player purchase investment and you have managed divert off at a trajectory that any toddler would be impressed with.

Precisely. There are lots of different, interesting debates to be had on a range of topics, e.g.: 1) transfer spending/FFP; 2) City's sponsorships; 3) City's owners and human rights; 4) sportswashing, etc. But conflating them all in hysterical hyperbole is not helpful if the objective is intelligent conversation (that may or may not be his objective).

 

[Bestofthebest]

Hey Devil. Your rant proves my point. You are trying to conduct 17 different arguments, hurling abuse, speculation and jackson pollock-esque thinking without directly dealing with the main fact. And then, when you finish your rant with your sweeping generalisation that 'grown men' ie the vast majority of City fans, are essentially 'human rights abusers' defenders or supporters, is trolling at its finest. I just wanted to have a discussion about 1 specific aspect of the benefit of the 4bn player purchase investment and you have managed divert off at a trajectory that any toddler would be impressed with.

The one point that neither of you protagonists has picked up on is this. The £4bn put into football by the owners of Chelsea, PSG, and City may well have been redistributed by other clubs down the food chain but that has always been the case, albeit on a smaller scale. The problem is the inflationary impact that these vast amounts of money going into the game means that every players price is now quoted in millions not hundreds of thousands, even in the lower leagues. The outcome of this is that there are very few clubs who can compete for elite players therefore the prices quoted for these players goes up. So who can afford these players? Chelsea (less so nowadays) PSG and City plus one or two others, maybe Newcastle soon. Even Barca and Madrid are getting pushed to the side lines. The problem is that the almost unlimited supplies of money the owners of these clubs have is unprecedented in football and is open to allegations of corruption and it is not surprising that the three clubs being closely investigated are PSG, City and Chelsea, already under a transfer ban.

Burnage boy. Like you I am a soon to be 70 years old fan of my beloved Utd. and have been a follower since about seven years of age. I have been through the best and worst of the club in that time and have been used to being second best ( sometimes third, fourth or even worse best ) to clubs like Liverpool, Leeds, Arsenal, City and others but I have always thought we were playing on a levelish playing field in the past. I no longer feel that is the case anymore and think any club should only spend the money that they earn and foreign ownership (including Americans) should be very carefully monitored. I am not getting into the ethics of oil money and the relative human rights of the countries involved but I do think the time is coming when salary caps and spending controls should be put in place or all leagues will end up like the Scottish Prem and Ligue 1 i.e. a one horse race.

 

[andyox]

The one point that neither of you protagonists has picked up on is this. The £4bn put into football by the owners of Chelsea, PSG, and City may well have been redistributed by other clubs down the food chain but that has always been the case, albeit on a smaller scale. The problem is the inflationary impact that these vast amounts of money going into the game means that every players price is now quoted in millions not hundreds of thousands, even in the lower leagues. The outcome of this is that there are very few clubs who can compete for elite players therefore the prices quoted for these players goes up. So who can afford these players? Chelsea (less so nowadays) PSG and City plus one or two others, maybe Newcastle soon. Even Barca and Madrid are getting pushed to the side lines. The problem is that the almost unlimited supplies of money the owners of these clubs have is unprecedented in football and is open to allegations of corruption and it is not surprising that the three clubs being closely investigated are PSG, City and Chelsea, already under a transfer ban.

Burnage boy. Like you I am a soon to be 70 years old fan of my beloved Utd. and have been a follower since about seven years of age. I have been through the best and worst of the club in that time and have been used to being second best ( sometimes third, fourth or even worse best ) to clubs like Liverpool, Leeds, Arsenal, City and others but I have always thought we were playing on a levelish playing field in the past. I no longer feel that is the case anymore and think any club should only spend the money that they earn and foreign ownership (including Americans) should be very carefully monitored. I am not getting into the ethics of oil money and the relative human rights of the countries involved but I do think the time is coming when salary caps and spending controls should be put in place or all leagues will end up like the Scottish Prem and Ligue 1 i.e. a one horse race.

Agree with quite a lot of your post to be honest, although I think you're too quick to blame City for ruining the "levelish playing field". The game is increasingly not level, but that was the case well before Sheikh Mansour bought City. The fact that such huge external investment was required to lift a team from mid-table to the top of the table is by far the bigger problem. You can't challenge the elite without money, but the elite have more money. The only way to change that equation is with external investment (which FFP now prohibits).

I want football to be much more competitive than it currently is, because I think that's healthy for the game. But we have to ensure that whatever controls that are put in place are genuinely intended to improve the competitiveness of the game. So salary caps and spending controls would have to be absolute, not based on any kind of revenue ratio.

