comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 9 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 4 minutes ago
Of course it has to do with money...its how well you spend it, & growing your club into having a winning mentality
Oh hang on...just tripped over my own answer here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It hasn`t nothing to do with how well you spend it. It has everything to do with just spend, spend, spend, until you come up with a winning formula. City and Chelsea have both purchased loads of duff players, but they have the spending power to dump the bad players, even if they cost millions, and then just buy a new set of players. Such is their financial advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we've made mistakes...lots of them...but we correct them (Lamps Tuchel)....you don't
You just sacked a cup winner a week before a fackin final...something you reach rarely...go figure
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, and you sacked a manager who had just won you the CL. Touche. Go figure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah he wasn't good enough...was lucky to even get the gig
Sandy, you’ve missed another League Cup and an FA Cup out there.
...and 4 Community Shields
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 35 seconds ago
City have made a profit for the last 4 years, no mention of that as far as I can see
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wow....pump billions of money that you have not earned into your team to make the highly successful and despite lacking the global fan base of other traditional super clubs, somehow attract record breaking sponsorship deals, spend some seasons where wages alone exceeded total revenue and then 10 years later where this bottomless pit of financial doping has allowed you to attract the best manager in the world and compete at the very highest level with the most expensively assembled squad in football history, you start to break even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
city haven't made a profit ever are you joking lol!!!! a wage bill of 400 million playing staff alone 60 million per player transfers where do they get that money from no sucess in europe? They sponsor themselves lol more cheating
comment by superjacketpotato (U19148)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 35 seconds ago
City have made a profit for the last 4 years, no mention of that as far as I can see
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wow....pump billions of money that you have not earned into your team to make the highly successful and despite lacking the global fan base of other traditional super clubs, somehow attract record breaking sponsorship deals, spend some seasons where wages alone exceeded total revenue and then 10 years later where this bottomless pit of financial doping has allowed you to attract the best manager in the world and compete at the very highest level with the most expensively assembled squad in football history, you start to break even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
city haven't made a profit ever are you joking lol!!!! a wage bill of 400 million playing staff alone 60 million per player transfers where do they get that money from no sucess in europe? They sponsor themselves lol more cheating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at Sandy’s list, factor in the ones he’s missed out the add up the prize money.
Your other claims just confirm you’re a total eejit
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by superjacketpotato (U19148)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 35 seconds ago
City have made a profit for the last 4 years, no mention of that as far as I can see
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wow....pump billions of money that you have not earned into your team to make the highly successful and despite lacking the global fan base of other traditional super clubs, somehow attract record breaking sponsorship deals, spend some seasons where wages alone exceeded total revenue and then 10 years later where this bottomless pit of financial doping has allowed you to attract the best manager in the world and compete at the very highest level with the most expensively assembled squad in football history, you start to break even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
city haven't made a profit ever are you joking lol!!!! a wage bill of 400 million playing staff alone 60 million per player transfers where do they get that money from no sucess in europe? They sponsor themselves lol more cheating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s got to be up there with most incorrect statements ever for such a short paragraph...
It’s hard to know where to begin with that load of bollox
Literally everything he said in that paragraph is incorrect.
It’s an embarrassing comment.
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
You cant disprove facts, thats why they are facts
comment by ● Billy The Yidd ● 2020* 2021* (U3924)
posted 7 hours, 1 minute ago
Man City and Chelsea have proved that money guarantees trophies, these are two mid sized English league clubs that have been financially doped to the hilt in order to compete for the biggest prizes.
These clubs have not been grown organically over time, they are essentially a billionaires plaything and have easily worked around the laughable FFP rules.
This is what Spurs are currently up against, the financial clout of these 2 oil clubs, and also media darlings United and Pool who are dragged along by the officials and anybody else who will listen every year.
That is 4 clubs we have to try and finish above, but who we have an unfair disadvantage over before we begin.
I would love Spurs to join the likes of City and Chelsea though, and have an owner that invests money at the required levels to make us consistently competitive. The only way we will be able to compete against these clubs is if we join them, we are not beating them consistently otherwise. And that means new owners, as ENIC have no interest in silverware, just profits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs are really up against themselves.
Its now 4 finals in a row with no goal scored. 3 league cups and a CL final. That is now no trophy in 13 years. That is 8 fa cup semi final defeats in a row.
0.04XG yesterday
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m borrowed, to be paid back on commercial terms over time, compared to £2bn from your owners on loans that you will never have to pay back.
