comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 28 seconds ago
Which then you can put against fergies recent jibes about city... Man Utd are far removed from a standpoint where they can criticise Manchester City.
.....................
Was SAF criticising City for shirt sales?
This is what he said:
"We know City are going to spend fortunes, pay stupid money and silly salaries. We know that happens. We can't do anything about that," the Scot told MUTV.
Was he accusing City of being unethical?
----------------------------
Nope. And to be fair - everything he said is accurate anyway. Transfer fees aside, the money they have offered to average players in terms of wages is crazy.
That money didn't exist in football before the man city owner put his hand in his pocket.
....................
What a load of rubbish.
Thereby football has benefitted.
...................
How?
.......................
Economically it would be termed as a "cash injection" into the football market place.
.........................
Again how?
Vidics I know you're red through and through, but come on. Did buying Kompany force prices up, Hart, Johnson, Barry? No the selling club forces prices up, not the buying club, City would prefer to pay as likkle as poss, (Who wouldn't) when buying, it is the selling club when they don't particulary want to sell or there is more than one club in for their player that force up prices to ridiculous levels. £80,000,000.00 pounds for CR7 is a perfect example
Fergie was criticising the silly money of man city... at least that money has come from an owner...and a large amount stays in football
Silly money that man utd spend on interest payments in part comes from an unethical shirt deal.
Fergie would have been better advised keeping those comments to himself.
interest payment is silly money?
You will be telling me people with mortgages are stupid next.
Every club probably has some kind of a loan/overdraft facility going with their bankers, but how many clubs pay the level of wages that Man City do. (Money that goes straight out of the game).
comment by Vidicschin (U3584) posted 2 minutes ago
That money didn't exist in football before the man city owner put his hand in his pocket.
....................
What a load of rubbish.
Thereby football has benefitted.
...................
How?
.......................
Economically it would be termed as a "cash injection" into the football market place.
.........................
Again how?
I'm out of here, head, brick wall, banging against an all that!!!!!! and once more
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
How is spending £174m of the club revenue, generated from football, plus another 22m, on players wages, keeping money in football? Do you think that the players are putting it back in at grass roots level?
-----
Through the cash injection man city have introduced far more money into the footballing market place...
Every club pays wages, how many clubs pay the levels of interest that man utd do?
That's silly money
---------------------
I agree that it is silly money in terms of the interest payments. But at least the club is generating that itself - it is self sustainable.
In terms of the wages, United do not pay more than 50% of their turnover. City's wages are more than their turnover.
comment by Mamucium urbis (U7807)
posted 3 minutes ago
Vidics I know you're red through and through, but come on. Did buying Kompany force prices up, Hart, Johnson, Barry? No the selling club forces prices up, not the buying club,
-------------------------------------
Spending large amounts on average players is what has sent prices up - Santa Cruz, Barry, Milner, Lescott etc.
City are expected to overtake Liverpool in the football rich list the next time the figures are realised so I'd say that financially we're heading in the right direction.
comment by Mamucium urbis (U7807)
posted 4 minutes ago
Vidics I know you're red through and through, but come on. Did buying Kompany force prices up, Hart, Johnson, Barry?
.....................
Looking at the fees of Downing, Henderson, Jones, and Caroll to name a few, I have to suggest thet it may well have done.
I'm out of here
.............
You won't be missed, you clearly are as out of your depth as the OP.
"City are expected to overtake Liverpool in the football rich list the next time the figures are realised so I'd say that financially we're heading in the right direction."
You've worked hard for it, Boris. Well done mate.
Economically it would be termed as a "cash injection"
This is an example of trickle down economics and is good for football and associated economies. At least this is true of City who purchase players with cash.
However some clubs borrow to buy players or pay in installments, hence a lot of players transfers are paid with'virtual' money, or the promise of money. Hence if one club goes but it can start a chain reaction of defaulted payments across clubs all over the world.
FFP is supposed to stop this, but now they are using to stop all introduction of money, which is crazy x
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 7 minutes ago
Fergie was criticising the silly money of man city... at least that money has come from an owner...and a large amount stays in football
.................
Ask Leeds, Southampton, Portsmouth and Rangers fans about the non benefits.