 

[Bestofthebest]

Agree with quite a lot of your post to be honest, although I think you're too quick to blame City for ruining the "levelish playing field". The game is increasingly not level, but that was the case well before Sheikh Mansour bought City. The fact that such huge external investment was required to lift a team from mid-table to the top of the table is by far the bigger problem. You can't challenge the elite without money, but the elite have more money. The only way to change that equation is with external investment (which FFP now prohibits).

I want football to be much more competitive than it currently is, because I think that's healthy for the game. But we have to ensure that whatever controls that are put in place are genuinely intended to improve the competitiveness of the game. So salary caps and spending controls would have to be absolute, not based on any kind of revenue ratio.

I don't think I put any blame on City in particular, rather I included them along with PSG and to an extent Chelsea. I also never claimed that the playing field to ever have been level nor expect it to be so in the future. What I can safely say is that things stay roughly as they are is that we will never get another Ipswich,Aston Villa, Everton or even Leicester situation again. All I can see is City winning title after title with record points until someone is taken over by another oil rich nation/family. As I said in my previous post just like in Scotland with Celtic, the only difference being Celtic will never repeat their European Cup victory. The French Ligue 1 will continue to be dominated by PSG and non of that will be good for anyone but the clubs doing the winning.


We do agree on one thing however and that is the need for a more competitive environment, and I don't mean for second place. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Leicester win the Prem because it was so unexpected and the league was reasonably competitive at that point. I also agree with your thoughts about how to go about making the game more even and how any changes would be monitored, corruption is rife anywhere where there is money. In the meantime I try to watch football as much as possible but would not go to the end of the road to watch City as the result is now ineveitable so I leave such "pleasures" to the fans of the club. Have to say that even watching Utd in their pomp was not always pleasant as they put us fans through the mill at times when they just didn't play that well and the defeats we suffered were sometimes a blessing just to show we were human. Wouldn't ever want it any other way.

 

[padr81]

You can’t honestly believe that.



Aye. Plastic apologetics at its finest.

So go on genius fill me in, what has Cities spending got to do with you spunking £170m on Pogba and Lukaku? no two players in Cities history come close on that.

Did we set a precedent where midfielders of Pogba's standard becomes worth £90m, we signed both KDB and Benardo Silva for little more than you wasted on him. The facts are the facts. City have never spent near £70m on a player so how can they be responsible for good but not great players costing £90m. We paid the same amount for Ederson that Juve paid for Buffon in 2001.

We spunked a lot of money on average players but we have set no precedents in the transfer market, actually we did we but back in 1979? I think when we bought Steve Daley. We can be held accountable on the cost of defenders to an extent but Liverpool blew that out of the water.

You'd be spunking that kind of money on shite with or without City, and transfers would be where they are. you just can't accept it but City haven't made 1 of the 10 most expensive transfers in world football

Not a mention of City anywhere in here.. nor Chelsea for that matter, what I see is the "real" clubs like United, Barca, Juve, Real and of course PSG's two stupid deals. https://blog.grosvenorcasinos.com/the-biggest-football-transfers-of-all-time/

TV money is what has inflated transfers not City, nor Chelsea, not even those clubs on that list.

 

[padr81]

I don't think I put any blame on City in particular, rather I included them along with PSG and to an extent Chelsea. I also never claimed that the playing field to ever have been level nor expect it to be so in the future. What I can safely say is that things stay roughly as they are is that we will never get another Ipswich,Aston Villa, Everton or even Leicester situation again. All I can see is City winning title after title with record points until someone is taken over by another oil rich nation/family. As I said in my previous post just like in Scotland with Celtic, the only difference being Celtic will never repeat their European Cup victory. The French Ligue 1 will continue to be dominated by PSG and non of that will be good for anyone but the clubs doing the winning.


We do agree on one thing however and that is the need for a more competitive environment, and I don't mean for second place. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Leicester win the Prem because it was so unexpected and the league was reasonably competitive at that point. I also agree with your thoughts about how to go about making the game more even and how any changes would be monitored, corruption is rife anywhere where there is money. In the meantime I try to watch football as much as possible but would not go to the end of the road to watch City as the result is now ineveitable so I leave such "pleasures" to the fans of the club. Have to say that even watching Utd in their pomp was not always pleasant as they put us fans through the mill at times when they just didn't play that well and the defeats we suffered were sometimes a blessing just to show we were human. Wouldn't ever want it any other way.

Aren't you though leaving out the Moores family bankrolling Liverpool ahead of the opposition in their heyday? So its not just recently.

Also Everton's success's are directly tied to the same Moores family and the football pools. It's no coincidence both Merseyside clubs peaks were interlinked when said family owned 51% of Liverpool and 15% of Everton. Said family were probably the richest in England and its no coincidence both clubs success dried up when the football pools and Moores money went away.

This City thing has been going on since Arsenal bribed (literally) their way into top level football and bought the first 5 figure players. City/Chelsea/PSG are nothing new, just a bigger version of the same.