No lender would fund what Man City or Chelsea did. +90% of clubs operate on a normal business model. City & Chelsea don't have to.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m borrowed, to be paid back on commercial terms over time, compared to £2bn from your owners on loans that you will never have to pay back.
No lender would fund what Man City or Chelsea did. +90% of clubs operate on a normal business model. City & Chelsea don't have to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
where do you get the 2bn figure from?
What's wrong with the Bank of Joe Lewis?
Or is that the one you used.
comment by ● Billy The Yidd ● 2020* 2021* (U3924)
posted 7 hours, 7 minutes ago
Man City and Chelsea have proved that money guarantees trophies, these are two mid sized English league clubs that have been financially doped to the hilt in order to compete for the biggest prizes.
These clubs have not been grown organically over time, they are essentially a billionaires plaything and have easily worked around the laughable FFP rules.
This is what Spurs are currently up against, the financial clout of these 2 oil clubs, and also media darlings United and Pool who are dragged along by the officials and anybody else who will listen every year.
That is 4 clubs we have to try and finish above, but who we have an unfair disadvantage over before we begin.
I would love Spurs to join the likes of City and Chelsea though, and have an owner that invests money at the required levels to make us consistently competitive. The only way we will be able to compete against these clubs is if we join them, we are not beating them consistently otherwise. And that means new owners, as ENIC have no interest in silverware, just profits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of that makes total sense.
I would say that profits are not ENICs motivation. The much greater gains are in the value of the club and while a cup may earn a million or 2, elevating our status is far more valuable and to do that you need to achieve many things with big trophies being key.
So while the focus is on top 4, involvement in the UCL we know that winning these comps will be the seriously valuable thing. The domestic cups not so much but ultimately, if we want to be capable of winning the bigger cups then the smaller one would (you would think) follow naturally, more of a biproduct than our main focus.
Ultimately, since the days of Jol we have had squad with quality to end top 5 so surely we have the quality to win domestic cups too. You also cannot say that we did not have the quality or squad to beat Sparta Whoever this season. Sometimes (often) failure to win trophies goes way beyond the ownership
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m borrowed, to be paid back on commercial terms over time, compared to £2bn from your owners on loans that you will never have to pay back.
No lender would fund what Man City or Chelsea did. +90% of clubs operate on a normal business model. City & Chelsea don't have to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course no lender would fund it.
City and Chelsea’s owners don’t have to borrow. We are fortunate to have owners who both can afford and actually do invest money into the club’s they own. In order to grow the clubs they own.
And you’re here using that as a slight against City.
You’d love the owners of your club to stick their own money where their mouth is.
Joe Lewis could finance Spurs’ stadium cost 4 times over and still have over a billion to play around with.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m borrowed, to be paid back on commercial terms over time, compared to £2bn from your owners on loans that you will never have to pay back.
No lender would fund what Man City or Chelsea did. +90% of clubs operate on a normal business model. City & Chelsea don't have to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course no lender would fund it.
City and Chelsea’s owners don’t have to borrow. We are fortunate to have owners who both can afford and actually do invest money into the club’s they own. In order to grow the clubs they own.
And you’re here using that as a slight against City.
You’d love the owners of your club to stick their own money where their mouth is.
Joe Lewis could finance Spurs’ stadium cost 4 times over and still have over a billion to play around with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Your choice of funding your stadium is on you and your club ultimately.
Furthering that, how you choose to run your club from a business perspective is also your choice. You're hardly lacking the funds.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m borrowed, to be paid back on commercial terms over time, compared to £2bn from your owners on loans that you will never have to pay back.
No lender would fund what Man City or Chelsea did. +90% of clubs operate on a normal business model. City & Chelsea don't have to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course no lender would fund it.
City and Chelsea’s owners don’t have to borrow. We are fortunate to have owners who both can afford and actually do invest money into the club’s they own. In order to grow the clubs they own.
And you’re here using that as a slight against City.
You’d love the owners of your club to stick their own money where their mouth is.
Joe Lewis could finance Spurs’ stadium cost 4 times over and still have over a billion to play around with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, no normal owner, however rich can compete with an oil rich state funding of clubs. If Joe pumped in a couple of billion, then your owner would pump in another five billion. That`s the problem we have right now. One or two clubs in the Prem with unlimited money at their disposal.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m borrowed, to be paid back on commercial terms over time, compared to £2bn from your owners on loans that you will never have to pay back.
No lender would fund what Man City or Chelsea did. +90% of clubs operate on a normal business model. City & Chelsea don't have to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course no lender would fund it.
