Comment deleted by Article Creator
comment by No Love - The Defender of the weak, Protector ... (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
The point is you'd be nowhere if it wasn't for oil money. It's not a dig, it's just a fact.
Perhaps it wouldn't be Fleetwood but you'd certainly be getting clapped by some teams in various leagues being the journeyman club you were before the petrobillions.
Even now if the oil money disappeared, City as a big club would be disappear faster than you can say 'financial doping'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? A club worth more than Liverpool.
Top academy. Lots of assets. Superb manager. Great training grounds.
I think they may find it easier to find a buyer than Hicks Gillett did
Depends what you mean by nowhere. City have spent the vast majority of its history in the top division (88 seasons). So the chances are high that City would be in the top flight had the investment not come along if we're going by our historical status (which is what you are doing).
If by nowhere, you simply mean "nowhere near the top of the premier league", then I'd agree with you. At best I would imagine we'd simply be making up the numbers in the Premier League. But then I certainly wouldn't regard any club in the elite division of english football as being "nowhere".
"Even now if the oil money disappeared, City as a big club would be disappear faster than you can say 'financial doping'."
Now you're back into the realm of making silly comments again. That would be highly unlikely.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 9 minutes ago
Depends what you mean by nowhere. City have spent the vast majority of its history in the top division (88 seasons). So the chances are high that City would be in the top flight had the investment not come along if we're going by our historical status (which is what you are doing).
If by nowhere, you simply mean "nowhere near the top of the premier league", then I'd agree with you. At best I would imagine we'd simply be making up the numbers in the Premier League. But then I certainly wouldn't regard any club in the elite division of english football as being "nowhere".
"Even now if the oil money disappeared, City as a big club would be disappear faster than you can say 'financial doping'."
Now you're back into the realm of making silly comments again. That would be highly unlikely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City are here to stay, petro millions or not.
As are Chelsea.
Look at the revenue the clubs generate. More than Pool
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Some of the sponsorships are a joke designed to beat the system. It's flat out cheating and you have no shame hailing it as a success.
-----------------
Again, you're resorting to making silly comments.
So tell me, which of these "sponsorships" are a joke that are designed to beat the system?
Ripley, it's been strongly rumoured, no doubt supported by their deliberate posting of Coutinho shirts before he was signed, that Nike were picking up the bill for his transfer.
Despite their immense wealth, and in the case of RM, they are allegedly in mega-debt. One day that bubbles got to burst.
Sorry Jimmy.
Not interested in rumours. Any fool can make those and indeed any fool can fall for them
I'm more interested at this time for No Love to prove his ridiculous assertions.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
Some of the sponsorships are a joke designed to beat the system. It's flat out cheating and you have no shame hailing it as a success.
-----------------
Again, you're resorting to making silly comments.
So tell me, which of these "sponsorships" are a joke that are designed to beat the system?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a school boy cliche that city’s sponsorship deals are bent.
People just follow the herd and say it, but no nothing about it
Comment deleted by Article Creator
I don't need to prove anything. It's guaranteed to be the case unless you don't live in this world.
------------
You can't prove anything. You're venting, and it's hilarious to read.
In fact, other than your first post, which did have some good points, all you've done in this thread is derail the discussion, talking about things you simply don't understand.
You're done in this thread. I'm deleting your comments. You've added nothing. You've just been a bitter idiot.
Yeah city and chelsea have bought fans over the last 10-15 years.
People are fickle, especially kids......they'll just support the team thats winning whilst they're getting into football. Those two clubs i imagine have invested wisely enough to be self sustainable to an extent and to generate decent revenue.
The people who bought/run city and Chelsea aren't stupid......they know how to make their money work for them!
comment by Come to Salah, Come to Success. (U12335)
posted 11 hours, 15 minutes ago
Yeah city and chelsea have bought fans over the last 10-15 years.
People are fickle, especially kids......they'll just support the team thats winning whilst they're getting into football. Those two clubs i imagine have invested wisely enough to be self sustainable to an extent and to generate decent revenue.
The people who bought/run city and Chelsea aren't stupid......they know how to make their money work for them!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea were fifth best all time supported English club pre Abramovich.
Considering how little we had won pre 1997, that is pretty amazing.
We also had best away support in country bar United and Liverpool late 70s to mid 80s.
I think City are set up a lot better than Chelsea long term.
Roman brought success to Chelsea much quicker than City, but City's infrastructure is superb now, better than United etc
Sign in if you want to comment
It must feel frustrating...
Page 3 of 3
posted on 8/1/18
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 8/1/18
comment by No Love - The Defender of the weak, Protector ... (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
The point is you'd be nowhere if it wasn't for oil money. It's not a dig, it's just a fact.
