up, and they all are at some time or another ... they'll have to make do with what they have.
Unmanageable debt is synonymous with classless people trying to keep up with the Joneses
======================
im not sure how it relates to this discussion, but i think that is a very astute observation. keeping up with the jones's desease is about the biggest blight on uk society imo.
How can you have the neck to go on about the community when your trying to hijack the olympic stadium going to west ham?
It would be like city upping sticks and going to everton
Stupid point,typical spudder
How can anybody label anything to do with football as classy? Whether its the fans, the players or the staff members.
Do you see people at the theatre or at the Opera jumping up and down like mad men like football fans do when a goal goes in?
Is it classy to sing racist songs about Adebayor like Tottenham fans did?
Is it classy for managers to swear on TV like Redknapp did?
Is it classy for Defoe and Crouch (when he played for Spurs) to cheat on theyre partners?
Is it classy for Modric to disrespect his club so much?
Is it classy to not accept defeat in a stadium bid?
End of the day, class isn't a word you would associate with football as most of the people watching (barring the prawn sandwich brigade) are just normal people that need to work for a living. Its just something fans use on forums like this to convince themselves they aren't bitter about one club or another whilst trying to remain superior.
You have said if you buy success you lack class Tottenham Hotspur, the 5th biggest spenders in PL history finished 5th last season. I wonder why
"Unmanageable debt is synonymous with classless people trying to keep up with the Joneses"
In some cases I would certainly agree with you, but it still seems like too much of a generalisation for my liking. I'm sure that there are plenty of people around who have got into unmanageable debt just because of essential (and unavoidable) living expenses. As for upper class people having the foresight to "buy long lasting clothes" in preparation should they find themselves having to endure a frugal period, what about people who are (nor have ever been) afforded a financial circumstance that enables them to be so foresighted?
Nevertheless, City don't have an unmanageable debt.
"As for trying to buy success - show me where it's worked and been to the benefit of the club and its fan base."
Well, it worked with Arsenal in the early part of the 20th century. It worked for Everton (the Mersey Millionaires). It worked for Sunderland (the Bank of England club). It worked for Manchester United early on in their history. And it certainly worked for Liverpool. I'm sure Blackburn fans enjoyed the success that Walker's millions bestowed upon them (albeit however short-lived it was), and I'm sure that it's been beneficial to Chelsea football club.
In fact, football is littered with examples of clubs who have benefitted from investment and a modus operandi that could most certainly be labelled as an intent to "buy success". Indeed, "big" clubs have been born out of such an approach.
http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Tottenham_Hotspur/Tottenham_Hotspur.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNso3pS8F4A
If your backer decides to quit the club your current revenue is insufficient to meet your expenditure.
The fact that your club is trying to circumnavigate the FFP rules suggests that your current owners that the current state od affairs is unsustainable.
The fact that your club are buying, and then loaning out, players they don't need smacks of unfair trading.
Now I really would like an example of a club where money has been used to buy success and that success has been sustained to the benefit of the club, the community and its fan base.
"You have said if you buy success you lack class Tottenham Hotspur, the 5th biggest spenders in PL history finished 5th last season. I wonder why"
Because 4 clubs finished above them?
Do you see people at the theatre or at the Opera jumping up and down like mad men like football fans do when a goal goes in?
I go to the opera - I also go to watch football, when my side scores I jump up and down and shout. Are you implying that only those with class go to the opera or only those with no class go to watch football? One's behaves according to one's situation - well those with class do.
"If your backer decides to quit the club your current revenue is insufficient to meet your expenditure."
If our owner decides to quit the club, he won't just up sticks and leave. He'll have to sell it first, and to a person who can indeed afford to buy it. But nevertheless, once again, City do not have an unmanageable debt.
"The fact that your club is trying to circumnavigate the FFP rules suggests that your current owners that the current state od affairs is unsustainable"
I'm sorry, but that's a "fact"? I would rather call your statement nothing but an opinion. An allegation made towards the club that has not been founded. City are in, and have been in, constant communication with UEFA and have been transparent in regards to all business deals carried out by the club.