City and Chelsea’s owners don’t have to borrow. We are fortunate to have owners who both can afford and actually do invest money into the club’s they own. In order to grow the clubs they own.
And you’re here using that as a slight against City.
You’d love the owners of your club to stick their own money where their mouth is.
Joe Lewis could finance Spurs’ stadium cost 4 times over and still have over a billion to play around with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, its not a slight, its a response to the comment that we chose to spend £850m on infrastructure when we inference was we could have spent it on players, like City .
My point being that almost every other club to City & Chelsea cannot act in this way. SO it was never a choice for Spurs of spending £850m on players OR The Stadium because we are run like every other club.
Joe Lewis may be a billionaire but that does not mean he has to bankroll us. Stoke City are owned by a billionaire. City & Chelsea are the exceptions, Spurs are very well run within a normal business model.
City's owners pumped £2bn into the club (over 7 years) and now have a 'brand' that's worth twice that amount.
For our fans it's meant playing attractive football and winning the Title under 3 different managers.
That first Title was with a squad that cost about the same as what you got off Real Madrid for Gareth Bale.
There is no set business model when it comes to football, it's been evolving since the days of Henry Norris and will continue to evole.
You can spend it on players though. Spurs fans have been up in arms about the “frugal” nature of the owners.
Spurs have done alright given what they spend. But they are a club who earn a lot of money year after year and yet operate as though they are happy to be on the fringes of elite competition.
City, in 2008, were not at the level of Spurs, yet investment from the (then) new owners saw them quickly overtake Spurs, and then catch up to and then overtake United. They were prepared to spend what it took to take the club they (now) own right to the top.
And now their investment is paying off, not only for City on the pitch, but also for themselves. The club’s value is much higher than it was in 2008. They sold a 13% stake in the club a few years back for more than they bought the club for in 2008.
(And Sandy, bless his little cotton socks, says City haven’t grown )
Look, this entire thread has been written on a lie. Sandy hasn’t a clue. Even when several City fans (myself included) pointed out that we are where we are because of our owners, he stuck his fingers in his ears and simply repeated his false narrative.
Spurs have owners who could have chosen a different model and yes, indeed bankrolled you in order to grow the club. You’ve done alright, competed in and around the top four. And to your absolute credit even reached a CL final (something we are yet to do).
The potential at Spurs is there. But for some reason your owners don’t seem intent on pushing forward and investing now to reap the rewards later. That must be incredibly frustrating - knowing just how big Spurs could become had they had owners who had the balls to really go for it.
(And don’t give me that crap about your comment not being a slight. Your response to Boris earlier in this thread shows exactly what you think about City)
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 minutes ago
City's owners pumped £2bn into the club (over 7 years) and now have a 'brand' that's worth twice that amount.
For our fans it's meant playing attractive football and winning the Title under 3 different managers.
That first Title was with a squad that cost about the same as what you got off Real Madrid for Gareth Bale.
There is no set business model when it comes to football, it's been evolving since the days of Henry Norris and will continue to evole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no set business model"
In 2011, Man City posted losses of £198m in a single season.
Leeds had debt of £120m accrued over 5 years to 2003 had to fire sale their assets, were relegated and went in to administration.
That is the "usual business model" which applies to most clubs. Rack up massive debt, your lenders will pull the plug and its all sheeite from there on.
Liverpool were sold against the owners wishes/under legal challenge when RBS called in their £300m loan. A club that had just come 2nd in the league with massive fan base. It didnt matter, they had to be sold or would go under and the buyers got them for a snip. They are now run very well, investment is careful and selective, wages now under control, no big losses, some decent profits.
This is the normal way of things whether big club like Liverpool or Leeds, or little Pompey & Bolton.
Almost no one has the ability to fund what you did, and only Chelsea and City have the safety net of a bottomless pit of free loans to cover it should it have failed.
You have to give City fans credit for making this look debatable.
