Reply With QuoteLike the Champions League?
But some things money cannot buy....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like the Champions League?
OuchOriginally Posted by Danstone
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Hahahaha!
Hahahahaha!
Definitely can buy a nice watch and new hair line!
Typical response from a bitter Utd fan, if you're not, you should be.
Give me the league all day long.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Also quietly proud that David wears a proper watch and not one of those horrendous Hublot things that the rags like :)Typical response from a bitter Utd fan, if you're not, you should be.
Give me the league all day long.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Manchester must be a difficult place to buy a Rolex when you’re competing (or not) with all the local football wealth!
Indeed. As much as I would like to see my team win the corrupt money spinning circus that is the Champions league, my seat at the Etihad is surrounded by people who just want the title year after year. In the meantime, the line up photo of the team with all 4 domestic trophies is one sweet picture. Believe it or not I'm in Madrid next weekend. Keeping a low profile. Champions league final, fought out between 2 clubs who have 87 years of not being champions between them.Typical response from a bitter Utd fan, if you're not, you should be.
Give me the league all day long.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Is there much joy winning the league when you know your blatantly cheating though ?
FFP anyone ?
I don't know. Neither do you. Sour grapes anyone?
But you’re not bitter.......
The best team won the league I've got no issue with that.
My issue is you have spent 1.4 billion and you generate buttons.
Your match day revenue is appalling and your commercial deals are from your owner putting his own money in.
The best team won as I said but it's blatent cheating.
Well it's just a fact it doesn't really matter what emotion I attach to it.
- - - Updated - - -
Of course no other club spends any money. The directors of Bayern are also not directors of their major sponsors. Real Madrid didn't do a dodgy land deal. David Gill isn't working in the upper circles of Euefa trying to put the world back to 1999. I could go on...
Last edited by Russ; 26th May 2019 at 11:17.
Madrid have spent be 20m the last 3 season.
Bayern don't spend big.
Both have massive commercial revenues.
City have spent 1.4 billion whilst generating nothing.
You can't even fill your stadium.
Best team but cheats.
Makes me more impressed with how good this Liverpool team is to lose the league by a point and be in the final of the champs league with all the financial cheating going on.
To be fair, gate money is a function of ticket prices and most supporters think cheaper tickets is a good thing.
https://talksport.com/football/43785...season-ticket/
Cheapest ST last year was Huddersfield (cheap but arguably not good value!) followed by Manchester City at £310. Cheapest at Liverpool was £685.
Obviously these are just the cheapest STs - there'll be a range and the top end corporates will be eye watering whatever club you go to.
My only fear is that the kangaroo court might be as bitter and biased as you are.
No idea how stats are compiled but this gives both Liverpool and Manchester City as 98.1% average. And that was 'average' for the Premier League.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foot...sportgalleries
This says they spent £146m in 2018/19 (and £36m in 17/18):
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/real...etailpos=&w_s=
Sterling has a BLNR on they far nicer oyster.
He also has never made a champions league final. Maybe a move to spurs next......
Spanish clubs are not exactly squeaky clean:
https://www.theguardian.com/football...idies-brussels
They sold 120m of players. Net spend was 20m.
Man City net spend is 1.4 billion since the oil man took control.
A nice 3 year comparison against a 10 year one then.
FFP has been going 5 years and realadrid are averaging 20m a season.
City spent 90m net in year 1 alone.
Facts are facts as you say.... City are cheating.
Your blinkered view is tiresome and I'm not going to waste any more time. You've clearly satisfied yourself with a set of 'statistics' which tie in with your coloured and clouded opinion. A colour which you've not revealed, apart of course from a heavy tint of green. ;‐) Good afternoon!
It's fine if you don't understand what FFP is, but I thought you liked facts ?
Ah, you didn't say "net" spend. Manchester City gross spend since 2003 is £1.4bn, not net. I think the Sheikh Mansour takeover was in 2008, 5 years later.
https://www.transferleague.co.uk/pre...e-1992-to-date
Biggest net spend last season was Liverpool, apparently. £137m
https://www.thisisanfield.com/transf...eason-2018-19/
Youve won thre match day income trophy, the net spend cup.
What more do you want?
I was in Oxford St this morning and the fans were celebrating in style at the New Balance Shop.....
Runners Up Winners
FFP is a moveable feast:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ching-FFP.html
"Liverpool are expected to avoid Uefa sanctions, despite being in breach of Financial Fair Play regulations ...."
"Although Uefa launched an investigation and could have punished the club's owners, Fenway Sports, with a heavy fine and enforced a reduction in the size of their squad in European competitions next season – a punishment dished out to Manchester City – they have accepted Liverpool's explanation for the losses."
"Liverpool announced losses of £49.8 million for the 2012-13 season and £40.5 million for the 12 months prior to that."
I assume Manchester City will seek to argue that if they, like Liverpool, were "in breach of Financial Fair Play regulations" then, like Liverpool, they have an "explanation"!
I don't think there's any moral high ground on the top end of the Premier league. At the end of the day, it's a cut throat business (if you want to consistently compete in competitions).
The net spend kings are actually Southampton who have made money over the last 5 years.
Liverpool spent 130m last season but made 20m before and spent nothing the season before that.
To put it into context City have spent 380m more than Liverpool in the last 5 years on transfer fees alone.
This is with Liverpool having a global fan base.
It's laughable any city fan can say it's rose tinted glasses when they blatently cheat.
Liverpool wasn't to do with spend it was to do with losses. Liverpool lost about 50m due to the new main stand.
Hence why Liverpool were not charged.
City however have already been found guilty and had to pay 50m ? But then spent 160m the next season and another 200m the season after.