Perhaps it wouldn't be Fleetwood but you'd certainly be getting clapped by some teams in various leagues being the journeyman club you were before the petrobillions.
Even now if the oil money disappeared, City as a big club would be disappear faster than you can say 'financial doping'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? A club worth more than Liverpool.
Top academy. Lots of assets. Superb manager. Great training grounds.
I think they may find it easier to find a buyer than Hicks Gillett did
posted on 8/1/18
Depends what you mean by nowhere. City have spent the vast majority of its history in the top division (88 seasons). So the chances are high that City would be in the top flight had the investment not come along if we're going by our historical status (which is what you are doing).
If by nowhere, you simply mean "nowhere near the top of the premier league", then I'd agree with you. At best I would imagine we'd simply be making up the numbers in the Premier League. But then I certainly wouldn't regard any club in the elite division of english football as being "nowhere".
"Even now if the oil money disappeared, City as a big club would be disappear faster than you can say 'financial doping'."
Now you're back into the realm of making silly comments again. That would be highly unlikely.
posted on 8/1/18
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 9 minutes ago
Depends what you mean by nowhere. City have spent the vast majority of its history in the top division (88 seasons). So the chances are high that City would be in the top flight had the investment not come along if we're going by our historical status (which is what you are doing).
If by nowhere, you simply mean "nowhere near the top of the premier league", then I'd agree with you. At best I would imagine we'd simply be making up the numbers in the Premier League. But then I certainly wouldn't regard any club in the elite division of english football as being "nowhere".
"Even now if the oil money disappeared, City as a big club would be disappear faster than you can say 'financial doping'."
Now you're back into the realm of making silly comments again. That would be highly unlikely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City are here to stay, petro millions or not.
As are Chelsea.
Look at the revenue the clubs generate. More than Pool
posted on 8/1/18
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 8/1/18
Some of the sponsorships are a joke designed to beat the system. It's flat out cheating and you have no shame hailing it as a success.
-----------------
Again, you're resorting to making silly comments.
So tell me, which of these "sponsorships" are a joke that are designed to beat the system?
posted on 8/1/18
Ripley, it's been strongly rumoured, no doubt supported by their deliberate posting of Coutinho shirts before he was signed, that Nike were picking up the bill for his transfer.
Despite their immense wealth, and in the case of RM, they are allegedly in mega-debt. One day that bubbles got to burst.
posted on 8/1/18
Sorry Jimmy.
Not interested in rumours. Any fool can make those and indeed any fool can fall for them
I'm more interested at this time for No Love to prove his ridiculous assertions.
posted on 8/1/18
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 8/1/18
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
Some of the sponsorships are a joke designed to beat the system. It's flat out cheating and you have no shame hailing it as a success.
-----------------
Again, you're resorting to making silly comments.
So tell me, which of these "sponsorships" are a joke that are designed to beat the system?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a school boy cliche that city’s sponsorship deals are bent.
People just follow the herd and say it, but no nothing about it
posted on 8/1/18
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 8/1/18
I don't need to prove anything. It's guaranteed to be the case unless you don't live in this world.
------------
You can't prove anything. You're venting, and it's hilarious to read.
posted on 8/1/18
In fact, other than your first post, which did have some good points, all you've done in this thread is derail the discussion, talking about things you simply don't understand.
You're done in this thread. I'm deleting your comments. You've added nothing. You've just been a bitter idiot.
posted on 8/1/18
Yeah city and chelsea have bought fans over the last 10-15 years.
People are fickle, especially kids......they'll just support the team thats winning whilst they're getting into football. Those two clubs i imagine have invested wisely enough to be self sustainable to an extent and to generate decent revenue.
The people who bought/run city and Chelsea aren't stupid......they know how to make their money work for them!
posted on 9/1/18
comment by Come to Salah, Come to Success. (U12335)
posted 11 hours, 15 minutes ago
Yeah city and chelsea have bought fans over the last 10-15 years.
People are fickle, especially kids......they'll just support the team thats winning whilst they're getting into football. Those two clubs i imagine have invested wisely enough to be self sustainable to an extent and to generate decent revenue.
The people who bought/run city and Chelsea aren't stupid......they know how to make their money work for them!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea were fifth best all time supported English club pre Abramovich.
Considering how little we had won pre 1997, that is pretty amazing.
We also had best away support in country bar United and Liverpool late 70s to mid 80s.
I think City are set up a lot better than Chelsea long term.
Roman brought success to Chelsea much quicker than City, but City's infrastructure is superb now, better than United etc
Page 3 of 3