Also you are a good poster who gets his opinion across without resorting to cheap shots and the above mess.
Please stick around, it's nice to debate stuff pretty civil.
This thread could do with more of you and less of the others.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

Aren't you though leaving out the Moores family bankrolling Liverpool ahead of the opposition in their heyday? So its not just recently.

Also Everton's success's are directly tied to the same Moores family and the football pools. It's no coincidence both Merseyside clubs peaks were interlinked when said family owned 51% of Liverpool and 15% of Everton. Said family were probably the richest in England and its no coincidence both clubs success dried up when the football pools and Moores money went away.

This City thing has been going on since Arsenal bribed (literally) their way into top level football and bought the first 5 figure players. City/Chelsea/PSG are nothing new, just a bigger version of the same.

City n PSG situations are nothing like what's come before. Come on even with your blue tinted bitter blue goggles on you must know this deep down.

You've got two countries basically chucking their cash around to cleanse the image of their human rights abusing nations. I don't even think they care two craps about . Ththe football. They know there is no profit in it for then from football. How long will it take them to make a profit from the football clubs with what they have invested?

In sorry but this type of BS belongs on bluemoon. It doesn't wash here.

 

[padr81]

City n PSG situations are nothing like what's come before. Come on even with your blue tinted bitter blue goggles on you must know this deep down.

You've got two countries basically chucking their cash around to cleanse the image of their human rights abusing nations. I don't even think they care two craps about . Ththe football. They know there is no profit in it for then from football. How long will it take them to make a profit from the football clubs with what they have invested?

In sorry but this type of BS belongs on bluemoon. It doesn't wash here.

You start with insults and then talk about BS... please...

Have I ever said whats happening at City is right? Did I say it in that post...

You need to pay attention and learn to read my good man, the post was about City buying football and it not being competitive, not about human rights or what the owners care about really... Liverpool bought titles, Bayern bought titles, the top 2 in Spain consistently bought titles. For you and you might need to read slowly to follow my point, In that regard nothing has changed. Titles are still bought and have been since pretty much the 60's. Sir Alex probably being an exception.

So yeah, learn to read before charging in changing the subject and having the audacity to call me bitter when your post is dripping with bitter hatred. You spend a lot you work your way up.
https://www.football365.com/news/the-biggest-spender-in-every-pl-season-and-how-they-fared-2 - Backs up my point about how its always those who spend the most, unlike your mindless rambling, have a good day.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

You start with insults and then talk about BS... please...

Have I ever said whats happening at City is right? Did I say it in that post...

You need to pay attention and learn to read my good man, the post was about City buying football and it not being competitive, not about human rights or what the owners care about really... Liverpool bought titles, Bayern bought titles, the top 2 in Spain consistently bought titles. For you and you might need to read slowly to follow my point, In that regard nothing has changed. Titles are still bought and have been since pretty much the 60's. Sir Alex probably being an exception.

So yeah, learn to read before charging in changing the subject and having the audacity to call me bitter when your post is dripping with bitter hatred. You spend a lot you work your way up.
https://www.football365.com/news/the-biggest-spender-in-every-pl-season-and-how-they-fared-2 - Backs up my point about how its always those who spend the most, unlike your mindless rambling, have a good day.

It's absolutely pointless discussing City's ownership with a city fan. This is what I have learned. I have mates who are blues and work with a few too. There's no way a City fan admits what the rest of the country knows. But it is what it is. It's been allowed to happen somehow.

Imagine if that Saudi guy buys United. I don't want that to happen I must point out but it makes the entire league redundant then as our wealth would just be unstoppable with no debt and 800bn behind us. They wouldn't even need to spend their own cash. We make our own.

And we've got more 'oil' clubs potentially coming in too. Newcastle and maybe Leeds too. However I'm not sure how Newcastle one can be allowed to happen with him being related to the Sheikh. Bit dodgy that one.

 

[The Nani]

So go on genius fill me in, what has Cities spending got to do with you spunking £170m on Pogba and Lukaku? no two players in Cities history come close on that.

Did we set a precedent where midfielders of Pogba's standard becomes worth £90m, we signed both KDB and Benardo Silva for little more than you wasted on him. The facts are the facts. City have never spent near £70m on a player so how can they be responsible for good but not great players costing £90m. We paid the same amount for Ederson that Juve paid for Buffon in 2001.

We spunked a lot of money on average players but we have set no precedents in the transfer market, actually we did we but back in 1979? I think when we bought Steve Daley. We can be held accountable on the cost of defenders to an extent but Liverpool blew that out of the water.

You'd be spunking that kind of money on shite with or without City, and transfers would be where they are. you just can't accept it but City haven't made 1 of the 10 most expensive transfers in world football

Not a mention of City anywhere in here.. nor Chelsea for that matter, what I see is the "real" clubs like United, Barca, Juve, Real and of course PSG's two stupid deals. https://blog.grosvenorcasinos.com/the-biggest-football-transfers-of-all-time/

TV money is what has inflated transfers not City, nor Chelsea, not even those clubs on that list.