"The fact that your club are buying, and then loaning out, players they don't need smacks of unfair trading"
Really? Loan deals are "unfair trading"? City are, in some cases, continuing to subsidise their wages while out on loan, to the benefit of the player, and the club to whom the player is loaned to. Certainly not to the benefit of City. And you deem that as "unfair trading"? To who exactly?
"Now I really would like an example of a club where money has been used to buy success and that success has been sustained to the benefit of the club, the community and its fan base"
I provided many examples in my previous post.
City won't sell or loan players that are surplus to their needs to clubs they see as rivals - do you see that as being fair?
Expenditure that greatly exceeds earned income = unmanageable debt
"Well, it worked with Arsenal in the early part of the 20th century. It worked for Everton (the Mersey Millionaires). It worked for Sunderland (the Bank of England club). It worked for Manchester United early on in their history. And it certainly worked for Liverpool. I'm sure Blackburn fans enjoyed the success that Walker's millions bestowed upon them (albeit however short-lived it was), and I'm sure that it's been beneficial to Chelsea football club."
Sorry which of those have been sustained and to the benefit of the community and the fan base - sorry if I'm being thick but I really don't know which of them you mean.
"City won't sell or loan players that are surplus to their needs to clubs they see as rivals - do you see that as being fair?"
Something that clubs have done all the time. Nevertheless, Adebayor has just signed a loan deal with Spurs has he not? Are Spurs no longer considered to be a rival of City? Bellamy has just gone to Liverpool. Are they not rivals to City?
"Expenditure that greatly exceeds earned income = unmanageable debt"
City were always going to make a loss in the first few years of the owner's tenure. Even more so considering that the club had to speed up its transfer policy in light of the implementation of the FFP. So to label City's current financial situation "unmanageable debt" is premature at best. I'm sure you've heard of projected growth, and how a company will expect losses in the first few years, and only start to make a profit several years down the line (and onwards). That in the business world does not constitute "unmanageable debt". Not by a long shot. So come back in 3-4 years time and make your judgement then. Oh, by the way, I will say with utmost confidence that our owners will still be here at that point. In fact, come back in 2018 - the culmination of the owner's original 10 year plan for the club and then make a judgement. To do so now, and to express so conclusively, suggests that you are missing the point somewhat.
"but I really don't know which of them you mean"
Try all of them. With the arguable exception of Blackburn (hence why I pointed out their success was short-lived), but still a club who benefits from the legacy left behind by Jack Walker. The stadium, its facilities, used by both the community (beneficial to it) and obviously by the fans (beneficial to them). Liverpool - the investment made into the club by The Moores - which saw the club rise from a then 2nd division side to one that would ultimately go on to dominate English (and to a significant, albeit naturally lesser, degree European) football for nigh on two decades. United - J E Davies, saving the club from administration before it had won anything, and investing significantly in a club that resulted in its first league title way back in the first decade of the twentieth century. Everton - proudly refers to itself as "The People's club" - a club whose ties with its community were elevated because of the Moores family (yes the same family that invested into Liverpool). Sunderland - the Bank of England club - winning numerous league titles during that time. Arsenal, Henry Norris, moving the club north side of the river - paying for Highbury to be built, investing heavily into the team.
Beneficial to the respective communities? Without a doubt. Beneficial to the fan base. Absolutely no question.
Then consider what City's owners are doing for the community in Manchester. The amount of money that is being ploughed into the club. The regeneration of East Manchester. The numerous jobs that will be created as a result. What is happening at City is absolutely huge in respect to the community.
Manchester United - why are so many of their fans wearing green and yellow scarves? Is it because they are happy with the current state of affairs?
Liverpool - how many times have they had new owners?
Arsenal - the move from Highbury hasn't done then any good other than financially.
Blackburn - point proved
Everton - well we best not go there until the banks decided that they'll lend them some money.