Sign in if you want to comment
Just to disprove the fact that Man City
Page 4 of 6
6
posted on 26/4/21
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 9 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 4 minutes ago
Of course it has to do with money...its how well you spend it, & growing your club into having a winning mentality
Oh hang on...just tripped over my own answer here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It hasn`t nothing to do with how well you spend it. It has everything to do with just spend, spend, spend, until you come up with a winning formula. City and Chelsea have both purchased loads of duff players, but they have the spending power to dump the bad players, even if they cost millions, and then just buy a new set of players. Such is their financial advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we've made mistakes...lots of them...but we correct them (Lamps Tuchel)....you don't
You just sacked a cup winner a week before a fackin final...something you reach rarely...go figure
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, and you sacked a manager who had just won you the CL. Touche. Go figure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah he wasn't good enough...was lucky to even get the gig
posted on 26/4/21
Sandy, you’ve missed another League Cup and an FA Cup out there.
posted on 26/4/21
...and 4 Community Shields
posted on 26/4/21
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 35 seconds ago
City have made a profit for the last 4 years, no mention of that as far as I can see
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wow....pump billions of money that you have not earned into your team to make the highly successful and despite lacking the global fan base of other traditional super clubs, somehow attract record breaking sponsorship deals, spend some seasons where wages alone exceeded total revenue and then 10 years later where this bottomless pit of financial doping has allowed you to attract the best manager in the world and compete at the very highest level with the most expensively assembled squad in football history, you start to break even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
city haven't made a profit ever are you joking lol!!!! a wage bill of 400 million playing staff alone 60 million per player transfers where do they get that money from no sucess in europe? They sponsor themselves lol more cheating
posted on 26/4/21
comment by superjacketpotato (U19148)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 35 seconds ago
City have made a profit for the last 4 years, no mention of that as far as I can see
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wow....pump billions of money that you have not earned into your team to make the highly successful and despite lacking the global fan base of other traditional super clubs, somehow attract record breaking sponsorship deals, spend some seasons where wages alone exceeded total revenue and then 10 years later where this bottomless pit of financial doping has allowed you to attract the best manager in the world and compete at the very highest level with the most expensively assembled squad in football history, you start to break even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
city haven't made a profit ever are you joking lol!!!! a wage bill of 400 million playing staff alone 60 million per player transfers where do they get that money from no sucess in europe? They sponsor themselves lol more cheating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at Sandy’s list, factor in the ones he’s missed out the add up the prize money.
Your other claims just confirm you’re a total eejit
posted on 26/4/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/4/21
comment by superjacketpotato (U19148)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 35 seconds ago
City have made a profit for the last 4 years, no mention of that as far as I can see
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wow....pump billions of money that you have not earned into your team to make the highly successful and despite lacking the global fan base of other traditional super clubs, somehow attract record breaking sponsorship deals, spend some seasons where wages alone exceeded total revenue and then 10 years later where this bottomless pit of financial doping has allowed you to attract the best manager in the world and compete at the very highest level with the most expensively assembled squad in football history, you start to break even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
city haven't made a profit ever are you joking lol!!!! a wage bill of 400 million playing staff alone 60 million per player transfers where do they get that money from no sucess in europe? They sponsor themselves lol more cheating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s got to be up there with most incorrect statements ever for such a short paragraph...
posted on 26/4/21
It’s hard to know where to begin with that load of bollox
posted on 26/4/21
Literally everything he said in that paragraph is incorrect.
It’s an embarrassing comment.
posted on 26/4/21
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
posted on 26/4/21
You cant disprove facts, thats why they are facts
posted on 26/4/21
comment by ● Billy The Yidd ● 2020* 2021* (U3924)
posted 7 hours, 1 minute ago
Man City and Chelsea have proved that money guarantees trophies, these are two mid sized English league clubs that have been financially doped to the hilt in order to compete for the biggest prizes.
These clubs have not been grown organically over time, they are essentially a billionaires plaything and have easily worked around the laughable FFP rules.
This is what Spurs are currently up against, the financial clout of these 2 oil clubs, and also media darlings United and Pool who are dragged along by the officials and anybody else who will listen every year.
That is 4 clubs we have to try and finish above, but who we have an unfair disadvantage over before we begin.
I would love Spurs to join the likes of City and Chelsea though, and have an owner that invests money at the required levels to make us consistently competitive. The only way we will be able to compete against these clubs is if we join them, we are not beating them consistently otherwise. And that means new owners, as ENIC have no interest in silverware, just profits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs are really up against themselves.
Its now 4 finals in a row with no goal scored. 3 league cups and a CL final. That is now no trophy in 13 years. That is 8 fa cup semi final defeats in a row.
0.04XG yesterday
posted on 26/4/21
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m borrowed, to be paid back on commercial terms over time, compared to £2bn from your owners on loans that you will never have to pay back.
No lender would fund what Man City or Chelsea did. +90% of clubs operate on a normal business model. City & Chelsea don't have to.
posted on 26/4/21
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m borrowed, to be paid back on commercial terms over time, compared to £2bn from your owners on loans that you will never have to pay back.
