Printable View
The things is, he doesn't have full ownership in the same way the Abu Dhabi group and Abramovich do. Having said that I don't think we'd see anywhere near the amount of money spent at those two clubs but there would be some - whilst that issue is still up in the air, I don't think there is going to be any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ach
If there is one good thing about City it'll be watching Man Utd get knocked off their fucking perch - and they will.
I for one can't wait to see it.
Still not too late to invite Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Norges Bank Investment Management or Aramco to take over. They'll make Citeh owner looks poor lol. :coffee:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ach
It's just typical snobbery, that's all. I have no problem with the City owners. They aren't doing anything new. Teams with the most money have always won, simple as.
Football at times is so full of snobbery and elitism, if you don't have "History" you aren't allowed to try to win, should just know your place. The fact is in today's day and age, clubs are not gonna rise up up organically, the gap between the winners and non winners is too damn wide. For clubs like City pre Arabs unless they get some rich sugar daddy they will never be able to rise up to the levels of the so-called elites.
Ask Blackburn fans if winning the title in the 90's with Jack Walker's money was hollow. I think the answer you'll get is no, the guy is a God like figure for what he did for Blackburn.
Frankly to say successes for City are meaningless is not true, if they win 20 titles in the next 30 years they'll go down in history, noone will remember 4th placed losers though.
City fans are loving it and why wouldn't you, some of the best players in the world signing, trophies starting to come I'm sure they're pretty pleased.
Chelsea fans don't see their successes as meaningless either (and neither do most in football), in fact nowadays they are a very respected side that players want to sign for because they can achieve success there.
Frankly our situation is awful at the moment, losing all our players, signing kids and having the p*ss taken out of us by owner and manager alike...all whilst being charged sky high prices. What do we get for that, a nice stadium, but when it comes down to it, would you rather have a nice stadium and settle for 4th every year or see your team win trophies and play exciting football?
Right now I'd choose Highbury and the team we had over what we currently have every day of the week.
I was born and brought up in Al Ain- two hours from Abu Dhabi and I hate those C*nts! I hope their oil gets magically transported to Bangladesh and they go broke. I dont know about racism against them but those Arabs are bigger racist cocks than any other people I know. Anyone who has been to or lived in Dubai (other than awesome ppl like Teg and me) will know how badly the South Asian workers are treated!
I Hope City fail and their owners choke on their shit!
Yeah, snobbery is shite. Like snobs who complain when their whole town's economy goes down the shitter when a big processed food pusher arrives and prices out the smaller stores. Business wise it's all fair game, provided you ignore the fact the few prosper whilst the many get screwed. All's fair on an unfair playing field. Let's have three of four more Citys and see how we go. How long will it take for the calls to come through that it;s a good thing the mom and pop clubs are going to the wall? Better "efficiency" with the big boys, brighter lights, more razzmatazz. Shame about the quality of the football or the fact you can't name your squad from one season to the next because the greedy fuckers are all on a money merry-go-round. Crimes up in the cities, let's all be criminals. Can't beat 'em then join them. Makes sense. Flush meaningless history down the shitter and embrace the brave new world. Gaddafi's out of a job, let's get him as owner. He's bound to have a few quid spread around his offshore accounts. Plus the guy has connections and I hear he doesn't take shit at the negotiating table. Let's see how low we can go.
Snobbery? That depends on your definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by hobson's choice
The vast majority of Citys squad is bought with money garnered outside of the club. But outside investment has always happened. In 95/96 Fiszman put £50m of his own money in, money made of pure diamonds.
Implicit in the criticism of City is that the sheer scale of their investment is tantamount to cheating, which runs against the whole ideal of sport. It's a matter of degree.
As McNamara says, the ability to bring unlimited cash to the table affects everybody.
Meh Shows what Money can do tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by AKBapologist
I think City were a great club, with a checkered history but a fantastic fan base way before Sheikh Mansour took over.
Manchester United themselves have blown other clubs out of the water financially. If the only way City can compete is to out-buy and out-bid the likes of United, Chelsea and Real Madrid, then so be it. Stick it to 'em, I say.
Great advice tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters (TPFKA WWTL@WHL)
Who makes Steve Guttenb......Gareth Barry a star?
We do!
