Pep the Muppet and Other Citeh Shit

I don’t really blame Man City. To be honest, I don’t know why others do. Unless they go ‘round behaving like a bunch of cunts (like Barca), simply a spending a fuckload of money that they haven’t deserved is not a crime. I’m not saying I’d like that circus to happen to Arsenal, but I don’t think they’re doing anything wrong. The key distinction is that what they’re being allowed to do is blatantly wrong. Syn’s mantra #3: “Don’t blame the players, blame the game”. It’s not Man City’s fault that the rules are stupid. And the rules are very stupid.

That said, it’s obvious that whatever Man City achieve in terms of on-field success is meaningless to the rational observer. Nothing they do on the pitch will be worthy of praise.

What Joker is saying is that the sport is always (or at least, 90s onwards) been skewed in terms of inequality and it has never been a level playing field. As a left-wing pansy, he drew the line of ‘this is unfair’ well before even Chelsea became a Russian billionnaire’s penis extension. As a fellow left-wing pansy, I would like to see the league(s) as competitive as possible in the sense that clubs should have a better chance of moving up based on sound financial and on-pitch management. I think there have been many examples of this. We are one. But I don’t know how anyone could seriously take a look at top flight football post-Chelski and seriously claim that the sport isn’t just about which owners have the deepest pockets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn

I don’t really blame Man City. To be honest, I don’t know why others do.

---

I don't think anyone does.

What City are doing is reprehensible but so was what Chelsea did, so are loads of things in the sport which is now set up entirely to make the gaps between the haves and have nots ever wider and make it harder for any team to move between levels unless they get a sugar daddy on board.

It's sad and it's not much fun any more because it's not a sport any more, it's a business. Sport is fun. Business isn't fun.

I don't blame City for any of it, but I'm quite happy to hate them for jumping on the billionaire bandwaggon and for thinking that anything they achieve is meaningfull.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters (TPFKA WWTL@WHL)

I don't think anyone does.

What City are doing is reprehensible but so was what Chelsea did, so are loads of things in the sport which is now set up entirely to make the gaps between the haves and have nots ever wider and make it harder for any team to move between levels unless they get a sugar daddy on board.

It's sad and it's not much fun any more because it's not a sport any more, it's a business. Sport is fun. Business isn't fun.

I don't blame City for any of it, but I'm quite happy to hate them for jumping on the billionaire bandwaggon and for thinking that anything they achieve is meaningfull.

---

That's exactly what I think. I just got confused when you said: "Yes, the system is wrong. But so are the clubs exploiting it" and maybe I misunderstood 'hating Man City' for 'blaming Man City'. I don't think the clubs are wrong for exploiting the shitty rules....but it just means that their 'success' becomes almost inevitable and meaningless.

They're going to win this league by a mile this season. Wouldn't mind them winning the CL because it'd mean Barca lose out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn

I don’t really blame Man City. To be honest, I don’t know why others do. Unless they go ‘round behaving like a bunch of cunts (like Barca), simply a spending a fuckload of money that they haven’t deserved is not a crime. I’m not saying I’d like that circus to happen to Arsenal, but I don’t think they’re doing anything wrong. The key distinction is that what they’re being allowed to do is blatantly wrong. Syn’s mantra #3: “Don’t blame the players, blame the game”. It’s not Man City’s fault that the rules are stupid. And the rules are very stupid.

That said, it’s obvious that whatever Man City achieve in terms of on-field success is meaningless to the rational observer. Nothing they do on the pitch will be worthy of praise.

What Joker is saying is that the sport is always (or at least, 90s onwards) been skewed in terms of inequality and it has never been a level playing field. As a left-wing pansy, he drew the line of ‘this is unfair’ well before even Chelsea became a Russian billionnaire’s penis extension. As a fellow left-wing pansy, I would like to see the league(s) as competitive as possible in the sense that clubs should have a better chance of moving up based on sound financial and on-pitch management. I think there have been many examples of this. We are one. But I don’t know how anyone could seriously take a look at top flight football post-Chelski and seriously claim that the sport isn’t just about which owners have the deepest pockets.

---

I think effectively waving huge amounts of money under any player they can get to smell it, is pretty indicative of 'go 'round behaving like a bunch of cunts'. I mean, the suggestion is that Nasri was all but about to go to Man Utd and then in come Citeh.

Anyway, why does it have to be one or the other? I can quite easily criticise Manchester City and then criticise FIFA/UEFA/FA too.

Joker might be saying that but it makes no difference to the fact Manchester City would go out of business in any other circumstance and that is my biggest gripe with the whole thing. And highlighting that other clubs might have done the same thing doesn't really change my antipathy for Citeh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McNamara That Ghost...

