Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 If nobody is allowed to "buy" the title, Man United would just win it every year for the rest of eternity. Nobody wants that. Ain't nobody got time for that. Some totes amazeballs quips coming from IP today Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I don't get the distinction between what Man Utd has done by investing heavy over a few years vs City's mad purchase over two seasons, it's just a matter of time period. And why is getting a billionaire foreign investor not a legitimate way of raising funds? It's no different from an IPO which in total got Man Utd big bucks too, the only difference is that in an IPO, ownership is dispersed vs one owner (consortium). The amount of money raised/obtained can't be too far off. To attract whoever it is from Dubai, City (or an investment banker engaged) would have needed to sell the club to them, that this is a wise investment for them to throw in the cash in the first few years and slowly bring down spending in subsequent years. There is no way that City will be spending in excess of 100M every year. In fact I fully expect their spending to reduce significantly next season. If we are honest, in the current climate this is the ONLY way for a new team to get anywhere near the title (besides the big 4 who have already invested significantly over a few years). If you want to win the premier league you need world class players which surprise surprise don't come cheap. The distinction is obvious, it lies in one club using money they've earned from their Footballing successes to create more success vs one that's just been given unlimited funds on the whim of a bored billionaire "here buy the league". If you have no problem with that then fine (though I certainly do because IMO it devalues the entire sport) but don't try to claim there's no difference between Man U's success and Man Citys. You're just repeating the same mantra. How much did Man Utd get through the IPO (and don't forget to factor in monetary inflation due to time difference)? A club as a business entity can raise funds either by selling it outright to a private party (selling price as determined by City's BOD would include value of club and investment required for City to be successful) or through a public ownership of IPO. This is basic finance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 No one is questioning the legitimacy of the takeover. A sugar daddy with unlimited funds, in sport, is slightly different to going public. Do you not understand what people are saying? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 No one is questioning the legitimacy of the takeover. A sugar daddy with unlimited funds, in sport, is slightly different to going public. Do you not understand what people are saying? First of all the investment had some limits. Their spending for the 2012 season is less than half of what they spent for the 2011 season and I imagine not far off from the other top 4 and probably less than Liverpool. You'll need facts to convince me because words can be twisted. I'll ask again, how much has City's Dubai consortium invested into City vs the amount that Man Utd got when they went IPO (+ monetary inflation due to time difference)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I don't care enough. If you do, have a look at man utd revenue/spending vs man city. Fairly sure about which one will have had more investment, especially in such a time period Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledGeordie Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I like Vincent Company, top bloke/awesome player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 They were saying on Talksport earlier that the cost of Man City's first 11 on Sunday was £161m while Man Utd's was £169m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karjala Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Funny how all the manure fans are coming out with this "well paid citeh" shite about how they bought the league - of course they did, but how much did manures squad cost??? De Gea £19m, Jones £17m, Vidic £7m, Ferdinand £30m, Evra £6m, Nani £20m, Carrick £18m, Valencia £16m, Young £8m, Rooney £26m, Berbatov £30m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 They were saying on Talksport earlier that the cost of Man City's first 11 on Sunday was £161m while Man Utd's was £169m. what? surely that can't be right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 They were saying on Talksport earlier that the cost of Man City's first 11 on Sunday was £161m while Man Utd's was £169m. what? surely that can't be right? Man Utd 01 De Gea 03 Evra 04 Jones Booked 05 Ferdinand 06 Evans 11 Giggs Booked 16 Carrick 18 Young (Nani - 82' ) 22 Scholes Booked 25 Valencia 10 Rooney Man City 25 Hart 04 Kompany 05 Zabaleta 06 Lescott 22 Clichy 18 Barry (Dzeko - 69' ) 19 Nasri 21 Silva 42 Y Toure (De Jong - 44' ) 16 Aguero Booked 32 Tevez (Balotelli - 75' ) Can't be bothered to dig out all the figures but there are some expensive players in that Man Utd side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 City team is worth around 200m mark. Ridiculous. Average wage 85k. Ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 i pegged that manyoo team about 150m, fucking paupers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2sheds Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Funny how all the manure fans are coming out with this "well paid citeh" s**** about how they bought the league - of course they did, but how much did manures squad cost??? De Gea £19m, Jones £17m, Vidic £7m, Ferdinand £30m, Evra £6m, Nani £20m, Carrick £18m, Valencia £16m, Young £8m, Rooney £26m, Berbatov £30m. Indeed. It's such an empty jibe to say they bought the league when every winning team since the year dot has done exactly the same. I like Vincent Company, top bloke/awesome player. I couldn't agree more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magpie418 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 not sure about accuracy: · 01 De Gea - £18.9m · 03 Evra - £5.5m · 04 Jones - £16.5m-£20m · 05 Ferdinand - £33m · 06 Evans - academy · 11 Giggs - academy · 16 Carrick - £14m-£18.6m · 18 Young - £15m · 22 Scholes - academy · 25 Valencia - £16m · 10 Rooney - £25.6m Total: £144.5m - £152.6m · 25 Hart - £0.6-1.5m · 04 Kompany - £6m · 05 Zabaleta - £6.45m · 06 Lescott - £22m · 22 Clichy - £7m · 18 Barry - £12m · 19 Nasri - £25m · 21 Silva - £24m · 42 Y Toure - £24m · 16 Aguero - £35m · 32 Tevez - £47m (alleged) Total: £209.05m - £209.95m The only positive thing about a city win for me would of been the news that one (or both) of the Gallagher brothers were found dead in a pool of their own sick today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 When people are saying citeh bought the title they are meaning it the cash to buy it with wasn't earned by the club. I've no problem with any club outspending everyone else if they have earned the.cash or are taking the risks with their debt. Man city and Chelsea have none of this. In their case a rich man bought the title, in man utds case they earned it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magpie418 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 When people are saying citeh bought the title they are meaning it the cash to buy it with wasn't earned by the club. I've no problem with any club outspending everyone else if they have earned the.cash or are taking the risks with their debt. Man city and Chelsea have none of this. In their case a rich man bought the title, in man utds case they earned it. Agree with you in part, but if city managed to spunk the same amount of cash by getting that amount on loan from a bank, I would say they still bought it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juniatmoko Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 When people are saying citeh bought the title they are meaning it the cash to buy it with wasn't earned by the club. I've no problem with any club outspending everyone else if they have earned the.cash or are taking the risks with their debt. Man city and Chelsea have none of this. In their case a rich man bought the title, in man utds case they earned it. Basically rich man keep being rich while poor man keep being poor man. Not even a slightest luck can bring an improvement to the poor man to raise his standard of living. The only way poor man improving himself is having shit load of debt that actually strangle him forever. Aye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest je85 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Is there anything at all to like about Man City? Vincent Kompany, seems a thoroughly level headed grounded pro. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Is there anything at all to like about Man City? Vincent Kompany, seems a thoroughly level headed grounded pro. Came across well in his interview with Lineker yesterday on MOTD and made some nice comments about us on Twitter last week as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlouismag Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I like Vincent Company, top bloke/awesome player. Yep. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I like Vincent Company, top bloke/awesome player. Yep. Definitely one of the top FTSE 100 players in the world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest je85 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Regarding buying the league and all that, Iain Macintosh article http://sport.uk.msn.com/football/back-of-the-net/manchester-city-a-title-won-not-bought#scpshrtu Manchester City: a title won, not bought City and Mancini deserve credit for their title success, writes Iain MacIntosh. Even Manchester City's most ardent fans, assuming that any of them have survived their hangovers and can actually read this column, would acknowledge that yesterday could never have been possible without the financial support of Sheikh Mansour. But if rival supporters think that that taints City's victory, they're mistaken. You can't have success without money, but having money doesn't necessarily guarantee success. Massimo Moratti discovered that with Internazionale when 10 years of heavy spending won him precisely zero Serie A titles. Money brings its own pressure and to suggest that City have bought the Premier League is accurate only in so much that every team who has lifted the title has, to some extent, bought their glory. Manchester United generate their own money, in spite of the horrendous interest repayments visited upon them by their owners, and that money is the product of success. But what was a factor in achieving that success? Money. "Arsenal didn't tempt Sol Campbell away from Spurs with a fruit basket and the promise of a decent parking place" In 1987, Sir Alex Ferguson signed Brian McClair and Steve Bruce for £1.75m, a mighty outlay in those days. The next year, he spent roughly the same on Mark Hughes. A year later, he made £2.5m Gary Pallister the most expensive defender ever. In the 90s, Blackburn Rovers went on a trolley dash, swiping everything off the shelves in their hunger for the title. Arsenal didn't tempt Sol Campbell away from Spurs with a fruit basket and the promise of a decent parking place, they offered him more money than Tottenham could ever hope to match and went on to win the title undefeated. And where do we start with Chelsea? Not all of City's spending has been outlandish. In £600,000 Joe Hart, City have one of the best goalkeepers in the league. In £19m David De Gea, a fine young stopper with great potential, United do not. In £6m Vincent Kompany, City have an indomitable defender. United spent around £25m on Chris Smalling and Phil Jones, and they missed Nemanja Vidic terribly. Sure, City broke the bank for Yaya Toure, but he's one of their most crucial players. United spent almost £20m on Anderson and even when he's fit, he hasn't been good enough. And what of £30m Wayne Rooney and £30m Dimitar Berbatov? United have no moral high ground on spending. City won the title because they were the best team. They won because Roberto Mancini built a secure defence, added silk to the steel, ignored his detractors and somehow managed to endure huge personal pressure without cracking, sticking two pencils up his nose and shouting 'wibble.' To attempt to take anything away from him or his team is churlish in the extreme. They deserve their success. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorJ_01 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I love Kompany Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 £6mil for Kompany is a steal! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Juniatmoko.......Leeds,Newcastle etc. If its your debt and you make mistakes it costs you on the pitch. What risk is there for citeh and Chelsea ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now