The mancityfans.net football forum

How about this nugget of wisdom from rag cafe.

Most people seem to be upset that City have "bought" the league. But the real issue is how they actually got their money. Having a rich owner is cheating.

If not for Walker, Abramovich, and Mansour, the breakdown of Premier League titles would be as follows:

Rags - 16
Arsenal - 4
Everyone else - 0

What an exciting league that would be.

They have very cleverly built their cartel and consolidated power in such a way that the only way to really challenge it is to do what we've done. But it isn't the means that offends them, it's the ends. If we were "ruining football" for every other club in the country en route to distant 2nd place finishes every season, they wouldn't care a jot about the money except as something else to ridicule us about.

The moral outrage comes from the fact that we are threatening their hegemony and winning trophies that, in their arrogance, they believe they are entitled to.

It's a bit like an entrenched Mafia kingpin crying out against "dirty tricks" when someone else comes along who is even more clever, resourceful, and cutthroat.

The schoolyard bully just took one on the nose and is crying for Mummy.

Ezz wrote:-

Thanks Ezz, ihave had to cut into two pieces but here goes





Oh fook, now they are not big enough!!

Michigan Blue wrote:If not for Walker, Abramovich, and Mansour, the breakdown of Premier League titles would be as follows:

Rags - 16
Arsenal - 4
Everyone else - 0

What an exciting league that would be.

They have very cleverly built their cartel and consolidated power in such a way that the only way to really challenge it is to do what we've done. But it isn't the means that offends them, it's the ends. If we were "ruining football" for every other club in the country en route to distant 2nd place finishes every season, they wouldn't care a jot about the money except as something else to ridicule us about.

The moral outrage comes from the fact that we are threatening their hegemony and winning trophies that, in their arrogance, they believe they are entitled to.

It's a bit like an entrenched Mafia kingpin crying out against "dirty tricks" when someone else comes along who is even more clever, resourceful, and cutthroat.

I hate to piss on this particular parade, but we've only won 3 titles, not 4, since "football" began :(

IanWright wrote:I hate to piss on this particular parade, but we've only won 3 titles, not 4, since "football" began :(

I am talking about a hypothetical league without the investment at Blackburn, Chelsea, and City. You would benefit from another title under this assumption (2004-05 when you finished 2nd to Chelsea). Surprise surprise, the Rags would hoover up all the rest of the titles up for grabs.

Michigan Blue wrote:

IanWright wrote:I hate to piss on this particular parade, but we've only won 3 titles, not 4, since "football" began :(

I am talking about a hypothetical league without the investment at Blackburn, Chelsea, and City. You would benefit from another title under this assumption (2004-05 when you finished 2nd to Chelsea). Surprise surprise, the Rags would hoover up all the rest of the titles up for grabs.

Egg..on..face.

IanWright wrote:

Michigan Blue wrote:

IanWright wrote:I hate to piss on this particular parade, but we've only won 3 titles, not 4, since "football" began :(

I am talking about a hypothetical league without the investment at Blackburn, Chelsea, and City. You would benefit from another title under this assumption (2004-05 when you finished 2nd to Chelsea). Surprise surprise, the Rags would hoover up all the rest of the titles up for grabs.

Egg..on..face.

You also won 10 titles before the rags invented football in 1993....Though the manner in which you entered the League (way back in the day) was very dodgy and much to Spurs displeasure. Naughty naughty....:-)

john68 wrote:

IanWright wrote:

Michigan Blue wrote:

IanWright wrote:I hate to piss on this particular parade, but we've only won 3 titles, not 4, since "football" began :(

I am talking about a hypothetical league without the investment at Blackburn, Chelsea, and City. You would benefit from another title under this assumption (2004-05 when you finished 2nd to Chelsea). Surprise surprise, the Rags would hoover up all the rest of the titles up for grabs.

Egg..on..face.

You also won 10 titles before the rags invented football in 1993....Though the manner in which you entered the League (way back in the day) was very dodgy and much to Spurs displeasure. Naughty naughty....:-)

I was going to suggest the extra title was reward for going the whole season unbeaten Wrighty...ancient history now though ;)

Every club needs money to perform, that's not a shame. Just look at this:

http://www.footballrevenues.weebly.com

This site has hundreds of football clubs revenues, and the only good teams are the ones with money.

Heard the splendid argument in York mess room two days ago (not sure who the chappie supports) "FFP is right because City and Chelsea have got to be stopped"
I asked him the very simple question, "Why must we be stopped?"
Still waiting for an answer.

