comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
All the big clubs have benefitted from investment at various points in their history. And in order to compete with these big clubs, at least on a sustained basis, clubs would need investment.
City would not have been able to compete at our current level without investment. We’d have been at best a mid table prem club, which was pretty much our average standing in the game historically prior to the takeover.
But people are ignorant of history if they think the ‘big club’ they support became a big club through “organic” growth.
That has never happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you can provide concrete example like AC Milan (funded by Berlusconi), Liverpool (funded by Littlewoods), Parma (funded by Parmalat), United (funded by the Edward family), Arsenal, Blackburn, Barcelona, Real Madrid etc. were all funded by one benefactor or another.
Heck even Villa broke the British transfer record to sign Peter Shilton.
But no, City is bad but all these are good.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
All the big clubs have benefitted from investment at various points in their history. And in order to compete with these big clubs, at least on a sustained basis, clubs would need investment.
City would not have been able to compete at our current level without investment. We’d have been at best a mid table prem club, which was pretty much our average standing in the game historically prior to the takeover.
But people are ignorant of history if they think the ‘big club’ they support became a big club through “organic” growth.
That has never happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just think people get frustrated when the progress from midtable to elite is so quick, as the money spent is over a very small period rather than over a longer period of progression.
I don't have a problem with it myself and I don't like FFP anyhow as it prevents the smaller clubs from competing, as it would have done to City if it came in earlier and maintains the status quo, with some exceptions of course. I feel the same about seedings in cup competitions also.
There were many years when Liverpool could blow everybody else out of the water, when United could do it, Chelsea...Arsenal. It's football, at the top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where was Liverpool before Littlewood started pumping money into the club?
Did the money used to sign big name players like Danglish come from the club or your sugar daddy?
Is it fair that Liverppol became bigger than Everton simply because of sugar daddy funding?
And more recently, where did the money your owners used to bail out Liverpool come from?
Was it "earned" or provided by your owners.
You all are hypocrites and unashamedly so too.
It had to be over a shorter period TOOR, essentially because of two reasons.
One, because of the champions league, and the financial cash cow that competition is and the closed shop it had effectively become.
The other, rather ironically, because of FFP.
"You all are hypocrites and unashamedly so too."
Except not all of us are, and that massive chip on your shoulder is unlikely to stimulate sensible discussion.
You can take mancini’s Comment literally Winston, and you’d be absolutely correct to write what you have done.
But looking at it with an admittedly broad brush he does have a point. Fans do moan about the spending, the levels of investment that clubs have benefit from, while seemingly forgetting (or worse not knowing) that the club they support has investment to thank for building up its reputation and standing in the game.
It is actually a valid point to make.
comment by Glazers_Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Absolutely brilliant watching City fans squirm and play mental tennis. They clearly believe they've done nothing wrong, bless em.
The whole thing has been a sham from the start. Big clubs don't need Sheikhs to buy their trophies for them. They earn them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Big clubs don't rely on sales of dodgy meat to schoolkids. Big clubs don't finish 6th.
Leave it to CAS.
Whatever they decide on, we'll live with it.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 50 minutes ago
It had to be over a shorter period TOOR, essentially because of two reasons.
One, because of the champions league, and the financial cash cow that competition is and the closed shop it had effectively become.
The other, rather ironically, because of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I agree. If you can do it over a shorter period, why wouldn't you? I'm just trying to offer an explanation why some people see it differently.
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
All the big clubs have benefitted from investment at various points in their history. And in order to compete with these big clubs, at least on a sustained basis, clubs would need investment.
City would not have been able to compete at our current level without investment. We’d have been at best a mid table prem club, which was pretty much our average standing in the game historically prior to the takeover.
But people are ignorant of history if they think the ‘big club’ they support became a big club through “organic” growth.
That has never happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just think people get frustrated when the progress from midtable to elite is so quick, as the money spent is over a very small period rather than over a longer period of progression.
I don't have a problem with it myself and I don't like FFP anyhow as it prevents the smaller clubs from competing, as it would have done to City if it came in earlier and maintains the status quo, with some exceptions of course. I feel the same about seedings in cup competitions also.
There were many years when Liverpool could blow everybody else out of the water, when United could do it, Chelsea...Arsenal. It's football, at the top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where was Liverpool before Littlewood started pumping money into the club?
Did the money used to sign big name players like Danglish come from the club or your sugar daddy?
Is it fair that Liverppol became bigger than Everton simply because of sugar daddy funding?
And more recently, where did the money your owners used to bail out Liverpool come from?
Was it "earned" or provided by your owners.
You all are hypocrites and unashamedly so too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be arguing against something I haven't said, in fact you seem to be arguing with me but agreeing with what I said.
I think the explanation as to why people see it differently is simply down to it happening at a club they don’t support.
No other explanation is necessary really.
One of the major differences between the Mansours and the Moores brothers, is, as far as I can recall, that Cecil Moores didnt rape people with cattle prods, hit them with a wooden plank with nails in it, pour salt on them, then run them over in his Rolls Royce.