I think effectively waving huge amounts of money under any player they can get to smell it, is pretty indicative of 'go 'round behaving like a bunch of cunts'. I mean, the suggestion is that Nasri was all but about to go to Man Utd and then in come Citeh.

---

If they've 'tapped players up' or whatever the homoerotic expression is, then that's wrong and illegal. I don't know if that happened with Nasri or Tevez or other players they've previously signed. It might've - I genuinely don't know. But from my point of view, if they're just offering mass amounts of money to clubs and players, I don't think that's poor conduct. If they're going behind clubs' backs and offering money to the player first, that's wrong and obviously deserving of criticism/punishment.

Quote:

---

Anyway, why does it have to be one or the other? I can quite easily criticise Manchester City and then criticise FIFA/UEFA/FA too.

---

You can criticise whoever you want. Whether it makes sense depends on what grounds you're criticising them. It's quite simple in my book: FIFA/UEFA/FA are to blame regardless because even without Arab takeover, the rules were still stupid. But if Man City are playing within the rules, I don't see how they could be criticised. Offering huge sums of money in itself is not a crime. Again - I'm not saying they haven't done anything wrong, but just that I haven't heard of it...I don't tend to follow the drawn-out transfer stories outside Arsenal so I might've missed something. I've yet to read anyone give evidence or a convincing argument that says they have.

Quote:

---

Joker might be saying that but it makes no difference to the fact Manchester City would go out of business in any other circumstance and that is my biggest gripe with the whole thing.

---

Of course. That was my point also.

Quote:

---

They're going to win this league by a mile this season.

---

We'll see. Massive meltdown coming at that club. They have absolutely no values and this means they're all just a pack of blood-suckers who are bound to turn on each other at some point. Even if they hold it together for this season, once they've "been there, bought that, done the T-shirt", they'll collapse. At least Chelsea poured the money on to a team that was already in place (if not that great), the "gents" at City have basically chucked everything out and bought a whole new club from scratch. I don't like Barca for many reasons but they aren't in the same league as City for being crass, vulgar, devoid of character, essentially meaningless. If the Munich crash happened to City they'd just buy replacements the next day, wouldn't they? For all their money they are the cheapest thing the game has ever witnessed.

Syn -The second paragraph is odd. You say I can criticise whoever I want so long as it makes sense but nobody is actually suggesting Manchester City are breaking the rules. That doesn't preclude from saying what they're doing is (and I want to use a word less righteous but can't think of one) more morally wrong.

You chose to mention Barca so I will indulge here: Were Barca's players actually breaking rules by clamouring for Cesc to return through the media? I don't believe they were but that doesn't preclude you (nor me) from explcitly criticising them for it.

I'm not entirely sure I get this idea of 'not blaming them'. As if this was some kind of well conceived plan and they are achieving this through clever use of loopholes. They were just bought by an extremely wealthy person from an even more extremely wealthy family and proceded to spend the money they have. Or maybe that's why they can't be 'blamed', they're at the behest of a man who wants to spend what he wants and they at Manchester City can't exactly say no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

We'll see. Massive meltdown coming at that club. They have absolutely no values and this means they're all just a pack of blood-suckers who are bound to turn on each other at some point. Even if they hold it together for this season, once they've "been there, bought that, done the T-shirt", they'll collapse. At least Chelsea poured the money on to a team that was already in place (if not that great), the "gents" at City have basically chucked everything out and bought a whole new club from scratch. I don't like Barca for many reasons but they aren't in the same league as City for being crass, vulgar, devoid of character, essentially meaningless. If the Munich crash happened to City they'd just buy replacements the next day, wouldn't they? For all their money they are the cheapest thing the game has ever witnessed.

---

Best poster tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McNamara That Ghost...

Syn -The second paragraph is odd. You say I can criticise whoever I want so long as it makes sense but nobody is actually suggesting Manchester City are breaking the rules. That doesn't preclude from saying what they're doing is (and I want to use a word less righteous but can't think of one) more morally wrong.

You chose to mention Barca so I will indulge here: Were Barca's players actually breaking rules by clamouring for Cesc to return through the media? I don't believe they were but that doesn't preclude you (nor me) from explcitly criticising them for it.

I'm not entirely sure I get this idea of 'not blaming them'. As if this was some kind of well conceived plan and they are achieving this through clever use of loopholes. They were just bought by an extremely wealthy person from an even more extremely wealthy family and proceded to spend the money they have. Or maybe that's why they can't be 'blamed', they're at the behest of a man who wants to spend what he wants and they at Manchester City can't exactly say no.

---

Right, I think I've got a clearer picture now. It was the Barca point you made that helped. You're saying that, overall, what's going on at Man City is wrong (morally) and that nobody's holding a gun to their heads; Man City are participating in something that is wrong and so are deserving of criticism/blame.