I'm enjoying telling chelsea fans that they bought the champions league

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:Heard the splendid argument in York mess room two days ago (not sure who the chappie supports) "FFP is right because City and Chelsea have got to be stopped"
I asked him the very simple question, "Why must we be stopped?"
Still waiting for an answer.

The answer is "because they aren't United, Liverpool and Arsenal".

When I was a kid I'm pretty sure it was all equitable. United won the league, City won the league, Everton, Leeds, Arsenal, Liverpool, Derby, Forest and so on. The media, such as it was, treated each season as the fresh beginning it was.

Now 15 years of Liverpool domination followed by 20 years of the Evil Empire has created such an inbuilt bias in the system - hacks, media producers, football authorities and general public - that it really grates for 2 of the older clubs (I mean successful donkeys years ago) to come back into the success mix.

Beyond their comprehension I'm afraid.

john@staustell wrote:

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:Heard the splendid argument in York mess room two days ago (not sure who the chappie supports) "FFP is right because City and Chelsea have got to be stopped"
I asked him the very simple question, "Why must we be stopped?"
Still waiting for an answer.

The answer is "because they aren't United, Liverpool and Arsenal".

When I was a kid I'm pretty sure it was all equitable. United won the league, City won the league, Everton, Leeds, Arsenal, Liverpool, Derby, Forest and so on. The media, such as it was, treated each season as the fresh beginning it was.

Now 15 years of Liverpool domination followed by 20 years of the Evil Empire has created such an inbuilt bias in the system - hacks, media producers, football authorities and general public - that it really grates for 2 of the older clubs (I mean successful donkeys years ago) to come back into the success mix.

Beyond their comprehension I'm afraid.

Nail hit squarely on the head there John.

well i carnt wait for us to buy it again next season, bring it on city

This best one about financial fair play I have seen from ragcafe

You can still pump money into a club in terms of building a stadium, youth facilities, training centers etc.

You could actually build up a club in a more sustainable manner. It would take longer but it could be effective.

That is very different to what Chelsea and City did. Crucially, from the owners' points of view, that would not bid up wages and threaten the profitability of their own clubs.

They must of missed the upgrades to the training facilities when our owners first came in.

pears12 wrote:This best one about financial fair play I have seen from ragcafe

They must of missed the upgrades to the training facilities when our owners first came in.

And how exactly another club bidding for the same players wouldn't bid up wages or be automatically sustainable.

Thinking back to not long ago, it was City who were accused of attracting mercenaries, who were only coming for the money.

Wasn't it Ferdinand who caused murders at the swamp when he wanted a pay rise and a weekly payment to his agent?
Roy K---t demanded a pay rise, which was given and the rags bunged up the ticket prices to pay for it.
We mustn't forget Shrek's episode when he was supposed to be shipping out.
The rag's history wasn't enough to hold the Trannie when Madrid came calling.
....and now it's Nani who it is rumoured to be looking to jump ship.

It's interesting that fans of other clubs I speak to on the matter always seem to cite that Chelsea and City have skewed the transfer market.

Yet we have Liverpool who spent £20m on Jordan Henderson, similar on Downing, and £35m on Andy Carroll - all in the face of zero competition from City or Chelsea, or for that matter, it would appear no competition from any other clubs at even half that price.

So when Liverpool apparently come calling for Adam Johnson, why would City not have the right to ask for £30m in the face of the achievements and abilities of the midfielders in question - it is Liverpool who set the price in that market, so they can't complain if the price for someone who is actually of use like Johnson now costs a fortune.

Sheikh Mansour is spending his own money. He isn't borrowing it from a bank.

The argument seems to be that you are only allowed to spend money you have 'earned' through selling tickets, getting prize money, TV revenues and selling crap to foreign plastic fans. My problem with this is it gives a huge advantage to established clubs and essentially stops anyone else developing their side into something bigger.

Imagine I was a very, very rich man and decided to buy Booth's supermarket with a view to making it bigger than Tescos. I would have to spend billions to achieve this end (either my money or the banks') and the trading figures for the first several years would inevitably show a huge loss. Eventually though if I spent enough and managed the chain in the right way, the business would be bigger and better than Tescos and would make a profit. It would be a long term project of course - something foreign to the British business ethos.

Does anyone seriously suggest that there's another way to build Booths into something bigger than Tesco? That you could just sort of trade your way into it?

The Sheikh knows what he is doing. He has made a long-term investment and eventually he will reap rewards from it, one way or the other. The club is in very good hands. A lot of the criticism is just plain old-fashioned jealousy, linked with a typically English hatred for anything that disturbs or challenges the established hierarchy.