Manchester City

[cp40]

Man Citys current standing has been laid on quickly set foundations.  im not saying unstable- just not long dug in foundations. they are like an expensive house of cards. It will be great for a time- but as soon as it starts to wobble.......the in fighting, egos, big time charlies, it will all turn ugly

 

They have made efforts to look at the longer term though, not least with the plans for those unbelievable training facilities for developing their own players.  I don't think that expense will count against them with the new rules, correct me if I'm wrong, so that's a way to re-direct the crazy money available and build for the long term.

 

 

fair dos- but im not convinced it wont go the way of chelsea. Theres something uneasy about mancini, not sure what, but it dont look all rosey in the garden there to me, and im not sure this type of club the manager will ever feel secure.

[wormy]

Man Citys current standing has been laid on quickly set foundations.  im not saying unstable- just not long dug in foundations. they are like an expensive house of cards. It will be great for a time- but as soon as it starts to wobble.......the in fighting, egos, big time charlies, it will all turn ugly

 

Meh, the same was said about Chelsea. No matter who causes problems, you ship him out instantly, and bring in a replacement equally as good. When you've got that level of money, it outweighs negative personalities. The only way in which it is a pack of cards is if the owners leave and they can't find as minted a replacement. Same as most clubs with levels of debt, except obviously teams like this will come crashing down even more spectacularly.

[Guest Haris Vuckic]

Is what they have done/doing really any different to what the likes of manchester united, chelsea, blackburn and others before them have done over the years?

 

When did Manchester United have a wealthy benefactor? All of their income was self generated.

 

 

[Tiresias]

Man Citys current standing has been laid on quickly set foundations.  im not saying unstable- just not long dug in foundations. they are like an expensive house of cards. It will be great for a time- but as soon as it starts to wobble.......the in fighting, egos, big time charlies, it will all turn ugly

 

They have made efforts to look at the longer term though, not least with the plans for those unbelievable training facilities for developing their own players.  I don't think that expense will count against them with the new rules, correct me if I'm wrong, so that's a way to re-direct the crazy money available and build for the long term.

 

They have to break even under the new rules, but there is leeway in that if they are shown to moving in right direction UEFA can make an exception, and one wonders if UEFA would really kick a hugely rich team out of the CL. The point as I understand it is that the big clubs in general are very much for this as it will stop them spending so much, they see themselves spending so much purely to compete and if they can all stop at once would be ideal. I wonder if it'll work though, it doesn't quite go anywhere near as address all the problems with the greedy money grabbing pile of bastards that operate at all levels of the top leagues across europe etc etc, but then again if it cuts down on the stupid money thrown around it could well be very good all round.

[Interpolic]

Man Citys current standing has been laid on quickly set foundations.  im not saying unstable- just not long dug in foundations. they are like an expensive house of cards. It will be great for a time- but as soon as it starts to wobble.......the in fighting, egos, big time charlies, it will all turn ugly

 

They have made efforts to look at the longer term though, not least with the plans for those unbelievable training facilities for developing their own players.  I don't think that expense will count against them with the new rules, correct me if I'm wrong, so that's a way to re-direct the crazy money available and build for the long term.

 

They have to break even under the new rules, but there is leeway in that if they are shown to moving in right direction UEFA can make an exception, and one wonders if UEFA would really kick a hugely rich team out of the CL. The point as I understand it is that the big clubs in general are very much for this as it will stop them spending so much, they see themselves spending so much purely to compete and if they can all stop at once would be ideal. I wonder if it'll work though, it doesn't quite go anywhere near as address all the problems with the greedy money grabbing pile of bastards that operate at all levels of the top leagues across europe etc etc, but then again if it cuts down on the stupid money thrown around it could well be very good all round.

 

They surely can't penalise a club for spending money on stuff other than player wages / transfer fees though.  Training facilities, scouting development, ground improvements are surely not what they're looking to stamp out, even if clubs are spending a bit beyond their means to develop in this respect.

 

What if a club wants to move to a new stadium on a bank loan for hundreds of millions of pounds, a la Arsenal?  I suppose with it being a loan that would probably be a bit different.  I honestly think much of this will be so murky that UEFA will never have the conviction to do a damn thing about it.

