Always baffles me that clubs with ambition are villainised while clubs who pander to owners like Glazers, Kroenke and ENIC are considered moral protagonist's.
comment by Anne Ziety (U22412)
posted 2 minutes ago
Always baffles me that clubs with ambition are villainised while clubs who pander to owners like Glazers, Kroenke and ENIC are considered moral protagonist's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult. Because investment should be welcome and there's no doubt that City's owners have been brilliant for them and they're playing wonderful football. Set against that, do you want to see the big leagues and trophies becoming a willy waving contest between rich countries who wish to sports wash?
For the record, I'll be absolutely amazed if Ashley isn't successful in getting that takeover done in the next year or two. He always gets what he wants.
Nothing moral or otherwise about it. The crux of the issue is that one club decides the rules shouldn't apply to them, and thus gains a competitive advantage. You can argue philosophy all you like afterwards.
clubs who pander to owners like Glazers, Kroenke and ENIC are considered moral protagonist's.
———
This is such bullshiiiit.
comment by Anne Ziety (U22412)
posted 6 minutes ago
Always baffles me that clubs with ambition are villainised while clubs who pander to owners like Glazers, Kroenke and ENIC are considered moral protagonist's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
..whilst every team has benefited from billions of tv money.
The whole thing is hypocritical. I don’t doubt city have cheated but who really gives a shiiit now, given how distorted money has made the football landscape..
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Jadon & Marcus & Bukayo. (U1270)
posted 15 seconds ago
Nothing moral or otherwise about it. The crux of the issue is that one club decides the rules shouldn't apply to them, and thus gains a competitive advantage. You can argue philosophy all you like afterwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it depends on if the rules in the first place are fair or designed to raise the drawbridge up for the established rich clubs. The way we were bought and are run is something I have more of an issue with than how City and Chelsea contribute to their clubs.
Of course it’s not a case of some being good guys and some being bad guys. I’m sure they’re all cants but one set of cants seems to be obsessed with making their club the best in the world whereas the other set of cants are venture capitalists who don’t really lose any sleep if we finish 4th.
Basically it’s like saying, if you were successful at the right time that football blew up in terms of tv money and media exports, you deserve it. We were, consistently at that point, but it penalises anyone that has the Gaul to try and even the playing field through other means (Ie city,psg). I don’t think there’s really a right or wrong (and I hate myself for saying it) but it’s so distorted now,,why waste energy on it..
comment by Robb - Ashes prediction 5-0 (U22311)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Jadon & Marcus & Bukayo. (U1270)
posted 15 seconds ago
Nothing moral or otherwise about it. The crux of the issue is that one club decides the rules shouldn't apply to them, and thus gains a competitive advantage. You can argue philosophy all you like afterwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it depends on if the rules in the first place are fair or designed to raise the drawbridge up for the established rich clubs. The way we were bought and are run is something I have more of an issue with than how City and Chelsea contribute to their clubs.
Of course it’s not a case of some being good guys and some being bad guys. I’m sure they’re all cants but one set of cants seems to be obsessed with making their club the best in the world whereas the other set of cants are venture capitalists who don’t really lose any sleep if we finish 4th.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But foreby all that, there's a very binary interpretation of laws that says you either uphold them or break them. In this instance, if a club sees rules as more of guidelines, then they've broken them. No need to go into soul searching mode.
comment by Anne Ziety (U22412)
posted 23 minutes ago
Always baffles me that clubs with ambition are villainised while clubs who pander to owners like Glazers, Kroenke and ENIC are considered moral protagonist's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try
Yeah tv money and Mansour and Roman’s investment are really the same.
It's very simple. Whether you agree with the rules or not, they are the rules.
As a Spurs fan I can look at the likes of Chelsea and City and think if it wasn't for their billionaire spending Spurs would have likely had more success in the last 20 years. Hard earned success from organic growth of the club......its galling enough that unearned money funds massive investment in these clubs but to also be cheating and playing by different rules is far from creating an even playing field. its an entirely different playing field.
comment by Jadon The King Sancho (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yeah tv money and Mansour and Roman’s investment are really the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If, like we were successful at the same time that the tv money blew up, the Internet and social media blew up, you get both massive cash injections and global exposure on an unprecedented scale, if you capitalise on that then you are sorted.,what’s left for others than huge cash injections to try and catch up?
comment by Ole-dirty-baztard - You want ole in, ole out, in, out, in, out, shake it all about. Do the ole Koke-Penited (U19119)
posted 27 minutes ago
it penalises anyone that has the Gaul to try and even the playing field through other means (Ie city,psg).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you're saying there should be an asterisk next to their achievements?