Barca haven't been punished for what they did and so evidently they didn't break the rulebook either - my objection to their behaviour can only be moral one too.

So in the same way I'm blaming Barca, I guess blaming Man City is fair game.

My question is now this: If Man City were more subtle about it - perhaps more like Mourinho and Chelsea were - with less big-name signings and a much lower level of spending would they be less deserving of criticism? i.e. When your budget is £800m, and you spend £20m of it...does it make it 'right' to spend £50m instead of £700m of it? Because IMO, I'd have to go for the £700m. Aren't you eventually converging to the same outcome - that Man City keep climbing the table (at a much slower rate) - until they are no.1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

We'll see. Massive meltdown coming at that club. They have absolutely no values and this means they're all just a pack of blood-suckers who are bound to turn on each other at some point. Even if they hold it together for this season, once they've "been there, bought that, done the T-shirt", they'll collapse. At least Chelsea poured the money on to a team that was already in place (if not that great), the "gents" at City have basically chucked everything out and bought a whole new club from scratch. I don't like Barca for many reasons but they aren't in the same league as City for being crass, vulgar, devoid of character, essentially meaningless. If the Munich crash happened to City they'd just buy replacements the next day, wouldn't they? For all their money they are the cheapest thing the game has ever witnessed.

---

I dunno...that's a lot of description without much substance, for me. Chelsea don't win any extra points for requiring less of a push. Whether you buy your way from 4th to 1st or whether you buy you way from 20th to 1st, you're still buying shit. I think that's part of Joker's argument before - that people have some sort of preconceived notion of what teams 'should' be challenging for the title and what teams shouldn't. Even though we have been challenging for the title in recent years and are generally seen as a top team (yes, this is still the case...) it wouldn't make it any better if we did it than if Norwich did it. Sure, we'd hold on to more players than they would...we might keep Wilshere, Van Persie and a few others instead of buying a totally new team like Norwich would have to - but does that make us morally superior? (What am I saying - we are the champions of that trophy). For all the colourful words to describe a 'tasteless' Man City, they all stem from the fact that they (undeservingly) spend too much for your liking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn

I dunno...that's a lot of description without much substance, for me. Chelsea don't win any extra points for requiring less of a push. Whether you buy your way from 4th to 1st or whether you buy you way from 20th to 1st, you're still buying shit. I think that's part of Joker's argument before - that people have some sort of preconceived notion of what teams 'should' be challenging for the title and what teams shouldn't. Even though we have been challenging for the title in recent years and are generally seen as a top team (yes, this is still the case...) it wouldn't make it any better if we did it than if Norwich did it. Sure, we'd hold on to more players than they would...we might keep Wilshere, Van Persie and a few others instead of buying a totally new team like Norwich would have to - but does that make us morally superior? (What am I saying - we are the champions of that trophy). For all the colourful words to describe a 'tasteless' Man City, they all stem from the fact that they (undeservingly) spend too much for your liking.

---

No, that's not it. In every competitive sport there's a certain amount of tolerance for variations in competitiveness. You get good boxers, mediocre boxers, but if a super-heavyweight was allowed to go and fight in the featherweight division the so what if he ends up being the world champ? Big deal. It's not sport, is it? It's contrived with an inevitable outcome. Same with football. Yes there are certain inequalities that seem to be built into the game these days, the big clubs who always seem to be the big clubs, the minnows. But the possibility for sport still exists and among the tops guys it's not a foregone conclusion who will win. It is now though, simply because one club has got more money than every other team in the country combined. It's just a nonsense, even if City lost 2 entire teams to injury and suspension they'd still have another world class team in reserve. So they're not subject to the normal conditions of the sport. Added to that, even if they could be challenged they can simply buy the players from their closest rivals. When money is no object you have no sport, the sport is gone. Chelsea started the rot, City have finished it off. You might say there can be 3 or 4 more Citys to come and then there will be competition at the top again. But that doesn't work either because the gap to everyone else will be immense and the money will have effectively created a separate league. In fact that's what they want to do isn't it? Abandon the league and gang up with the other moneybags clubs so they can say, this is it, this is football now and we own the lot. It's not that they spend too much money, it's that the money they spend will end up destroying a game that's lasted for over a century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn

My question is now this: If Man City were more subtle about it - perhaps more like Mourinho and Chelsea were - with less big-name signings and a much lower level of spending would they be less deserving of criticism? i.e. When your budget is £800m, and you spend £20m of it...does it make it 'right' to spend £50m instead of £700m of it? Because IMO, I'd have to go for the £700m. Aren't you eventually converging to the same outcome - that Man City keep climbing the table (at a much slower rate) - until they are no.1?

---

The amount of money you mention I think is somewhere around the figure the FFP rules are supposed to allow owners to invest.