[Disco]

Stadiums and youth investment aren't counted IIRC.

 

However, Uefa’s break-even calculation is not the same as a club’s statutory accounts. Expenditure such as youth development, stadium infrastructure and community development does not count towards FFP. Depreciation on tangible fixed assets is also excluded.

 

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2866/analysis/2011/05/11/2479628/what-is-financial-fair-play-and-how-will-uefa-enforce-it-on

[Guest gggg]

The break even mark is up to a £45m loss over three years isn't it? I can't see how Inter Milan who are losing 150m a year and have a wage budget bigger than their revenue, plus one the oldest squad in Europe that needs rebuilding are going to manage it.

[Interpolic]

The break even mark is up to a £45m loss over three years isn't it? I can't see how Inter Milan who are losing 150m a year and have a wage budget bigger than their revenue, plus one the oldest squad in Europe that needs rebuilding are going to manage it.

 

Fucking hell, seriously?

[Guest gggg]

Yeah the Swiss rambler did a piece on them except i meant 150m euros - 130m pounds, but in 2007 they lost €208 million.

[cp40]

Man Citys current standing has been laid on quickly set foundations.  im not saying unstable- just not long dug in foundations. they are like an expensive house of cards. It will be great for a time- but as soon as it starts to wobble.......the in fighting, egos, big time charlies, it will all turn ugly

 

Meh, the same was said about Chelsea. No matter who causes problems, you ship him out instantly, and bring in a replacement equally as good. When you've got that level of money, it outweighs negative personalities. The only way in which it is a pack of cards is if the owners leave and they can't find as minted a replacement. Same as most clubs with levels of debt, except obviously teams like this will come crashing down even more spectacularly.

 

 

tbh they are a fair example of my argument at this moment in time.

[cp40]

Is what they have done/doing really any different to what the likes of manchester united, chelsea, blackburn and others before them have done over the years?

 

When did Manchester United have a wealthy benefactor? All of their income was self generated.

 

 

 

 

Tin Hat on--- I hope the fuck Man Utd win the league this season , cos these twants are making Fergie look like the epitome of footballing integrity.

[Guest Haris Vuckic]

Is what they have done/doing really any different to what the likes of manchester united, chelsea, blackburn and others before them have done over the years?

 

When did Manchester United have a wealthy benefactor? All of their income was self generated.

 

 

 

 

Tin Hat on--- I hope the f*** Man Utd win the league this season , cos these twants are making Fergie look like the epitome of footballing integrity.

 

I agree.

[Guest gggg]

City have a long way to go match the lack of football integrity of Martin "smaller clubs are bleeding the game dry. For the sake of football, they should be put to sleep." Edwards and co.

[Guest BooBoo]

Even before the money came along, Man City have always been a shower of shite. I remember the FA Cup game up here in 2001/2 ish. One of the few games in the last fifteen years where there been trouble all over the town. I think NUFC.com got it right in their match report at the time labelling them 'vermin'.

[Disco]

Even before the money came along, Man City have always been a shower of shite. I remember the FA Cup game up here in 2001/2 ish. One of the few games in the last fifteen years where there been trouble all over the town. I think NUFC.com got it right in their match report at the time labelling them 'vermin'.

 

Remember there being bother in the old Gallowgate bus station where we used to park that night. Loads of City knocking about itching for a bit of action.

[Ronaldo]

Even before the money came along, Man City have always been a shower of s****. I remember the FA Cup game up here in 2001/2 ish. One of the few games in the last fifteen years where there been trouble all over the town. I think NUFC.com got it right in their match report at the time labelling them 'vermin'.

 

A word about the City fans. In the words of the Major in Fawlty Towers - vermin.

[Stottie]

I think its amazing how the general behind-the-scenes ineptitude at our club is commented upon far more often that Chelsea's. Showing Mourinho and Ancelotti the door, undermining Avram Grant even before the CL final (the only game I've wanted them to win and for that very reason), the Shevchenko and now Torres episodes....that club is very badly run. Its a credit to consistency of Lampard, Drogba etc. that they have not fallen harder and sooner.