No lender would fund what Man City or Chelsea did. +90% of clubs operate on a normal business model. City & Chelsea don't have to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
where do you get the 2bn figure from?
posted on 26/4/21
What's wrong with the Bank of Joe Lewis?
Or is that the one you used.
posted on 26/4/21
comment by ● Billy The Yidd ● 2020* 2021* (U3924)
posted 7 hours, 7 minutes ago
Man City and Chelsea have proved that money guarantees trophies, these are two mid sized English league clubs that have been financially doped to the hilt in order to compete for the biggest prizes.
These clubs have not been grown organically over time, they are essentially a billionaires plaything and have easily worked around the laughable FFP rules.
This is what Spurs are currently up against, the financial clout of these 2 oil clubs, and also media darlings United and Pool who are dragged along by the officials and anybody else who will listen every year.
That is 4 clubs we have to try and finish above, but who we have an unfair disadvantage over before we begin.
I would love Spurs to join the likes of City and Chelsea though, and have an owner that invests money at the required levels to make us consistently competitive. The only way we will be able to compete against these clubs is if we join them, we are not beating them consistently otherwise. And that means new owners, as ENIC have no interest in silverware, just profits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of that makes total sense.
I would say that profits are not ENICs motivation. The much greater gains are in the value of the club and while a cup may earn a million or 2, elevating our status is far more valuable and to do that you need to achieve many things with big trophies being key.
So while the focus is on top 4, involvement in the UCL we know that winning these comps will be the seriously valuable thing. The domestic cups not so much but ultimately, if we want to be capable of winning the bigger cups then the smaller one would (you would think) follow naturally, more of a biproduct than our main focus.
Ultimately, since the days of Jol we have had squad with quality to end top 5 so surely we have the quality to win domestic cups too. You also cannot say that we did not have the quality or squad to beat Sparta Whoever this season. Sometimes (often) failure to win trophies goes way beyond the ownership
posted on 26/4/21
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m borrowed, to be paid back on commercial terms over time, compared to £2bn from your owners on loans that you will never have to pay back.
No lender would fund what Man City or Chelsea did. +90% of clubs operate on a normal business model. City & Chelsea don't have to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course no lender would fund it.
City and Chelsea’s owners don’t have to borrow. We are fortunate to have owners who both can afford and actually do invest money into the club’s they own. In order to grow the clubs they own.
And you’re here using that as a slight against City.
You’d love the owners of your club to stick their own money where their mouth is.
Joe Lewis could finance Spurs’ stadium cost 4 times over and still have over a billion to play around with.
posted on 26/4/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m borrowed, to be paid back on commercial terms over time, compared to £2bn from your owners on loans that you will never have to pay back.
No lender would fund what Man City or Chelsea did. +90% of clubs operate on a normal business model. City & Chelsea don't have to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course no lender would fund it.
City and Chelsea’s owners don’t have to borrow. We are fortunate to have owners who both can afford and actually do invest money into the club’s they own. In order to grow the clubs they own.
And you’re here using that as a slight against City.
You’d love the owners of your club to stick their own money where their mouth is.
Joe Lewis could finance Spurs’ stadium cost 4 times over and still have over a billion to play around with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Your choice of funding your stadium is on you and your club ultimately.
Furthering that, how you choose to run your club from a business perspective is also your choice. You're hardly lacking the funds.
posted on 26/4/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m borrowed, to be paid back on commercial terms over time, compared to £2bn from your owners on loans that you will never have to pay back.
No lender would fund what Man City or Chelsea did. +90% of clubs operate on a normal business model. City & Chelsea don't have to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course no lender would fund it.
City and Chelsea’s owners don’t have to borrow. We are fortunate to have owners who both can afford and actually do invest money into the club’s they own. In order to grow the clubs they own.
And you’re here using that as a slight against City.
You’d love the owners of your club to stick their own money where their mouth is.
Joe Lewis could finance Spurs’ stadium cost 4 times over and still have over a billion to play around with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, no normal owner, however rich can compete with an oil rich state funding of clubs. If Joe pumped in a couple of billion, then your owner would pump in another five billion. That`s the problem we have right now. One or two clubs in the Prem with unlimited money at their disposal.
posted on 26/4/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 31 minutes ago
It's not as if City have just thrown money into transfers either, they've improved their facilities that are now state of the art and are now a global operation. Players like Sancho and Foden have come through their academy ranks and are already two of England's best players, Morgan Rogers (on loan at Lincoln) looks a prospect as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, City have spent about a billion on players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have also spent £850m on a new stadium whereas City haven't. You put your money where you want, just because you spent it on a stadium doesn't mean City are in the wrong for doing it in different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m borrowed, to be paid back on commercial terms over time, compared to £2bn from your owners on loans that you will never have to pay back.