Ask your own fans if they think Liverpool have benefited from Cities injection of free cash.
And as I asked you above, how were SAF's comments unethical? He need not have made them, but they were certainly not unethical.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584) posted 2 minutes ago
That money didn't exist in football before the man city owner put his hand in his pocket.
....................
What a load of rubbish.
Thereby football has benefitted.
...................
How?
.......................
Economically it would be termed as a "cash injection" into the football market place.
.........................
Again how?
I'm out of here, head, brick wall, banging against an all that!!!!!! and once more
-------
@ VC
keeping it simple (explaining how Man City's owner has brought a cash injection into football)
1) were man city a rich club before sheikh mansour?
Answer no
2) was sheikh mansour the owner of another club
Answer no
Thereby sheikh mansour is a new investor in football.
Investors inject money, some better than others.
From the size of his investment into football the football marketplace has seen an injection of this "new" cash.
From a myopic viewpoint of man utd fans this may not be a good thing for man utd. But for the whole of football it is.
Much better than sending money out of football via interest payments.
I guess the rich list deals with how much a club earns, but if more is going out than coming in, then it does not mean anything.
"Spending large amounts on average players is what has sent prices up - Santa Cruz, Barry, Milner, Lescott etc."
For who exactly, Villa sold Milner and Barry for approx £30m, they bought Bent for what > £20m and got S.I. thrown in. Lesscott £22m to Everton they've let a couple go on a free andf bought Jelavic for £7m, Arsenal, Toure, Clichy, Nasri God knows how much, their highest purchase is still Arshavin............. thats just xfrs MCFC have been involved in.
NUFC Carrol, Barton, Nolan again l don't know exact figures but I'm pretty sure what they got for Carrol more than paid for Ba and Cisse and Cabaye
Maybe it's just Sir Alex finding "No Value" in the transfer market
wtf has ethics got to do with it?!
-----------------
X, you know what? Never has a more pertinent question been asked.
This whole debate is quite frankly ridiculous (and I have just had to pinch myself for engaging in it, although in my defence not to the extent that others have attempting to defend their club against attacks made against it in regards to shirt sales. FFS!! I mean, really?!!!)
One would be forgiven for thinking that fans of the richest clubs in the world hate the idea of money. Well, only when it suits them it seems. They love the fact that their club generates x-amount in revenue, yet hate the audacity of someone else wanting to gate-crash this not-at-all prudent ideal to serve their own interests. City have an owner who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is. The club has benefitted hugely as a result. The problem with that is that it's to the detriment of the so-called established order.
It's so transparent it really is laughable. It's resulted in fans becoming financial experts, not so much concerned with how well their club performs on the pitch as opposed to how well it does off it. Go back 20-30 years or so. No fan gave a stuff about how much money their club made. Go back 20-30 years or so, and Peter Swales getting out his cheque book ended up with fans laughing at him for spending it on the likes of Steve Daley and no more.
Now, today, I've just read about how "unethical" the shirt deal is for United. About how "unethical" it is for an owner to spend his money on something that he owns. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Seriously, so many people here need to just take hold of themselves. They moan about the sport they love, hate the direction its taken (a direction, by the way, that the game has always taken), and ascribe more significance to the number of shirts that are produced and how frequently they are produced.
Oh well. I enjoyed Sunday. Great game. Drama, emotion, tension, release, ups and downs. That's what sport is about. Not people moaning because City have spent x-amount of money. Not people misguidedly moaning about ethics. Step back for a moment - see how utterly ridiculous this entire thread has been.
comment by Mamucium urbis (U7807)
posted 1 minute ago
"Spending large amounts on average players is what has sent prices up - Santa Cruz, Barry, Milner, Lescott etc."
For who exactly, Villa sold Milner and Barry for approx £30m, they bought Bent for what > £20m
-----------------------------
Eaxctly what im talking about. Bent isnt a 20m striker. Carroll isn't worth 35m. Neither Downing or Young were worth the 18m paid for them. Big prices for average players.
I was saying it is unethical to sign upto a charter and then go against it. Which it is...
Man Utd benefit from a kit deal which allows Nike to go against the charter
Monies that man utd get through this deal are in part paid to service debt repayments
Thus Fergie saying man city are spending silly money is ill advised.