But they aren’t the same. I know the concept of Sky Sports makes you reetarded but surely even you can see the huge difference in the benefit of tv money and being funded by Mansour and Roman? It’s really not difficult.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
It's very simple. Whether you agree with the rules or not, they are the rules.
As a Spurs fan I can look at the likes of Chelsea and City and think if it wasn't for their billionaire spending Spurs would have likely had more success in the last 20 years. Hard earned success from organic growth of the club......its galling enough that unearned money funds massive investment in these clubs but to also be cheating and playing by different rules is far from creating an even playing field. its an entirely different playing field.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if we wipe those two's results under their respective ownerships from the face of the earth you have what, an additional two league cups.
Congratulations, i guess!
Oh no, it's in an email.
It must be true.
Spurs probably would have had more success, not much, but the club that undoubtedly would have prospered far more than they have is Arsenal. Roman and Mansour really facked them.
comment by Jadon The King Sancho (U10026)
posted 10 minutes ago
Spurs probably would have had more success, not much, but the club that undoubtedly would have prospered far more than they have is Arsenal. Roman and Mansour really facked them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wenger fell well behind Fergie and even Rafa in that period so even taking those two out Arsenal still lag behind United and Arsenal. If anything those two stopped Fergie turning the PL into an even bigger one team league than the Bundesliga.
The only potential opening they (Arsenal) may have had was when you fell into the Moyes/LVG era but even that would have been quickly seen too by Klopp.
comment by Jadon The King Sancho (U10026)
posted 20 minutes ago
Spurs probably would have had more success, not much, but the club that undoubtedly would have prospered far more than they have is Arsenal. Roman and Mansour really facked them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s why they deserve medals 😂
Eh? Wenger was still good when Roman bought Chelsea, Arsenal went unbeaten ffs. Arsenal would have dominated English football for a few years if it wasn’t for Chelsea. It wasn’t just that Chelsea were able to take one of their best players, but that they were able to snap up many of the players Arsenal wanted. And then City came along and started taking their best players and doing the same with their targets.
comment by Anne Ziety (U22412)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
It's very simple. Whether you agree with the rules or not, they are the rules.
As a Spurs fan I can look at the likes of Chelsea and City and think if it wasn't for their billionaire spending Spurs would have likely had more success in the last 20 years. Hard earned success from organic growth of the club......its galling enough that unearned money funds massive investment in these clubs but to also be cheating and playing by different rules is far from creating an even playing field. its an entirely different playing field.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if we wipe those two's results under their respective ownerships from the face of the earth you have what, an additional two league cups.
Congratulations, i guess!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well we came 2nd to Chelsea in 2017.....but that's not the point. Its more the competing consistently at the top and how that creates the culture at the club as well as the ability to compete financially. Look at Chelsea. Pre roman a decent team but under roman a team.who have had success and now expect and demand it
comment by Jadon The King Sancho (U10026)
posted 40 minutes ago
Eh? Wenger was still good when Roman bought Chelsea, Arsenal went unbeaten ffs. Arsenal would have dominated English football for a few years if it wasn’t for Chelsea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah and if Jose and Chelsea did not turn up Fergie would have got them all be in one year later and they wouldn't have got near you again until Fergie done one. Chelsea and City or no Chelsea and City they still had a stadium to pay off which restricted them. If Cole, Nasri etc didn't have Chelsea or City to go to there was still Juve (ala Vieira) Barca (ala Henry), Real, Bayern, United (ala RVP) or Milan as options.
It's worth remembering as good as Wenger was in the early years/pre Chelsea he still let United win three titles in a row (two of which barely laying a glove on you) with his great team. What were the chances of him keeping up with a peak Rooney and Ronaldo inspired United (in my opinion better than your previous 3x in a row title winners) with the team he had in the second half of the decade? I would say very slim.
They may be one (2005) at a push two (2015) titles better off but I doubt they'd be in that much a better position today, they'd have still been terribly mismanaged but I guess we will never truly know.
Hardly news is it
Of course City have fiddled and cheated financially but show a team that hasn't.
The only joke to all this is that the rules have now changed to stop other clubs being able to crash the party. Wolves are in year three of financial restrictions for feck sake. Ridiculous
Sign in if you want to comment
Nice artice in the Daily Mail on
Page 1 of 3
posted on 24/7/21
Always baffles me that clubs with ambition are villainised while clubs who pander to owners like Glazers, Kroenke and ENIC are considered moral protagonist's.
posted on 24/7/21
comment by Anne Ziety (U22412)
posted 2 minutes ago
Always baffles me that clubs with ambition are villainised while clubs who pander to owners like Glazers, Kroenke and ENIC are considered moral protagonist's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult. Because investment should be welcome and there's no doubt that City's owners have been brilliant for them and they're playing wonderful football. Set against that, do you want to see the big leagues and trophies becoming a willy waving contest between rich countries who wish to sports wash?