 

As for Citeh, I don't mind them winning the title a couple of times to piss off ManYoo and their legions of plastics. No dynasty though, please. Even if Citeh run away with the league this time, the mini league at the top for the CL places is now about as competitive as it has been for a long long time. Citeh's rise has really shaken Chelsea and Arsenal, and may well frustrate Liverpool's attempts to get back up there. There's no cozy Sky Four any more.

[Dr Venkman]

Not surprising that our ineptitude is talked about more,in recent years they've won things,we've been relegated.

[Lagerstedt]

Tunnel cam from our game

http://mcfc.co.uk/Video/Features/Manchester-City-v-Newcastle-United-tunnel-cam-20-Nov

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Blackburn were not financed by Jack Walker, he may have bought the club and loaned it a few million here and there but their purchases, like Shearer, Sutton, Batty et al were purchased via money coming through from Sky, sold out matches, huge sponsorship etc. Blackburn didn't buy the title and neither has Man Utd or Arsenal ever bought the title - all self sufficient clubs. Chelsea have bought succcess and City have too and as such I personally feel their success is kind of false.

 

I hate Man Utd but I would never look down on their success or begrudge them their success. They are the model club to be honest. Every penny spent by that club comes from its own coffers and not some rich person or rich people. Money generated through the turnstiles, through merchandise, TV deals, sponsorship and above all else through success, success built on the excellence of their manager in building winning sides.

 

Man Utd are a commercial club of course and are supported by many glory seekers but fundamentally as a football club they are the shining light of our game in that they lead the way and show the way to success both on the pitch and off it in a commercial way without compromising their history and tradition. Their fans too, their proper fans, are first class, especially away from home. Very knowledgeable and respectful.

 

Manchester City are a vile football club these days in every sense as are Chelsea.

 

I remember when Abramovic came in and spent something like 50m in a few weeks on Parker, Cole et al and Sir Bobby who had taken us into the top 4, said of it all, we may as well all go home, as how can you compete with that? You can't.

[Guest BooBoo]

I'm pretty sure Blackburn were financed by Walker. Ewood Park is not big enough to generate huge funds and I certainly can't remember any big sponsor deals for them.

 

Blackburn set the benchmark for "buying" success. They came from nowhere with a sugar daddy and had financial muscle to outspend everyone. They bought a lot of flash in the pan players too just so rivals didn't snap them up. Paul Warhurst being a prime example after ten good games for Sheff Wed.

 

To an extent, in the same era Derby County tried the same but it went sour for them when they missed out on promotion.

[cp40]

I think the previous argument about blackburn, and derby - the benifactors were lifelong fans. ten years ago the big money from abroad  hadnt even heard of chelsea or man city.

[Guest BooBoo]

I think the previous argument about blackburn, and derby - the benifactors were lifelong fans. ten years ago the big money from abroad  hadnt even heard of chelsea or man city.

 

Yep. Jack Walker did what I guess most fans would like to do. Bankroll his local club to a league title. Incredible really in four years they went from Division 2 dross to league champions. Theirs was certainly the most meteoric rise as a small Lancashire town who had no real history of being a top side. In a sense Chelsea and Man City have always been big clubs in terms of support and history.

 

It's always slightly annoyed me though, how Blackburn managed to just claw their way to the top whereas we just missed out. Very fine margin too, considering they lost on the last day yet still won the league as Man Utd couldn't beat West Ham. I always thought that the difference with Blackburn was that in Flowers they had a top class keeper and in Colin Hendry, a top defensive centre back.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I'm pretty sure Blackburn were financed by Walker. Ewood Park is not big enough to generate huge funds and I certainly can't remember any big sponsor deals for them.

 

Blackburn set the benchmark for "buying" success. They came from nowhere with a sugar daddy and had financial muscle to outspend everyone. They bought a lot of flash in the pan players too just so rivals didn't snap them up. Paul Warhurst being a prime example after ten good games for Sheff Wed.

 

To an extent, in the same era Derby County tried the same but it went sour for them when they missed out on promotion.