It wouldn't bother me if it was that amount of investment because at least then they were acting with some sort of business sense. Obviously their turnover will be more than the money invested from somewhere else in that case and thus they wouldn't be spending at a rate that would otherwise see them collapse (and you've already admitted you agree with this). I am not against owners investing per se; it's their club. The way Sheikh Mansour is doing it hollows their achievement, not just because the amount of money they are spending but the way they have done it shows it could've been any other club. By doing it the way you suggested they would've been in a much stronger position financially (I mean through their own means).

Spending at the rate you suggest also means they wouldn't have gone a long way to raising the prices and wages of players for every other club. Man City are in no way alone in doing that but they have spent huge amounts of money on players who aren't particularly great whereas say Real Madrid have spent most of their money on the very top players but of course, I don't have much time for Real Madrid either and they do earn a huge amount.

I read in the paper this morning that Tevez has won a golf tournament in Argentina while he's been AWOL.

:haha:

Tevez :bow:.

Milan are after him

We should get him

Wont stay for more than 2 years but he'll score quite a lot during those 2 years. We only signed Park for 2 years after all and hes shit so why not do the same with Tevez whos quality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ach

Milan are after him

We should get him

Wont stay for more than 2 years but he'll score quite a lot during those 2 years. We only signed Park for 2 years after all and hes shit so why not do the same with Tevez whos quality?

---

Yeah just what we need since we seem to have divested ourselves of morale sapping self-centred *******s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ach

Milan are after him

We should get him

Wont stay for more than 2 years but he'll score quite a lot during those 2 years. We only signed Park for 2 years after all and hes shit so why not do the same with Tevez whos quality?

---

Yeah because we could do with a cunt who'd rather play golf than honour his contract. The guy must really love football, yes?

Mancini has said he will never play for City again

Whats he supposed to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ach

Mancini has said he will never play for City again

Whats he supposed to do?

---

Who cares what he does, provided he doesn't end up anywhere near our club.

Quality player. We can do with as many of them as we can.

Must Get

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ach

Quality player. We can do with as many of them as we can.

Must Get

---

I suppose he'd want around a quarter of a mill a week and the transfer fee would be in the £30mill region. Yeah, he's definitely coming here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

I suppose he'd want around a quarter of a mill a week and the transfer fee would be in the £30mill region. Yeah, he's definitely coming here.

---

I said i want him here.

I didnt say he was coming here :rolleyes:

And wasnt the whole point of moving to the Emirates so we can compete with the big clubs? If we arent going to shell out for Tevez or another big name player cos Wenger is too tight then lets move back to Highbury

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ach

I said i want him here.

I didnt say he was coming here :rolleyes:

And wasnt the whole point of moving to the Emirates so we can compete with the big clubs? If we arent going to shell out for Tevez or another big name player cos Wenger is too tight then lets move back to Highbury

---

I'd definitely buy one of those flats if we moved back to Highbury. That would be cool.

Good piece here

http://spurs-suchsmallportions.blogs...propriate.html

(yeah, it's from a Spurs site, sent to me by a Spurs fan, but I agree with all of it)

So if Man City have made a £200m loss this season alone and they got £400m sposorship over 10 years...doesn't that mean they'll be fucked by the time the fair play thing comes in anyway because they can't keep getting sponsored £400m every year.

They can if their owner, say, says he'll be their shirt sponsor for £400m a year :shrug:

But hasn't he just sposored them for £400m for 10 years for exactly that?

Tevez might be off to Milan. His crook advisor is in talks with them.

Yup. :ilt:

We'll definitely get Milan now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by server too busy!

So if Man City have made a £200m loss this season alone and they got £400m sposorship over 10 years...doesn't that mean they'll be fucked by the time the fair play thing comes in anyway because they can't keep getting sponsored £400m every year.

---

The £400m is amortised over the 10 year period of the deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

We'll definitely get Milan now.

---

isnt he cup tied anyway? think he played in hte first game. could be wrong though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ollie the optimist

isnt he cup tied anyway? think he played in hte first game. could be wrong though

---

City look like they are going out though.

So he can play for Milan (I think).

Lots of Santa's at the Etihad Stadium today apparently. They'll buy anyone.

Balotelli and Micah Richards had a bust-up in training.

:haha:

seems like theyve realised nasri is a fraudulent coward of a player
http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/vi...p?f=1&t=243617

loooolz

Things could be worse.

They could have Gervinho

gervinho is twice the player for half the price.

comparable to the anelka to henry deal.

Not from what ive seen this season

And Nasris hardly played but scored 3 and fuckload of assists

Nasri is the Berbatov of assists this season.

BOBN is spot-on with this assessment.

Nasri has regressed into a fat Hleb.

He's a walking Pointless Rosicky Turn™.

A luxury player who who has no guts, so his talent is wasted.