Stuart is a City fan Look at his Twitter, he's a City correspondent

Because he's a complete and utter moron who can't string 2 sentences together without the bitter flowing out of him.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 27 seconds ago
OP

Please don't take offence here, but I really don't think you understand the basic principles behind the FFP stance. The idiot who wrote that article clearly doesn't and should not hold a job as a journalist.

If, and it really is a big if, your owners just decide to walk away, what do you think will happen to City, if they are not replaced by mega rich oil men.

Within two years, possibly less, you will be like Portsmouth.
--------------------------------------------------------------
We have no debt. If the owners choose to walk away, City will find a very decent buyer. And by that I mean a buyer who will put money into the club and not siphone money out from it.

Woeful article written by a brainless toad who obviously supports Man City or Chelsea.

He talks about how "unfair" it would be under FFP that United, Liverpool and Arsenal would earn more money than City.

Somebody please explain to this gormless gibbon that the reason for this is that those clubs legitimately earn more money FROM FOOTBALL than Manchester City or Chelsea. Those clubs are responsible for creating their own success and their own wealth unlike lottery winners Man City and Chelsea.

How people like you can actually have the nerve to act sanctimonious about the fact that a foreign benefactor props up your club with oil money just goes to show how little you actually understand the issues that you preach about.

Go and educate yourself and then try debating this subject rather than using the words of a biased ignoramus to back up your own biased and ignorant views.

Then one day you may appreciate the irony of the fact that United and Liverpool's advantage would be far greater purely as a reult of Chelsea and City distorting the transfer market to the extent that only rich clubs can play in the market anymore. If prices had not been artificially inflated by Chelsea and City in the first place then far more clubs would be able to compete in a transfer market governed by the laws of suplpy and demand rather than the laws of rich benefactors.

Or is that too many big words for you to get?

Funny, our own MEN correspondent Stuart Mathieson doesn't create these type of crap articles to have a dig at City but their own reporter seems to be wound up. And they say we lack class

We have no debt. If the owners choose to walk away, City will find a very decent buyer. And by that I mean a buyer who will put money into the club and not siphone money out from it.

-------

Yes you have debt, its just that they choose to wipe it out from another sister company.

What you earn as a business is nothing in comparison to what you spend as a business.

You do not spend within in your means and that is the reason why you are destroying football, hence the FFP.

If your owners leave, who is going to pay the wages of the players? You certainly don't make enough to be able to keep all of your players happy.

Redmisty

I have put it into laments terms for him

This article was only going to go one way. There are some points in Brennans article that I agree with, but his way of arguing and writing was only going to get one sort of reaction, which is precisely why he does it. There are enough idiots on both sides that comment on the MEN page anyway, no need to replicate it on this site.

comment by mancinicity (U7179)


posted 5 minutes ago

Did you guys spend what you did not earn in the early 90s?
_________________

No we did not.

But thanks for asking, pleb.

This article was only going to go one way. There are some points in Brennans article that I agree with, but his way of arguing and writing was only going to get one sort of reaction, which is precisely why he does it. There are enough idiots on both sides that comment on the MEN page anyway, no need to replicate it on this site.

-----

Melton Blue

The article would have had more credence if it wasn't written by the perpetually partisan Stuart Brenna whose raison d'etre is to spout spurious bile against United.

Shame, actually as the article made a few interesting points.

comment by HNIC - Shogun Shinji (U5574)
posted 34 seconds ago
We have no debt. If the owners choose to walk away, City will find a very decent buyer. And by that I mean a buyer who will put money into the club and not siphone money out from it.

-------

Yes you have debt, its just that they choose to wipe it out from another sister company.

What you earn as a business is nothing in comparison to what you spend as a business.

You do not spend within in your means and that is the reason why you are destroying football, hence the FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
United are neck deep in debt of almost £0.5bn.
City are debt free. And I hope you are not confusing loss making with debt?
And if the bank decides to call in their debt now, you guys are toast.

Gill is a lying wh ore who pretends it is for the good of the PL. He and his club care nothing for any other club and he is trying to prevent real competition and roping in the usual suspects to help achieve that.

City are debt free. And I hope you are not confusing loss making with debt?

-------

Ok I give up.

You spend as much as you like, as your rich uncle will wipe it clean.

Surprised it doesn't have "signed by Liam Gallagher" at the bottom.

And if the bank decides to call in their debt now, you guys are toast.

----

Iv been hearing that one for a while now

this thread might even beat my 595 comment one from last week.

United are neck deep in debt of almost £0.5bn.

Wrong, it's $350m. Like bitter Stuart, you should research better.

HNIC
--------------
We are City. We spend what we want.
We signed Aguero, United signed Phil Jones.

United are neck deep in debt of almost £0.5bn.
City are debt free. And I hope you are not confusing loss making with debt?
And if the bank decides to call in their debt now, you guys are toast
===

utd's debt is well publicised but then it isn't really comparable to city's debt which is effectively wiped off as a business.

Utd acquired most of their debt when the glazers lumped it into the club to pay off their takeover.

utd service their debt, city wouldn't have the means to

We have no debt. If the owners choose to walk away, City will find a very decent buyer.

.................

Are you really this thick? Please tell me this was a WUM comment.

Mancini, if our owners walk away, we will continue to make profit. Our wage bill & outgoings are lower than our income. We wont have any trouble finding buyers. If the bank calls in their debt now, which they wont, then the debt owned by the Glazers would force them to sell in order to pay off the debt.

In 5 years, with no oil money, that loss making turns in to debt, rising each year until you've offloaded enough players to be solvent, or you go in to administration.

manCity fans
got a bit of money and giving it the biggun now

I think very few clubs have spent within their means which is why there is debt. you can prattle on all you like about manageable debt but that is simply a smoke screen. For example if that was the case why were bonds issued to raise cash.

All debt is manageable if the banks let you. It's when they say no more that it becomes a problem.

At the end of the day it's a bit rich to bang on about FFP when you're hundreds of millions in debt whether you like it or not.