I think we both may be making completely different points here. Your reply (and please correct me if I'm wrong) seems to suggest that the current situation of a club negates any historical significance that any previous owners in times gone by had in terms of establishing a reputation for the clubs that have been mentioned.
For example, your comment in regards to Arsenal - "the move from Highbury (etc)... " is quite correct, but when I mentioned Norris, I was rather talking about the move TO Highbury, which happened almost a century ago.
And you say, in regards to Everton, that "we best not go there". Which implies that we shouldn't look back upon their history and evaluate that until the future of the club is resolved (one way or the other).
You're almost correct.
My point is that NO club that has tried to buy success has actually done so over any prolonged period of time - short term maybe but long term not.
And my point is that there are plenty of clubs who have achieved success, and reputations built, off the back of investment. Investment per se should never be long term. Rather that the short-term investment enables a club (or any other business for that matter) establish itself and eventually become self-sufficient (and profitable) as a result.
According to the press it would seem that even their own fans aren't supporting them as tickets are still available even at the special price of £25.00
Empty seats at their first ever CL game !!! Scandalous.
Are we kicking off at Midday?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Nothing special about £25, that's more than we usually charge for cup tickets.
Is Midday another way of writing midday?
Yet another game destined to have empty seats at the Wastelands - poor, poor support.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
Nothing special about £25, that's more than we usually charge for cup tickets.
Manchester Citeh - the PL's very own Poundland.
RE RipleysCat:
You do make a good point that no matter what the club success is, your club is in a much better place now financially than it was before the new owners came in. However (maybe I'm taking its rules to seriously) but I cannot see how you guys will get past the ffp rules as your net expenditure has to far exceed your income!
Sign in if you want to comment
Tottenham fans,will you be supporting city?
Page 8 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 9/9/11
up, and they all are at some time or another ... they'll have to make do with what they have.
posted on 9/9/11
Unmanageable debt is synonymous with classless people trying to keep up with the Joneses
======================
im not sure how it relates to this discussion, but i think that is a very astute observation. keeping up with the jones's desease is about the biggest blight on uk society imo.
posted on 9/9/11
How can you have the neck to go on about the community when your trying to hijack the olympic stadium going to west ham?
It would be like city upping sticks and going to everton
Stupid point,typical spudder
posted on 9/9/11
How can anybody label anything to do with football as classy? Whether its the fans, the players or the staff members.
Do you see people at the theatre or at the Opera jumping up and down like mad men like football fans do when a goal goes in?
Is it classy to sing racist songs about Adebayor like Tottenham fans did?
Is it classy for managers to swear on TV like Redknapp did?
Is it classy for Defoe and Crouch (when he played for Spurs) to cheat on theyre partners?
Is it classy for Modric to disrespect his club so much?
Is it classy to not accept defeat in a stadium bid?
End of the day, class isn't a word you would associate with football as most of the people watching (barring the prawn sandwich brigade) are just normal people that need to work for a living. Its just something fans use on forums like this to convince themselves they aren't bitter about one club or another whilst trying to remain superior.
You have said if you buy success you lack class Tottenham Hotspur, the 5th biggest spenders in PL history finished 5th last season. I wonder why
posted on 9/9/11
"Unmanageable debt is synonymous with classless people trying to keep up with the Joneses"
In some cases I would certainly agree with you, but it still seems like too much of a generalisation for my liking. I'm sure that there are plenty of people around who have got into unmanageable debt just because of essential (and unavoidable) living expenses. As for upper class people having the foresight to "buy long lasting clothes" in preparation should they find themselves having to endure a frugal period, what about people who are (nor have ever been) afforded a financial circumstance that enables them to be so foresighted?
Nevertheless, City don't have an unmanageable debt.
"As for trying to buy success - show me where it's worked and been to the benefit of the club and its fan base."
Well, it worked with Arsenal in the early part of the 20th century. It worked for Everton (the Mersey Millionaires). It worked for Sunderland (the Bank of England club). It worked for Manchester United early on in their history. And it certainly worked for Liverpool. I'm sure Blackburn fans enjoyed the success that Walker's millions bestowed upon them (albeit however short-lived it was), and I'm sure that it's been beneficial to Chelsea football club.