The "etihad" sponrship deal was 400m from the oil man's brother. Yet the second highest big they received was for 80m.
It's plain to see chaps.
Liverpool accusing city of cheating is a bit like the guy finishing 2nd to Lance Armstrong whinging about cheating. They're all at it to some degree, City are currently doing it better.
I've heard some Liverpool and Utd fans saying city bought the league. Pot and kettle comes to mind.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
Us plebs can't even buy the watch from an AD right now!
Oh Warren another one that doesn't get it.
Liverpool and United can spend 100m a year because they generate it. They are global clubs with hundreds of commercial deals.
City are just smashing money about and using there owner for their commercial deals.
80m highest sponrship offer then your owners brother comes in 320million higher.
Laughable.
So the status quo should remain? The big clubs capitalize on their position to make money, pull further and further away and we end up with the same clubs perpetually winning?
Chelsea and City have shaken things up, regardless on your perspective/opinion as to how they have gone about it. Without the influx of money they've had, we'd still have arsenal/utd/Liverpool fighting over the league.
Utd etc have a massive financial advantage, that only gets bigger relative to the clubs below. So it wouldn't matter what City/Chelsea did over the last 10-15yrs, without the money they've been given, they'd be nowhere.
Look at the rest of europe. Spain, Germany, Italy. Over the last 7yrs (so 21 league titles up for grabs) 4 clubs have won them all. Compare that with the pl (9 seasons without a team retaining the league?).
I know which I prefer. The premier league is better because of their influence.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
The difference today is that FFP exists and (partly as a result) there is much more financial transparency. Did the Moores family not fund Liverpool from the mid-60s enabling them to pay then record fees for the likes of Dalglish, Souness, Kennedy, Toshack? Would they have been within FFP limits had they existed then? Who knows! Liverpool were being dragged under by debt as recently as 2010 before wealthy US investors rescued them. Manchester United became the financial force they are today due primarily to the fortunate coincident timing of Premier League TV money and the best ever manager being appointed. Chelsea's resurgence was due to Abramovic's investment.
Bottom line is you can't complain about "new" money helping others when you benefited from "old" money. Well you can, but no-one takes it seriously.
It’s great being the net spend kings and that’s all well and good but we’ve slipped from 6th to relegation fodder over the last 3/4 years and the footballs not been good until King Ralph took over?
Whether the City fan likes it or not they are cheating the rules and justifying it by comparing yourselves to the other cheating b*stards is no justification either.........they do play great football though and at least they stopped the other mob from winning the league
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'm not a city fan. The very reason clubs like Southampton struggle is that the entire system is rigged against them. Without a Chelsea/city scenario there's no way it of that (consistently).
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
The comment I was referring to was not yours. Unfortunately the top few clubs will run away with it going forward and FFP will never be applied properly because the UEFA and FIFA are basically corrupt....still at least the top six won’t get all the big decisions with VAR....bit late for Cardiff though
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
While it is certainly true that the game isnt a level playing field and wealthy clubs have a huge advantage that means smaller clubs cannot compete, that is not cheating. It is the game, and indeed that is life. It’s not fair and its not meant to be fair.
Feel free to rage at City - I certainly did the same when united were buying the biggest players every single season for decades, and winning lots of trophies.
But if you are going to get on your high horse about FFP at least have the decency to spend a few moments getting some basics right.
1. FFP was first tested in around 2013/14 at which point City didn’t pass the financial tests.
2. City were extremely angry because they believe that UEFA changed the way they said they would interpret the rules at a very late stage, which is why they failed the test.
3. Regardless, City were penalised at the time and have PASSED EVER SINCE
4. The issues now STILL RELATE to whether they passed the tests several years ago. They have absolutely nothing to do with recent years.
FFP is a construct designed to give the pretence that there is some moral backbone to big time football.
There isn’t. Never has been. Never will be.
City are extremely fortunate for the size of investment made and the way it has been done. It has created enormous value for the club, its fans, the local area in East Manchester, and the Premier League.
Investment in Spurs and other clubs has had a similar impact.
There are now at least 6 teams vying for 4 places where before there were 4.
Guardiola has made the difference for now. That will no doubt change some time.
Innocent until proven guilty. You're speculating from the Sun news paper! Enough said.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
looooooooool
Spot on .
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I thought the Premier League had their own 'financial rules' for clubs to comply with which are very separate to Uefa rules? (although I do appreciate they are similar) If City haven't broken Premier League rules then surely they've won the league fair and square. Nice football too. They're a profitable club with a half billion pound turnover. Of course some investment will be from the same region as the owner but that's no different to Liverpool or any other club. City can justify higher sponsorship deals recently due to on field success and worldwide sponsor visibility across the City Football Group. Amazing what a simple Google search tells you rather than reading that rubbish spouted off earlier.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Spot on mate
He's also being selective with his facts.
How about, erm, the Dippers spent 155m last season, the champions -9m. Or that of the 10 most expensive players in history, none were bought by City, 1 in the 20 most expensive. Or maybe just accept that all the big clubs spend big, City are just far and away the best run club. The Dippers are the first club anywhere in world football to spend a billion dollars and not won their league. That's a nice fact.
But, but, but...the Dipper media says differently. Facts are facts, the rubbish about money and the discussion about one club is laughable. Jealous, much. Good post too, cheers.
This thread seems full of football experts here so, can someone explain how 4 or possibly 5 teams from the English premier league (and same from other leagues seemingly) will be competing in the “Champions League” next year, surely it should be called champions and some losers league, or merely have the top clubs competing?
I don’t follow football but rugby union, maybe I had one too many blows to the head to understand this.
Posting Permissions