VC where have I posted that fergie was being unethical?
(you did go to bang your head didn't you?)
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I enjoyed Sunday Ripley as well. I jumped up when Aguero scored not because I wanted City to win, it was just so exciting and dramatic, but City and Chelsea before them winning titles leaves me cold.
I hanker back to the days when clubs did not run up huge losses and whilst there were always rich clubs, the gap was not so great, which is why Derby could win a couple of titles and Forest could win a title after being promoted.
I think the argument has nothing to do with ethics and has got lost. City have done nothing wrong and nor did Blackburn or Chelsea, but is it a good thing is the question. Is the only way to win a Premiership now is to lose hundreds of millions of pounds, which encourages other clubs to may be go down the same road.
But Ripley's, you can see the other side can't you? Fans of other clubs who look at city getting a huge windfall from nothing and think 'what's the point?'
I guess all they have to look forward to is if some mega rich investor sprinkles financial fairy dust over their club out of the blue.
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 21 seconds ago
I was saying it is unethical to sign upto a charter and then go against it. Which it is...
...............
So, you are saying Liverpool have been unethical here because they have had more home kits than one evey two seasons.
Glad that is cleared up. Now onto your next daft point?
.....................
Man Utd benefit from a kit deal which allows Nike to go against the charter
........................
No we don't. We have already covered this.
Our kit deal, by the way, is exactly the same as yours.
....................
Monies that man utd get through this deal are in part paid to service debt repayments
...................
Not sure why you have an issue with this to be honest.
Would you rather we spent it on players and got even further away from Liverpool?
........................
Thus Fergie saying man city are spending silly money is ill advised.
.........................
It wasn't necessary, but it was certainly not ill advised, because it is correct.
.....................
VC where have I posted that fergie was being unethical?
..............
So, he isn't being unethical? Make your mind up.
Sign in if you want to comment
FFP, silly money etc...bitter
Page 10 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 28 seconds ago
Which then you can put against fergies recent jibes about city... Man Utd are far removed from a standpoint where they can criticise Manchester City.
.....................
Was SAF criticising City for shirt sales?
This is what he said:
"We know City are going to spend fortunes, pay stupid money and silly salaries. We know that happens. We can't do anything about that," the Scot told MUTV.
Was he accusing City of being unethical?
----------------------------
Nope. And to be fair - everything he said is accurate anyway. Transfer fees aside, the money they have offered to average players in terms of wages is crazy.
posted on 15/5/12
That money didn't exist in football before the man city owner put his hand in his pocket.
....................
What a load of rubbish.
Thereby football has benefitted.
...................
How?
.......................
Economically it would be termed as a "cash injection" into the football market place.
.........................
Again how?
posted on 15/5/12
Vidics I know you're red through and through, but come on. Did buying Kompany force prices up, Hart, Johnson, Barry? No the selling club forces prices up, not the buying club, City would prefer to pay as likkle as poss, (Who wouldn't) when buying, it is the selling club when they don't particulary want to sell or there is more than one club in for their player that force up prices to ridiculous levels. £80,000,000.00 pounds for CR7 is a perfect example
posted on 15/5/12
Fergie was criticising the silly money of man city... at least that money has come from an owner...and a large amount stays in football
Silly money that man utd spend on interest payments in part comes from an unethical shirt deal.
Fergie would have been better advised keeping those comments to himself.
posted on 15/5/12
interest payment is silly money?
You will be telling me people with mortgages are stupid next.
Every club probably has some kind of a loan/overdraft facility going with their bankers, but how many clubs pay the level of wages that Man City do. (Money that goes straight out of the game).
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Vidicschin (U3584) posted 2 minutes ago
That money didn't exist in football before the man city owner put his hand in his pocket.
....................
What a load of rubbish.
Thereby football has benefitted.
...................
How?
.......................
Economically it would be termed as a "cash injection" into the football market place.
.........................
Again how?
I'm out of here, head, brick wall, banging against an all that!!!!!! and once more
posted on 15/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
How is spending £174m of the club revenue, generated from football, plus another 22m, on players wages, keeping money in football? Do you think that the players are putting it back in at grass roots level?