In fact, football is littered with examples of clubs who have benefitted from investment and a modus operandi that could most certainly be labelled as an intent to "buy success". Indeed, "big" clubs have been born out of such an approach.
posted on 9/9/11
http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Tottenham_Hotspur/Tottenham_Hotspur.htm
posted on 9/9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNso3pS8F4A
posted on 9/9/11
If your backer decides to quit the club your current revenue is insufficient to meet your expenditure.
The fact that your club is trying to circumnavigate the FFP rules suggests that your current owners that the current state od affairs is unsustainable.
The fact that your club are buying, and then loaning out, players they don't need smacks of unfair trading.
Now I really would like an example of a club where money has been used to buy success and that success has been sustained to the benefit of the club, the community and its fan base.
posted on 9/9/11
"You have said if you buy success you lack class Tottenham Hotspur, the 5th biggest spenders in PL history finished 5th last season. I wonder why"
Because 4 clubs finished above them?
posted on 9/9/11
Do you see people at the theatre or at the Opera jumping up and down like mad men like football fans do when a goal goes in?
I go to the opera - I also go to watch football, when my side scores I jump up and down and shout. Are you implying that only those with class go to the opera or only those with no class go to watch football? One's behaves according to one's situation - well those with class do.
posted on 9/9/11
"If your backer decides to quit the club your current revenue is insufficient to meet your expenditure."
If our owner decides to quit the club, he won't just up sticks and leave. He'll have to sell it first, and to a person who can indeed afford to buy it. But nevertheless, once again, City do not have an unmanageable debt.
"The fact that your club is trying to circumnavigate the FFP rules suggests that your current owners that the current state od affairs is unsustainable"
I'm sorry, but that's a "fact"? I would rather call your statement nothing but an opinion. An allegation made towards the club that has not been founded. City are in, and have been in, constant communication with UEFA and have been transparent in regards to all business deals carried out by the club.
"The fact that your club are buying, and then loaning out, players they don't need smacks of unfair trading"
Really? Loan deals are "unfair trading"? City are, in some cases, continuing to subsidise their wages while out on loan, to the benefit of the player, and the club to whom the player is loaned to. Certainly not to the benefit of City. And you deem that as "unfair trading"? To who exactly?
"Now I really would like an example of a club where money has been used to buy success and that success has been sustained to the benefit of the club, the community and its fan base"
I provided many examples in my previous post.
posted on 9/9/11
City won't sell or loan players that are surplus to their needs to clubs they see as rivals - do you see that as being fair?
Expenditure that greatly exceeds earned income = unmanageable debt
"Well, it worked with Arsenal in the early part of the 20th century. It worked for Everton (the Mersey Millionaires). It worked for Sunderland (the Bank of England club). It worked for Manchester United early on in their history. And it certainly worked for Liverpool. I'm sure Blackburn fans enjoyed the success that Walker's millions bestowed upon them (albeit however short-lived it was), and I'm sure that it's been beneficial to Chelsea football club."
Sorry which of those have been sustained and to the benefit of the community and the fan base - sorry if I'm being thick but I really don't know which of them you mean.
posted on 9/9/11
"City won't sell or loan players that are surplus to their needs to clubs they see as rivals - do you see that as being fair?"
Something that clubs have done all the time. Nevertheless, Adebayor has just signed a loan deal with Spurs has he not? Are Spurs no longer considered to be a rival of City? Bellamy has just gone to Liverpool. Are they not rivals to City?
