If they do ban it does that mean that they might ban Man Pity too?

It would appear that it has been banned.

Man Pity it is then

The Post Nearly Man (U1270)

Not at all. It was always 'we' when we lost or were relegated.

Fair enough. Enjoy the day trippers.

Keep Man Pity because it's laughably pathetic.

Fair enough. Enjoy the day trippers.

Attendences are same as they were 8 years ago, the day trippers must just sit in local pubs to watch the game.

comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
Keep Man Pity because it's laughably pathetic.

Apposite then.

And so it has been banned. Well what do you know.

Didn't you used to call us Man Clitty Jurglenn? How very rude.

No feel as close as ever to the club , But thanks for asking

Feels like cheating? not a bit

But did feel a little like bullying on sunday

But guess what I can live with that too

Attendences are same as they were 8 years ago, the day trippers must just sit in local pubs to watch the game.

I know, just gazing into my crystal ball, buddy.

I only referred to you as Man Clitty in honour of your smock wearing owners.

Well done you. Not bad for a 60+ year old.

"I've already said that the £118m for 413 is correct"

We know tis correct, that's why tis in the accounts.

But are you know saying that the "600" are statistically/financially significant to the 413 ??

If so, how would you like to contend the 118m is allocated across the two groups ??

Unform distribution ?? Normal ?? Pareto (80:20) ??

And then, similar exercise WITHIN each group ??

City's owners are 60+ It must be all that cross dressing that ages them.

+now+ saying ... +insignificant+ .

You want to labour a point RDBD which I've already conceded? How bizarre.

I'd rather wear a smock than a T-shirt with:-

"My Friend Went Looting And All He Brought Me Back Was This Lousy Nokia N8"

or

"THFC, Pride Of The Bahamas"

Mon.

City's owners are 60+ It must be all that cross dressing that ages them

-------------------------------

That makes no sense whatsoever.

^^^^^

Boris 'Inky' Gibson comes out and admits to being a cross dresser.

The women he knows look more attractive in traditonal Arabic robes.

I reather wear a sequened basque at a hod carriers convention than a Spurs shirt.

Wow - at last it has been taught to write the word Spurs correctly and without having to resort to replacing rs with dz for the cross dresser.

Every Spurs fan on here admits that City are now a top quality side, that their stadium is very good and the plans they have for around it and the academy will be great....we are not bitter. Like most Spurs fans I am happy the way we are evolving, within our means and even if we are not winning everything it still entertainment and better than we have had for much of the last 20 years,

What Spurs (and most other) fans take objection to is some jumped up City fan coming on here and trying to make a case that City don't pay big wages....its simply BS, or that investing £1bn is sound business when actually revenue is only £120m pa.

Some are happy to admit that City are buying the league and have no problem with that....fair play to them, but some try and deny they are not buying the league, that the business plan is sound and that is plain stupid.

Who knows where it will end....City think they can be the exception and make big profits from football...the only team doing that is Arsenal and they have achieved that through small spending (NET £1m on transfer since 1992) and property development. City might be able to prove everyone wrong but they will need success on the pitch, revenue to match Uniteds (currently well less than half Utds) and a fan base equal to the biggest in the world (Utd, Real) to generate the global incomes. Then they might make some profits but they will never get back the £400m invested in players to date because to stay at the top they will have to reinvest the profit they make.

The owner probably is not interetsed in getting his money back. It may all break even at some time in the future and he might create something amazing and is prepared to spend £0.5bn achieving it.

You couldn't teach me anything other than the rules for being in the Dead Hand Gang.

You have conceded nothing. You really don't have the hang of this debating stuff do ya.

You have harped on about the player wage bill.
All I have presented is the significant wage bill / staff headcounts for MCFC Ltd.

I am now offering you the chance to argue the case for that 118m being distributed in such a way that tis not say a Pareto (80:20 or worse) distribution in favour of the players (which I suspect it is) .

FYI, the directors collectively took 1.8m (ie probably the highest paid "admin" bod) , if that helps your argument.