Letters, time to bring your 'buying a degree' analogy back.
NQ's 'gyppo wins the lottery' is quite apt too.
Printable View
Letters, time to bring your 'buying a degree' analogy back.
NQ's 'gyppo wins the lottery' is quite apt too.
I rather enjoyed NQ's "getting a helicopter to drop you off at the top of Everest and then thumbing your nose at the 'losers' below you who haven't made it to the top".
To back up MO's point, it's frankly ridiculous that this is what passes for sport. It's like an athlete doping himself with every substance known to man, but not being punished for it in any way.
Yes, we've been over this a million times and other clubs have spent big in the past, but the level to which Chelsea, Citeh, etc. have taken it is beyond ridiculous.
Sleazebags like Platini purport to want to put a stop to it, but if anyone cared about the integrity of fair sport and competition, we would not be seeing this distortion in the first place. It's more important for that runt to get his revenge on Wenger.
We're idiots for still watching football really.
I suppose it's my only vice though, and I've never paid Sky anything.
But City are not the only impediment to fair sport and competition. The Premier League effectively bullied the Championship Clubs to vote through a rule that makes it easier for top clubs to buy young Championship players and pay negligible compensation. Moreover, if you really want to see what started the rot in terms of less competition, look to the formation of the Premier League and Sky's monopoly on broadcasting Premiership games. Everything that has happened to football can be traced back to the agreement struck between the then division 1 clubs to break free from the Football League and set up the Premiership, a decision taken on the basis of greed alone. We can't blame City for that.
Your post makes no sense at all as it is completely out of context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker
Good postQuote:
Originally Posted by GB.
All I'm saying is that pinning all the blame on City makes no sense. Football in this country has been driven purely by financial considerations ever since the EPL was formed, and what's happened with City cannot be looked at in isolation.
I mentioned the change in ruling allowing Premiership clubs to effectively "poach" young players from the lower leagues because it shows that every day, you get examples of football in this country getting less and less competitive because of greed and the rules being tilted in favour of the top sides. City are only one part of that.
Then there are those who criticise Citeh because they're not obeying "market forces" and should be run as a sustainable business like us. Would that really be better for fans? We've seen how our owners treat us like "consumers" and raise ticket prices, knowing that most fans will continue attending games. They've done that precisely because they see us solely as a private business.
Joker, no-one is saying City are solely to blame.
Why do you feel the need to constantly defend poor little City from us nasties?
People on GW have decried all aspects of football in various threads. It's just that what City are doing is taking it past 11 and up to 110.
Whilst it's certainly true the game is geared towards greed, that is a seperate issue. The problem here is that this club is now untouchable, through no merit of their own. That's not sport, is it?
I'm not even sure bringing in other examples of where greed can be found in football is even slightly relevant. What Sheikh Mansour has been doing is clearly not motivated by greed (not financially at least).
Why we have to preface criticising Citeh with making sure you need to be aware of that there is money elsewhere in football is anybody's guess.