"Expenditure that greatly exceeds earned income = unmanageable debt"
City were always going to make a loss in the first few years of the owner's tenure. Even more so considering that the club had to speed up its transfer policy in light of the implementation of the FFP. So to label City's current financial situation "unmanageable debt" is premature at best. I'm sure you've heard of projected growth, and how a company will expect losses in the first few years, and only start to make a profit several years down the line (and onwards). That in the business world does not constitute "unmanageable debt". Not by a long shot. So come back in 3-4 years time and make your judgement then. Oh, by the way, I will say with utmost confidence that our owners will still be here at that point. In fact, come back in 2018 - the culmination of the owner's original 10 year plan for the club and then make a judgement. To do so now, and to express so conclusively, suggests that you are missing the point somewhat.
"but I really don't know which of them you mean"
Try all of them. With the arguable exception of Blackburn (hence why I pointed out their success was short-lived), but still a club who benefits from the legacy left behind by Jack Walker. The stadium, its facilities, used by both the community (beneficial to it) and obviously by the fans (beneficial to them). Liverpool - the investment made into the club by The Moores - which saw the club rise from a then 2nd division side to one that would ultimately go on to dominate English (and to a significant, albeit naturally lesser, degree European) football for nigh on two decades. United - J E Davies, saving the club from administration before it had won anything, and investing significantly in a club that resulted in its first league title way back in the first decade of the twentieth century. Everton - proudly refers to itself as "The People's club" - a club whose ties with its community were elevated because of the Moores family (yes the same family that invested into Liverpool). Sunderland - the Bank of England club - winning numerous league titles during that time. Arsenal, Henry Norris, moving the club north side of the river - paying for Highbury to be built, investing heavily into the team.
Beneficial to the respective communities? Without a doubt. Beneficial to the fan base. Absolutely no question.
Then consider what City's owners are doing for the community in Manchester. The amount of money that is being ploughed into the club. The regeneration of East Manchester. The numerous jobs that will be created as a result. What is happening at City is absolutely huge in respect to the community.
posted on 10/9/11
Manchester United - why are so many of their fans wearing green and yellow scarves? Is it because they are happy with the current state of affairs?
Liverpool - how many times have they had new owners?
Arsenal - the move from Highbury hasn't done then any good other than financially.
Blackburn - point proved
Everton - well we best not go there until the banks decided that they'll lend them some money.
posted on 10/9/11
I think we both may be making completely different points here. Your reply (and please correct me if I'm wrong) seems to suggest that the current situation of a club negates any historical significance that any previous owners in times gone by had in terms of establishing a reputation for the clubs that have been mentioned.
For example, your comment in regards to Arsenal - "the move from Highbury (etc)... " is quite correct, but when I mentioned Norris, I was rather talking about the move TO Highbury, which happened almost a century ago.
And you say, in regards to Everton, that "we best not go there". Which implies that we shouldn't look back upon their history and evaluate that until the future of the club is resolved (one way or the other).
posted on 10/9/11
You're almost correct.
My point is that NO club that has tried to buy success has actually done so over any prolonged period of time - short term maybe but long term not.
posted on 11/9/11
And my point is that there are plenty of clubs who have achieved success, and reputations built, off the back of investment. Investment per se should never be long term. Rather that the short-term investment enables a club (or any other business for that matter) establish itself and eventually become self-sufficient (and profitable) as a result.
posted on 14/9/11
According to the press it would seem that even their own fans aren't supporting them as tickets are still available even at the special price of £25.00
Empty seats at their first ever CL game !!! Scandalous.
posted on 14/9/11
Are we kicking off at Midday?
posted on 14/9/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/9/11
Nothing special about £25, that's more than we usually charge for cup tickets.
posted on 14/9/11
Is Midday another way of writing midday?
Yet another game destined to have empty seats at the Wastelands - poor, poor support.
posted on 14/9/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/9/11
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
Nothing special about £25, that's more than we usually charge for cup tickets.
Manchester Citeh - the PL's very own Poundland.
posted on 14/9/11
RE RipleysCat:
You do make a good point that no matter what the club success is, your club is in a much better place now financially than it was before the new owners came in. However (maybe I'm taking its rules to seriously) but I cannot see how you guys will get past the ffp rules as your net expenditure has to far exceed your income!
Page 8 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9