Nonsense. Chelsea, City and PSG are all predominantly responsible for inflating the market.

You can bury your head in the sand all you like. I’ll not argue with anyone who doesn’t even care to be objective.

 

[padr81]

Nonsense. Chelsea, City and PSG are all predominantly responsible for inflating the market.

You can bury your head in the sand all you like. I’ll not argue with anyone who doesn’t even care to be objective.

Again spouting your opinion without anything to back it up. I've shown you who spends money and drives up transfer prices you've shown me nothing. I've actually given figures on transfers to back up my argument, you came in made and incorrect statement and now can't back it up.

 

[The Nani]

Again spouting your opinion without anything to back it up. I've shown you who spends money and drives up transfer prices you've shown me nothing. I've actually given figures on transfers to back up my argument, you came in made and incorrect statement and now can't back it up.

£1.2b net since the takeover. And that’s only the over the table money.

In for every decent player possible and spent a fortune on average players (your words, not mine) yet you say you didn’t inflate the market.

You made it look a normal thing to spunk £50m on a defender, FFS.

Chesea set the precedent, you upped the ante and PSG are now taking it to obscene levels.

But I’ll remain true to my word now. Not discussing this any further with ye plastic apologetics.

Congratulations and enjoy.

 

[padr81]

It's absolutely pointless discussing City's ownership with a city fan. This is what I have learned. I have mates who are blues and work with a few too. There's no way a City fan admits what the rest of the country knows. But it is what it is. It's been allowed to happen somehow.

Imagine if that Saudi guy buys United. I don't want that to happen I must point out but it makes the entire league redundant then as our wealth would just be unstoppable with no debt and 800bn behind us. They wouldn't even need to spend their own cash. We make our own.

And we've got more 'oil' clubs potentially coming in too. Newcastle and maybe Leeds too. However I'm not sure how Newcastle one can be allowed to happen with him being related to the Sheikh. Bit dodgy that one.

This is a much better argument than the one you brought before. This I like and I would say fair points.

The league is most certainly not redundant and you have zero stats to back that out, nor would it be with United having Saudi owners. Titles have been bought since the beginning of football.

Is what City are doing worse? Its certainly bigger,

The numbers are vastly bigger but as yet we've won 4 titles in 10 years, by comparison United won 7 in 10 (8 of 11) in their best spell and 5/7 post Joses Chelsea.
Liverpools peak with the Moores money I was referring to was 6 titles in 9 years.

Was it fair on City who came 2nd in 77 that Liverpool had the Moores money behind them and we had barely a pot to piss in? What about QPR whose only ever title challenge saw them beaten by said Littlewoods financed Liverpool? Did they care where the money came from, nope people simply said "You can't compete they are going to dominate forever" but they didn't, the pools money dried up and so did their success.

People have been saying what you guys are saying about City, about Chelsea, before that about Liverpool and the pools/Littlewoods. Some myself included said it about United in the 90's something that has been proven pretty much false in fairness but United under Sir Alex were the exception to the rule not the rule (not that they won on a shoestring ).
People spouted about the league becoming redundant since the 20's over one team having more.

On the issue of our owners being absolutely horrid people with a human rights record thats shocking.. you'l get no argument from me but I didn't choose them.

Are Liverpool (sorry Liverpool fans I'm not meaning to pick on you so much) a morally better club, when they spent 3 years whoring themselves out to DiC before walking away when the money never came? By Rick Parry's own words Liverpool ran off to Dubai looking to get what City got?

Lets looks at the so called proper clubs -
Liverpool - we've discussed already. Would they even be a vastly bigger club than Villa, Forest etc.. without that investment?
Arsenal - Bribed their way into top level football and pretty much were the PSG of 1920's, building a massive empire and huge club off the back of said investment.
United - The least guilty of buying their way to the top, but still needed bailouts from 2 wealthy benefactors to keep the club afloat, without whom they would never have been able to build the biggest football club in the world.


The moral outrage about City is because we are not deemed a big club. Was it United, Liverpool or Arsenal who got what we got there wouldn't be half the drama because it would be justified as earned from being a huge club. Is whats happening at City good for football? nope, has it somehow made football worse? Nope,

Football is the same shit show where the haves hoover up whats to be won and the have nots are left to into their beers. City are the ultimate symptom of a broken sport but its always been broken.

 

[Nickthepip]

Again spouting your opinion without anything to back it up. I've shown you who spends money and drives up transfer prices you've shown me nothing. I've actually given figures on transfers to back up my argument, you came in made and incorrect statement and now can't back it up.

Are you seriously arguing that City haven’t inflated transfer spending? You have two £50M full backs!