I really don't think it is the only way it can happen and I can see why the suggesting of it being 'ambition' is disregarded. The fact that most of us just want(ed) Wenger to be a bit more flexible in his approach (if he can!) suggests that for all the money that they spend you can still compete on some level. It doesn't have to be spending gazillions every transfer window and nor, in fairness does it just have to be getting players bought for more (relatively) conservative figures and youth players. It could be that supporting a club which has always been in the Champions League skews my perception a bit but really, the league we're in is a cash cow too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernesto
I concede however that having owners that want to invest money in to their club, taking a long term approach is nigh-on impossible. I'm just pointing out, how they are doing it (with effectively unlimited sums) doesn't have to be governed by a feeling of it being necessary.
Yup, I agree with your points Maccy, 100%. We often laugh on GW that Arsenal are "2% away from domination" but, as you've suggested, you can see where GWers are coming from. We have to fine-tune our style of play, improve the mentality of the players at our disposal and add to the current personnel at the club (not necessarily big-money, marquis signings, either). It sounds really simple when I put it like that but, if Wenger's frustration is anything to go by, it's not quite so straightforward.Quote:
Originally Posted by McNamara That Ghost...
As for a club like, say, Stoke City making a real fight of winning the league in the next couple of seasons WITHOUT a huge cash injection into the club...well, I fail to see how it can happen, in all honesty. Pulis can probably make a couple of shrewd signings, get rid of the deadwood, change the style of play at the Britannia OR the club could change Pulis for another manager altogether (but this raises the argument, again, of how Stoke could attract a high-profile, proven manager). However, would this be enough to maintain a title challenge? There may be enough for a couple of game-raising performances, winning at Old Trafford and Stamford Bridge, maybe, but WITHOUT a big squad with proven quality, for every Hollywood result, there's a back-down-to-earth defeat at the Molineux.
The romantic in me would really like to see a club come up from the Championship and make a sustained challenge for the EPL title but with Ipswich the last team to threaten only to falter dramatically towards the end in 2001, I fail to see how that could happen without huge investment in the club.
I tend to agree with the sentiments. I try to, but I just don't have any dislike for Man City.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker
That's not to say the criticisms of them are not valid, some you cannot argue with.
But to me City are no worse or different to a dozen other clubs who have been bought out by a tycoon, armed with funds to plough into the club - whether it's 40 million or 400 million, the principle is the same, it's just an extra '0' on the end that City cop the stick for.
It's laughable that Chelsea can criticise them for it, Blackburn won the league doing it, but Jack Walker wasn't Jonny Foreigner.
But less so, what about Tottenham? They've spent ridiculously over their means for well over a decade now, for the year up to & since Redknapp they were bringing in 8-10 big name players a season, for huge money & wages. Where has all that come from? Tiny little ground, no trophies, on C.L run in 15 years.
Liverpool, Villa, Newcastle have had big investors - 40 million + on 2 Englands fringe players in Bent & Henderson. QPR, Leicester are at it. These sides aren't winning anything, have no 60,000+ fans coming in, to bring the money in.
Just because the fundd are 20%-40% of Man City's, is neither here nor there to me. If you dislike it, then you dislike the principle surely?
Some of our fans need to stop worrying about City and concentrate on our own football club. On Twitter, there are Arsenal supporters criticising them putting on their website an image from the latest FIFA game showing Nasri scoring against United. This is just an example of an official partner (EA Sports) trying to create some more publicity for their new game, and yet some of our fans see it as indicative of a lack of "class".
E.G.
@Arseblog
Jesus fucking Christ - http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news...irst-City-goal - all that money and they can't buy some 'Not look like cunts' powder?!
15 hours ago
LGbayb Lou Gilmour
@arseblog That's a tad unrealistic. Etihad Stadium is sold out.
@Arseblog
@WestStandTone @lilangelicrose imagine thé nouveau riche having no class. Who'd have thunk it?
I really don't get this "noveau riche" dig either. It's not as if we're run as a supporter owned cooperative are we? We are also a private business where the primary concern of our primary shareholder is to make money. People laugh at the City owners for splashing the cash, but at least they seem to have an interest in the sport, which is more than can be said for Silent Stan.
Moreover, the "noveau riche" comment is a perfect example of the established order (the top 4) getting annoyed at a new upstart trying to upset their hegemony. Remember that the landowners were opposed to the industrial capitalists at the start of the industrial revolution. The capitalists were cruel and exploitative, but that's not the say the landowners were any better when they were at the top of the social ladder.
Some of our fans need to stop bitching about fans tbh.
you're the one starting threads about emQuote:
Originally Posted by Joker
:haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Tuffnutz