One of the major differences between the Mansours and the Moores brothers, is, as far as I can recall, that Cecil Moores didnt rape people with cattle prods, hit them with a wooden plank with nails in it, pour salt on them, then run them over in his Rolls Royce.
Neither has Shiekh Mansour to my knowledge.
The Moores Family just encouraged people to gamble with money they could ill afford.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 56 seconds ago
One of the major differences between the Mansours and the Moores brothers, is, as far as I can recall, that Cecil Moores didnt rape people with cattle prods, hit them with a wooden plank with nails in it, pour salt on them, then run them over in his Rolls Royce.
Neither has Shiekh Mansour to my knowledge.
The Moores Family just encouraged people to gamble with money they could ill afford.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did City’s owner do this jlou?
So let’s get this straight then. Your problem with is what exactly?
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 minutes ago
When did City’s owner do this jlou?
So let’s get this straight then. Your problem with is what exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said city's owner did this ?
So what has your comment got to do with anything?
I’ll ask again,
What exactly is your problem?
City Fans : Liverpool are such Victims
Same City Fans : Uefa are always picking on us....The British Press are always picking on us....The FA are always picking on us....
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
So what has your comment got to do with anything?
I’ll ask again,
What exactly is your problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess somebody did it on the Sheiks behalf ,because when you have billions of pounds of wealth just for sucking stuff up out of the ground, it must make you very angry
comment by TBone Steak Roysters (U3947)
posted 1 minute ago
City Fans : Liverpool are such Victims
Same City Fans : Uefa are always picking on us....The British Press are always picking on us....The FA are always picking on us....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot Martin Tyler’s cat meowed when we scored once so he wanted us to win the league.
comment by somethingelse (U3109)
posted 0 seconds ago
I guess somebody did it on the Sheiks behalf ,because when you have billions of pounds of wealth just for sucking stuff up out of the ground, it must make you very angry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His brother did it.
What a lovely family.
Probably just a bit of casual racism.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 13 seconds ago
Probably just a bit of casual racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The moral high ground claimed by people on here is something else. A footballer gets 520 times the weekly wage of a nurse. Shouldn't we be having the moral outrage about that? Same with the chant stuff. Get grip people.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/26/torture-tape
Sign in if you want to comment
UEFA -City Referred for disciplinary action
Page 4 of 5
posted on 16/5/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
All the big clubs have benefitted from investment at various points in their history. And in order to compete with these big clubs, at least on a sustained basis, clubs would need investment.
City would not have been able to compete at our current level without investment. We’d have been at best a mid table prem club, which was pretty much our average standing in the game historically prior to the takeover.
But people are ignorant of history if they think the ‘big club’ they support became a big club through “organic” growth.
That has never happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you can provide concrete example like AC Milan (funded by Berlusconi), Liverpool (funded by Littlewoods), Parma (funded by Parmalat), United (funded by the Edward family), Arsenal, Blackburn, Barcelona, Real Madrid etc. were all funded by one benefactor or another.
Heck even Villa broke the British transfer record to sign Peter Shilton.
But no, City is bad but all these are good.
posted on 16/5/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
All the big clubs have benefitted from investment at various points in their history. And in order to compete with these big clubs, at least on a sustained basis, clubs would need investment.
City would not have been able to compete at our current level without investment. We’d have been at best a mid table prem club, which was pretty much our average standing in the game historically prior to the takeover.
But people are ignorant of history if they think the ‘big club’ they support became a big club through “organic” growth.
That has never happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just think people get frustrated when the progress from midtable to elite is so quick, as the money spent is over a very small period rather than over a longer period of progression.
I don't have a problem with it myself and I don't like FFP anyhow as it prevents the smaller clubs from competing, as it would have done to City if it came in earlier and maintains the status quo, with some exceptions of course. I feel the same about seedings in cup competitions also.
There were many years when Liverpool could blow everybody else out of the water, when United could do it, Chelsea...Arsenal. It's football, at the top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where was Liverpool before Littlewood started pumping money into the club?
Did the money used to sign big name players like Danglish come from the club or your sugar daddy?
Is it fair that Liverppol became bigger than Everton simply because of sugar daddy funding?
And more recently, where did the money your owners used to bail out Liverpool come from?
Was it "earned" or provided by your owners.
You all are hypocrites and unashamedly so too.
posted on 16/5/19
It had to be over a shorter period TOOR, essentially because of two reasons.
One, because of the champions league, and the financial cash cow that competition is and the closed shop it had effectively become.
The other, rather ironically, because of FFP.
posted on 16/5/19
"You all are hypocrites and unashamedly so too."
Except not all of us are, and that massive chip on your shoulder is unlikely to stimulate sensible discussion.
posted on 16/5/19
You can take mancini’s Comment literally Winston, and you’d be absolutely correct to write what you have done.
But looking at it with an admittedly broad brush he does have a point. Fans do moan about the spending, the levels of investment that clubs have benefit from, while seemingly forgetting (or worse not knowing) that the club they support has investment to thank for building up its reputation and standing in the game.