-----
Through the cash injection man city have introduced far more money into the footballing market place...
Every club pays wages, how many clubs pay the levels of interest that man utd do?
That's silly money
---------------------
I agree that it is silly money in terms of the interest payments. But at least the club is generating that itself - it is self sustainable.
In terms of the wages, United do not pay more than 50% of their turnover. City's wages are more than their turnover.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Mamucium urbis (U7807)
posted 3 minutes ago
Vidics I know you're red through and through, but come on. Did buying Kompany force prices up, Hart, Johnson, Barry? No the selling club forces prices up, not the buying club,
-------------------------------------
Spending large amounts on average players is what has sent prices up - Santa Cruz, Barry, Milner, Lescott etc.
posted on 15/5/12
City are expected to overtake Liverpool in the football rich list the next time the figures are realised so I'd say that financially we're heading in the right direction.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Mamucium urbis (U7807)
posted 4 minutes ago
Vidics I know you're red through and through, but come on. Did buying Kompany force prices up, Hart, Johnson, Barry?
.....................
Looking at the fees of Downing, Henderson, Jones, and Caroll to name a few, I have to suggest thet it may well have done.
posted on 15/5/12
I'm out of here
.............
You won't be missed, you clearly are as out of your depth as the OP.
posted on 15/5/12
"City are expected to overtake Liverpool in the football rich list the next time the figures are realised so I'd say that financially we're heading in the right direction."
You've worked hard for it, Boris. Well done mate.
posted on 15/5/12
Economically it would be termed as a "cash injection"
This is an example of trickle down economics and is good for football and associated economies. At least this is true of City who purchase players with cash.
However some clubs borrow to buy players or pay in installments, hence a lot of players transfers are paid with'virtual' money, or the promise of money. Hence if one club goes but it can start a chain reaction of defaulted payments across clubs all over the world.
FFP is supposed to stop this, but now they are using to stop all introduction of money, which is crazy x
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 7 minutes ago
Fergie was criticising the silly money of man city... at least that money has come from an owner...and a large amount stays in football
.................
Ask Leeds, Southampton, Portsmouth and Rangers fans about the non benefits.
Ask your own fans if they think Liverpool have benefited from Cities injection of free cash.
And as I asked you above, how were SAF's comments unethical? He need not have made them, but they were certainly not unethical.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Vidicschin (U3584) posted 2 minutes ago
That money didn't exist in football before the man city owner put his hand in his pocket.
....................
What a load of rubbish.
Thereby football has benefitted.
...................
How?
.......................
Economically it would be termed as a "cash injection" into the football market place.
.........................
Again how?
I'm out of here, head, brick wall, banging against an all that!!!!!! and once more
-------
@ VC
keeping it simple (explaining how Man City's owner has brought a cash injection into football)
1) were man city a rich club before sheikh mansour?
Answer no
2) was sheikh mansour the owner of another club
Answer no
Thereby sheikh mansour is a new investor in football.
Investors inject money, some better than others.
From the size of his investment into football the football marketplace has seen an injection of this "new" cash.
From a myopic viewpoint of man utd fans this may not be a good thing for man utd. But for the whole of football it is.
Much better than sending money out of football via interest payments.
posted on 15/5/12
I guess the rich list deals with how much a club earns, but if more is going out than coming in, then it does not mean anything.
posted on 15/5/12
"Spending large amounts on average players is what has sent prices up - Santa Cruz, Barry, Milner, Lescott etc."
For who exactly, Villa sold Milner and Barry for approx £30m, they bought Bent for what > £20m and got S.I. thrown in. Lesscott £22m to Everton they've let a couple go on a free andf bought Jelavic for £7m, Arsenal, Toure, Clichy, Nasri God knows how much, their highest purchase is still Arshavin............. thats just xfrs MCFC have been involved in.
NUFC Carrol, Barton, Nolan again l don't know exact figures but I'm pretty sure what they got for Carrol more than paid for Ba and Cisse and Cabaye
Maybe it's just Sir Alex finding "No Value" in the transfer market
posted on 15/5/12
wtf has ethics got to do with it?!
-----------------
X, you know what? Never has a more pertinent question been asked.