For the record, I'll be absolutely amazed if Ashley isn't successful in getting that takeover done in the next year or two. He always gets what he wants.
posted on 24/7/21
Nothing moral or otherwise about it. The crux of the issue is that one club decides the rules shouldn't apply to them, and thus gains a competitive advantage. You can argue philosophy all you like afterwards.
posted on 24/7/21
clubs who pander to owners like Glazers, Kroenke and ENIC are considered moral protagonist's.
———
This is such bullshiiiit.
posted on 24/7/21
comment by Anne Ziety (U22412)
posted 6 minutes ago
Always baffles me that clubs with ambition are villainised while clubs who pander to owners like Glazers, Kroenke and ENIC are considered moral protagonist's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
..whilst every team has benefited from billions of tv money.
The whole thing is hypocritical. I don’t doubt city have cheated but who really gives a shiiit now, given how distorted money has made the football landscape..
posted on 24/7/21
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Jadon & Marcus & Bukayo. (U1270)
posted 15 seconds ago
Nothing moral or otherwise about it. The crux of the issue is that one club decides the rules shouldn't apply to them, and thus gains a competitive advantage. You can argue philosophy all you like afterwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it depends on if the rules in the first place are fair or designed to raise the drawbridge up for the established rich clubs. The way we were bought and are run is something I have more of an issue with than how City and Chelsea contribute to their clubs.
Of course it’s not a case of some being good guys and some being bad guys. I’m sure they’re all cants but one set of cants seems to be obsessed with making their club the best in the world whereas the other set of cants are venture capitalists who don’t really lose any sleep if we finish 4th.
posted on 24/7/21
Basically it’s like saying, if you were successful at the right time that football blew up in terms of tv money and media exports, you deserve it. We were, consistently at that point, but it penalises anyone that has the Gaul to try and even the playing field through other means (Ie city,psg). I don’t think there’s really a right or wrong (and I hate myself for saying it) but it’s so distorted now,,why waste energy on it..
posted on 24/7/21
comment by Robb - Ashes prediction 5-0 (U22311)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Jadon & Marcus & Bukayo. (U1270)
posted 15 seconds ago
Nothing moral or otherwise about it. The crux of the issue is that one club decides the rules shouldn't apply to them, and thus gains a competitive advantage. You can argue philosophy all you like afterwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it depends on if the rules in the first place are fair or designed to raise the drawbridge up for the established rich clubs. The way we were bought and are run is something I have more of an issue with than how City and Chelsea contribute to their clubs.
Of course it’s not a case of some being good guys and some being bad guys. I’m sure they’re all cants but one set of cants seems to be obsessed with making their club the best in the world whereas the other set of cants are venture capitalists who don’t really lose any sleep if we finish 4th.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But foreby all that, there's a very binary interpretation of laws that says you either uphold them or break them. In this instance, if a club sees rules as more of guidelines, then they've broken them. No need to go into soul searching mode.
posted on 25/7/21
comment by Anne Ziety (U22412)
posted 23 minutes ago
Always baffles me that clubs with ambition are villainised while clubs who pander to owners like Glazers, Kroenke and ENIC are considered moral protagonist's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try
posted on 25/7/21
Yeah tv money and Mansour and Roman’s investment are really the same.
posted on 25/7/21
It's very simple. Whether you agree with the rules or not, they are the rules.
As a Spurs fan I can look at the likes of Chelsea and City and think if it wasn't for their billionaire spending Spurs would have likely had more success in the last 20 years. Hard earned success from organic growth of the club......its galling enough that unearned money funds massive investment in these clubs but to also be cheating and playing by different rules is far from creating an even playing field. its an entirely different playing field.
posted on 25/7/21
comment by Jadon The King Sancho (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yeah tv money and Mansour and Roman’s investment are really the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If, like we were successful at the same time that the tv money blew up, the Internet and social media blew up, you get both massive cash injections and global exposure on an unprecedented scale, if you capitalise on that then you are sorted.,what’s left for others than huge cash injections to try and catch up?
posted on 25/7/21
comment by Ole-dirty-baztard - You want ole in, ole out, in, out, in, out, shake it all about. Do the ole Koke-Penited (U19119)
posted 27 minutes ago
it penalises anyone that has the Gaul to try and even the playing field through other means (Ie city,psg).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you're saying there should be an asterisk next to their achievements?
posted on 25/7/21
But they aren’t the same. I know the concept of Sky Sports makes you reetarded but surely even you can see the huge difference in the benefit of tv money and being funded by Mansour and Roman? It’s really not difficult.
posted on 25/7/21
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
It's very simple. Whether you agree with the rules or not, they are the rules.