It is actually a valid point to make.
posted on 16/5/19
comment by Glazers_Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Absolutely brilliant watching City fans squirm and play mental tennis. They clearly believe they've done nothing wrong, bless em.
The whole thing has been a sham from the start. Big clubs don't need Sheikhs to buy their trophies for them. They earn them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Big clubs don't rely on sales of dodgy meat to schoolkids. Big clubs don't finish 6th.
posted on 16/5/19
Leave it to CAS.
Whatever they decide on, we'll live with it.
posted on 16/5/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 50 minutes ago
It had to be over a shorter period TOOR, essentially because of two reasons.
One, because of the champions league, and the financial cash cow that competition is and the closed shop it had effectively become.
The other, rather ironically, because of FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I agree. If you can do it over a shorter period, why wouldn't you? I'm just trying to offer an explanation why some people see it differently.
posted on 16/5/19
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
All the big clubs have benefitted from investment at various points in their history. And in order to compete with these big clubs, at least on a sustained basis, clubs would need investment.
City would not have been able to compete at our current level without investment. We’d have been at best a mid table prem club, which was pretty much our average standing in the game historically prior to the takeover.
But people are ignorant of history if they think the ‘big club’ they support became a big club through “organic” growth.
That has never happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just think people get frustrated when the progress from midtable to elite is so quick, as the money spent is over a very small period rather than over a longer period of progression.
I don't have a problem with it myself and I don't like FFP anyhow as it prevents the smaller clubs from competing, as it would have done to City if it came in earlier and maintains the status quo, with some exceptions of course. I feel the same about seedings in cup competitions also.
There were many years when Liverpool could blow everybody else out of the water, when United could do it, Chelsea...Arsenal. It's football, at the top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where was Liverpool before Littlewood started pumping money into the club?
Did the money used to sign big name players like Danglish come from the club or your sugar daddy?
Is it fair that Liverppol became bigger than Everton simply because of sugar daddy funding?
And more recently, where did the money your owners used to bail out Liverpool come from?
Was it "earned" or provided by your owners.
You all are hypocrites and unashamedly so too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be arguing against something I haven't said, in fact you seem to be arguing with me but agreeing with what I said.
posted on 16/5/19
I think the explanation as to why people see it differently is simply down to it happening at a club they don’t support.
No other explanation is necessary really.
posted on 16/5/19
One of the major differences between the Mansours and the Moores brothers, is, as far as I can recall, that Cecil Moores didnt rape people with cattle prods, hit them with a wooden plank with nails in it, pour salt on them, then run them over in his Rolls Royce.
posted on 16/5/19
One of the major differences between the Mansours and the Moores brothers, is, as far as I can recall, that Cecil Moores didnt rape people with cattle prods, hit them with a wooden plank with nails in it, pour salt on them, then run them over in his Rolls Royce.
Neither has Shiekh Mansour to my knowledge.
The Moores Family just encouraged people to gamble with money they could ill afford.
posted on 16/5/19
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 56 seconds ago
One of the major differences between the Mansours and the Moores brothers, is, as far as I can recall, that Cecil Moores didnt rape people with cattle prods, hit them with a wooden plank with nails in it, pour salt on them, then run them over in his Rolls Royce.
Neither has Shiekh Mansour to my knowledge.
The Moores Family just encouraged people to gamble with money they could ill afford.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 16/5/19
When did City’s owner do this jlou?
So let’s get this straight then. Your problem with is what exactly?
posted on 16/5/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 minutes ago
When did City’s owner do this jlou?
So let’s get this straight then. Your problem with is what exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said city's owner did this ?
posted on 16/5/19
So what has your comment got to do with anything?
I’ll ask again,
What exactly is your problem?
posted on 16/5/19
City Fans : Liverpool are such Victims
Same City Fans : Uefa are always picking on us....The British Press are always picking on us....The FA are always picking on us....
posted on 16/5/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
So what has your comment got to do with anything?
I’ll ask again,
What exactly is your problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 16/5/19
I guess somebody did it on the Sheiks behalf ,because when you have billions of pounds of wealth just for sucking stuff up out of the ground, it must make you very angry
posted on 16/5/19
comment by TBone Steak Roysters (U3947)
posted 1 minute ago
City Fans : Liverpool are such Victims
Same City Fans : Uefa are always picking on us....The British Press are always picking on us....The FA are always picking on us....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot Martin Tyler’s cat meowed when we scored once so he wanted us to win the league.
posted on 16/5/19
comment by somethingelse (U3109)
posted 0 seconds ago
I guess somebody did it on the Sheiks behalf ,because when you have billions of pounds of wealth just for sucking stuff up out of the ground, it must make you very angry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His brother did it.
What a lovely family.
posted on 16/5/19
Probably just a bit of casual racism.
posted on 16/5/19
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 13 seconds ago
Probably just a bit of casual racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 16/5/19
The moral high ground claimed by people on here is something else. A footballer gets 520 times the weekly wage of a nurse. Shouldn't we be having the moral outrage about that? Same with the chant stuff. Get grip people.
posted on 16/5/19
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/26/torture-tape
Page 4 of 5