The mancityfans.net football forum

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.

Brian,
Welcome to the site mate. This issue has already been well debated and discussed on this site and almost everyone has reached the same conclusion about the FFP as you Mate.

I have just read an interesting report by Prof Dr Henning Vopel of the Hamburg Institute of International Economics who was quite critical of the FFP, its method of rebalancing competition and the FFP as an inadequate tool to do so. He also makes the points that the FFP will ultimately protect the established clubs by limiting challenges from non-established clubs and diminish incentives for new investors into clubs.

Looks like the old elite clubs have done a decent job of self protection and guarding their place at the trough for their snouts.

john68 wrote:Brian,
Welcome to the site mate. This issue has already been well debated and discussed on this site and almost everyone has reached the same conclusion about the FFP as you Mate.

I have just read an interesting report by Prof Dr Henning Vopel of the Hamburg Institute of International Economics who was quite critical of the FFP, its method of rebalancing competition and the FFP as an inadequate tool to do so. He also makes the points that the FFP will ultimately protect the established clubs by limiting challenges from non-established clubs and diminish incentives for new investors into clubs.

Looks like the old elite clubs have done a decent job of self protection and guarding their place at the trough for their snouts.

It took a professor to work that out? When do we get our doctorates?

BrianW wrote: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.

Brian you have described exactly the business models of Amazon, Ryanair and SKY to name but 3, and i agree entirely. It's common business sense/practice, which just shows that moves to stop City spending are just jealousy and not anything logical.

BrianW wrote: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.

reverse takeover?

does anyone know if we can buy next season's title online? i'd like to try and get it before the xmas holiday crush of shopping if i can, but i'm not sure if it's available to "Add to Cart" yet?

advice?