No lender would fund what Man City or Chelsea did. +90% of clubs operate on a normal business model. City & Chelsea don't have to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course no lender would fund it.
City and Chelsea’s owners don’t have to borrow. We are fortunate to have owners who both can afford and actually do invest money into the club’s they own. In order to grow the clubs they own.
And you’re here using that as a slight against City.
You’d love the owners of your club to stick their own money where their mouth is.
Joe Lewis could finance Spurs’ stadium cost 4 times over and still have over a billion to play around with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, its not a slight, its a response to the comment that we chose to spend £850m on infrastructure when we inference was we could have spent it on players, like City .
My point being that almost every other club to City & Chelsea cannot act in this way. SO it was never a choice for Spurs of spending £850m on players OR The Stadium because we are run like every other club.
Joe Lewis may be a billionaire but that does not mean he has to bankroll us. Stoke City are owned by a billionaire. City & Chelsea are the exceptions, Spurs are very well run within a normal business model.
posted on 26/4/21
*the inference
posted on 26/4/21
City's owners pumped £2bn into the club (over 7 years) and now have a 'brand' that's worth twice that amount.
For our fans it's meant playing attractive football and winning the Title under 3 different managers.
That first Title was with a squad that cost about the same as what you got off Real Madrid for Gareth Bale.
There is no set business model when it comes to football, it's been evolving since the days of Henry Norris and will continue to evole.
posted on 26/4/21
You can spend it on players though. Spurs fans have been up in arms about the “frugal” nature of the owners.
Spurs have done alright given what they spend. But they are a club who earn a lot of money year after year and yet operate as though they are happy to be on the fringes of elite competition.
City, in 2008, were not at the level of Spurs, yet investment from the (then) new owners saw them quickly overtake Spurs, and then catch up to and then overtake United. They were prepared to spend what it took to take the club they (now) own right to the top.
And now their investment is paying off, not only for City on the pitch, but also for themselves. The club’s value is much higher than it was in 2008. They sold a 13% stake in the club a few years back for more than they bought the club for in 2008.
(And Sandy, bless his little cotton socks, says City haven’t grown )
Look, this entire thread has been written on a lie. Sandy hasn’t a clue. Even when several City fans (myself included) pointed out that we are where we are because of our owners, he stuck his fingers in his ears and simply repeated his false narrative.
Spurs have owners who could have chosen a different model and yes, indeed bankrolled you in order to grow the club. You’ve done alright, competed in and around the top four. And to your absolute credit even reached a CL final (something we are yet to do).
The potential at Spurs is there. But for some reason your owners don’t seem intent on pushing forward and investing now to reap the rewards later. That must be incredibly frustrating - knowing just how big Spurs could become had they had owners who had the balls to really go for it.
(And don’t give me that crap about your comment not being a slight. Your response to Boris earlier in this thread shows exactly what you think about City)
posted on 26/4/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 minutes ago
City's owners pumped £2bn into the club (over 7 years) and now have a 'brand' that's worth twice that amount.
For our fans it's meant playing attractive football and winning the Title under 3 different managers.
That first Title was with a squad that cost about the same as what you got off Real Madrid for Gareth Bale.
There is no set business model when it comes to football, it's been evolving since the days of Henry Norris and will continue to evole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no set business model"
In 2011, Man City posted losses of £198m in a single season.
Leeds had debt of £120m accrued over 5 years to 2003 had to fire sale their assets, were relegated and went in to administration.
That is the "usual business model" which applies to most clubs. Rack up massive debt, your lenders will pull the plug and its all sheeite from there on.
Liverpool were sold against the owners wishes/under legal challenge when RBS called in their £300m loan. A club that had just come 2nd in the league with massive fan base. It didnt matter, they had to be sold or would go under and the buyers got them for a snip. They are now run very well, investment is careful and selective, wages now under control, no big losses, some decent profits.
This is the normal way of things whether big club like Liverpool or Leeds, or little Pompey & Bolton.
Almost no one has the ability to fund what you did, and only Chelsea and City have the safety net of a bottomless pit of free loans to cover it should it have failed.
posted on 26/4/21
You have to give City fans credit for making this look debatable.
Page 4 of 6
6