 

Between 92-95 there wasn't the huge gulf in finances between clubs as exists today and Blackburn, being one of the the new Premier League's better clubs were well financed in terms of TV money, sponsorship and gate reciepts, they used to average between 28-30K gates at Ewood Park for example, only a few thousand less than us. They were sponsored by McEwans too, who used to sponsor us, they paid top whack in line with say with Sharp or JVC who were sponsoring Man Utd and Arsenal respectively so on that front they were generating good income too. In short, Walker was not bank rolling them in the way Abramovic and the arabs have done so at Chelsea and Man City. Walker helped finance Blackburn but he wasn't getting out his own personal chequebook to sign Shearer for example.

 

Back in the early to mid 90s clubs were spending fortunes on players because of the huge TV money and booming interest in the game as whole following Italia 90 and the advent of the Premier League. People would point to Newcastle and Blackburn spending silly money but every club was spending silly money.

 

It is interesting that you mention Derby mind. It boils my piss when people say we bought promotion back in 93 yet Derby and West Ham spent something like 10m each that season which again reinforces my point that in general clubs not just in the top-flight but lower down, were spending big sums. I remember Oxford United spending 1.5m on Joey Beuchamp and Birmingham 1.5m on Ricky Otto. Not big money today but back then big money on what were lower league players.

 

Speaking about NUFC, people used to paint Sir John Hall as a sugar daddy which he simply wasn't. He put about 4m into the club in total most of which was used up on shares and PR. He personally wrote a cheque out for 50K for Kilcline I think but that was his lot when it come to players. We bought Shearer because in 3 years the club when from making a 2m loss a year to making 50m a year. Blackburn similar (although not 50m, I think it was at the time, 30m).

 

Wages were not a problem either. When we signed Shearer we paid him 35K a week. Today Alan Smith who cannot get a game for us is paid double that.

 

In short back then clubs could afford to buy a Shearer, Suton, Cole or Collymore and pay them 30K a week. Today clubs cannot afford to shell out the equiverlent unless they are managed by a sugar daddy or get that extra CL money.

 

Back to Blackburn, they didn't buy success. Their total outlay in terms of transfer fees and wages were covered not by Jack Walker but the huge sums they were getting from TV, gate reciepts and sponsorship money at a time when football in this countr went from being a working class sport to a game for everyone, especially those with disposable income. After Sky - and little is paid attention to the fact - season tickets and match ticket prices went through the roof.

 

NUFC in the space of 12 months went from losing 2m a year to making 12m. Our first year in the PL saw that figure double and then trebble. 5 years later and we were making 60m a season. After the expansion of SJP and European footy, that doubled under Sir Bobby, all within a decade.

 

It was first UEFA who fucked footy by allowing 4 clubs into the CL and then the likes of Abramovic.

 

The best NUFC can ever hope for unless we are bought by an Abramovic is the Europa League and how sad is that.

 

Back in the early 90s and mid nineties footy was more competitive. A sleeping giant could go from within going bust to the top of the top division within a year without having to spend mega money (we were that club) or a club like Blackburn could win the league. How about Forest finishing 3rd or Norwich likewise? Never going to happen now unless we get rid of the Arabs and Abramovic's and UEFA revert the CL back to being a tournament for Champions and not rewarding them fucking daft money for qualifying. Never going happen though.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I think the previous argument about blackburn, and derby - the benifactors were lifelong fans. ten years ago the big money from abroad  hadnt even heard of chelsea or man city.

 

Yep. Jack Walker did what I guess most fans would like to do. Bankroll his local club to a league title. Incredible really in four years they went from Division 2 dross to league champions. Theirs was certainly the most meteoric rise as a small Lancashire town who had no real history of being a top side. In a sense Chelsea and Man City have always been big clubs in terms of support and history.

 

It's always slightly annoyed me though, how Blackburn managed to just claw their way to the top whereas we just missed out. Very fine margin too, considering they lost on the last day yet still won the league as Man Utd couldn't beat West Ham. I always thought that the difference with Blackburn was that in Flowers they had a top class keeper and in Colin Hendry, a top defensive centre back.

 

Colin Hendry reckons we tried to buy him but Blackburn simply wouldn't sell him. I agree completely him and Flowers in our defence and we'd have won it by a canter.