This whole debate is quite frankly ridiculous (and I have just had to pinch myself for engaging in it, although in my defence not to the extent that others have attempting to defend their club against attacks made against it in regards to shirt sales. FFS!! I mean, really?!!!)
One would be forgiven for thinking that fans of the richest clubs in the world hate the idea of money. Well, only when it suits them it seems. They love the fact that their club generates x-amount in revenue, yet hate the audacity of someone else wanting to gate-crash this not-at-all prudent ideal to serve their own interests. City have an owner who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is. The club has benefitted hugely as a result. The problem with that is that it's to the detriment of the so-called established order.
It's so transparent it really is laughable. It's resulted in fans becoming financial experts, not so much concerned with how well their club performs on the pitch as opposed to how well it does off it. Go back 20-30 years or so. No fan gave a stuff about how much money their club made. Go back 20-30 years or so, and Peter Swales getting out his cheque book ended up with fans laughing at him for spending it on the likes of Steve Daley and no more.
Now, today, I've just read about how "unethical" the shirt deal is for United. About how "unethical" it is for an owner to spend his money on something that he owns. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Seriously, so many people here need to just take hold of themselves. They moan about the sport they love, hate the direction its taken (a direction, by the way, that the game has always taken), and ascribe more significance to the number of shirts that are produced and how frequently they are produced.
Oh well. I enjoyed Sunday. Great game. Drama, emotion, tension, release, ups and downs. That's what sport is about. Not people moaning because City have spent x-amount of money. Not people misguidedly moaning about ethics. Step back for a moment - see how utterly ridiculous this entire thread has been.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Mamucium urbis (U7807)
posted 1 minute ago
"Spending large amounts on average players is what has sent prices up - Santa Cruz, Barry, Milner, Lescott etc."
For who exactly, Villa sold Milner and Barry for approx £30m, they bought Bent for what > £20m
-----------------------------
Eaxctly what im talking about. Bent isnt a 20m striker. Carroll isn't worth 35m. Neither Downing or Young were worth the 18m paid for them. Big prices for average players.
posted on 15/5/12
I was saying it is unethical to sign upto a charter and then go against it. Which it is...
Man Utd benefit from a kit deal which allows Nike to go against the charter
Monies that man utd get through this deal are in part paid to service debt repayments
Thus Fergie saying man city are spending silly money is ill advised.
VC where have I posted that fergie was being unethical?
(you did go to bang your head didn't you?)
posted on 15/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/5/12
I enjoyed Sunday Ripley as well. I jumped up when Aguero scored not because I wanted City to win, it was just so exciting and dramatic, but City and Chelsea before them winning titles leaves me cold.
I hanker back to the days when clubs did not run up huge losses and whilst there were always rich clubs, the gap was not so great, which is why Derby could win a couple of titles and Forest could win a title after being promoted.
I think the argument has nothing to do with ethics and has got lost. City have done nothing wrong and nor did Blackburn or Chelsea, but is it a good thing is the question. Is the only way to win a Premiership now is to lose hundreds of millions of pounds, which encourages other clubs to may be go down the same road.
posted on 15/5/12
But Ripley's, you can see the other side can't you? Fans of other clubs who look at city getting a huge windfall from nothing and think 'what's the point?'
I guess all they have to look forward to is if some mega rich investor sprinkles financial fairy dust over their club out of the blue.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 21 seconds ago
I was saying it is unethical to sign upto a charter and then go against it. Which it is...
...............
So, you are saying Liverpool have been unethical here because they have had more home kits than one evey two seasons.
Glad that is cleared up. Now onto your next daft point?
.....................
Man Utd benefit from a kit deal which allows Nike to go against the charter
........................
No we don't. We have already covered this.
Our kit deal, by the way, is exactly the same as yours.
....................
Monies that man utd get through this deal are in part paid to service debt repayments
...................
Not sure why you have an issue with this to be honest.
Would you rather we spent it on players and got even further away from Liverpool?
........................
Thus Fergie saying man city are spending silly money is ill advised.
.........................
It wasn't necessary, but it was certainly not ill advised, because it is correct.
.....................
VC where have I posted that fergie was being unethical?
..............
So, he isn't being unethical? Make your mind up.
Page 10 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14