As a Spurs fan I can look at the likes of Chelsea and City and think if it wasn't for their billionaire spending Spurs would have likely had more success in the last 20 years. Hard earned success from organic growth of the club......its galling enough that unearned money funds massive investment in these clubs but to also be cheating and playing by different rules is far from creating an even playing field. its an entirely different playing field.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if we wipe those two's results under their respective ownerships from the face of the earth you have what, an additional two league cups.
Congratulations, i guess!
posted on 25/7/21
Oh no, it's in an email.
It must be true.
posted on 25/7/21
Spurs probably would have had more success, not much, but the club that undoubtedly would have prospered far more than they have is Arsenal. Roman and Mansour really facked them.
posted on 25/7/21
comment by Jadon The King Sancho (U10026)
posted 10 minutes ago
Spurs probably would have had more success, not much, but the club that undoubtedly would have prospered far more than they have is Arsenal. Roman and Mansour really facked them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wenger fell well behind Fergie and even Rafa in that period so even taking those two out Arsenal still lag behind United and Arsenal. If anything those two stopped Fergie turning the PL into an even bigger one team league than the Bundesliga.
The only potential opening they (Arsenal) may have had was when you fell into the Moyes/LVG era but even that would have been quickly seen too by Klopp.
posted on 25/7/21
*United and Liverpool
posted on 25/7/21
comment by Jadon The King Sancho (U10026)
posted 20 minutes ago
Spurs probably would have had more success, not much, but the club that undoubtedly would have prospered far more than they have is Arsenal. Roman and Mansour really facked them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s why they deserve medals 😂
posted on 25/7/21
Eh? Wenger was still good when Roman bought Chelsea, Arsenal went unbeaten ffs. Arsenal would have dominated English football for a few years if it wasn’t for Chelsea. It wasn’t just that Chelsea were able to take one of their best players, but that they were able to snap up many of the players Arsenal wanted. And then City came along and started taking their best players and doing the same with their targets.
posted on 25/7/21
comment by Anne Ziety (U22412)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
It's very simple. Whether you agree with the rules or not, they are the rules.
As a Spurs fan I can look at the likes of Chelsea and City and think if it wasn't for their billionaire spending Spurs would have likely had more success in the last 20 years. Hard earned success from organic growth of the club......its galling enough that unearned money funds massive investment in these clubs but to also be cheating and playing by different rules is far from creating an even playing field. its an entirely different playing field.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if we wipe those two's results under their respective ownerships from the face of the earth you have what, an additional two league cups.
Congratulations, i guess!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well we came 2nd to Chelsea in 2017.....but that's not the point. Its more the competing consistently at the top and how that creates the culture at the club as well as the ability to compete financially. Look at Chelsea. Pre roman a decent team but under roman a team.who have had success and now expect and demand it
posted on 25/7/21
comment by Jadon The King Sancho (U10026)
posted 40 minutes ago
Eh? Wenger was still good when Roman bought Chelsea, Arsenal went unbeaten ffs. Arsenal would have dominated English football for a few years if it wasn’t for Chelsea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah and if Jose and Chelsea did not turn up Fergie would have got them all be in one year later and they wouldn't have got near you again until Fergie done one. Chelsea and City or no Chelsea and City they still had a stadium to pay off which restricted them. If Cole, Nasri etc didn't have Chelsea or City to go to there was still Juve (ala Vieira) Barca (ala Henry), Real, Bayern, United (ala RVP) or Milan as options.
It's worth remembering as good as Wenger was in the early years/pre Chelsea he still let United win three titles in a row (two of which barely laying a glove on you) with his great team. What were the chances of him keeping up with a peak Rooney and Ronaldo inspired United (in my opinion better than your previous 3x in a row title winners) with the team he had in the second half of the decade? I would say very slim.
They may be one (2005) at a push two (2015) titles better off but I doubt they'd be in that much a better position today, they'd have still been terribly mismanaged but I guess we will never truly know.
posted on 25/7/21
Hardly news is it
Of course City have fiddled and cheated financially but show a team that hasn't.
posted on 25/7/21
The only joke to all this is that the rules have now changed to stop other clubs being able to crash the party. Wolves are in year three of financial restrictions for feck sake. Ridiculous
Page 1 of 3