Difference between spending the money you earn back in the game and being given billions above and beyond what you earn and spending it(as in City) When Liverpool were "buying the league" they were earning that much. When United were "buying the league" they were earning it.. It all changed when Roman said to Jose "spend any amount you want, I'll cover it". Yes, money has always bought titles , but once upon a time that money came from being successful, not just from some rich uncle in the oil business.
And how did Liverpool or any team get the money in the first place to earn it as it were It’s not something we will ever agree on even if a team ‘earns it’ as you have put it and they pay the players more that still doesn’t make it ‘fair’ imho - it makes it more palatable for many However if you are Prescott Gables or Marine you can NEVER Hold on to your best players All Roman etc ever did was take the level up a gear the oil money has taken it up a gear again Chelsea could argue they earned the money by enticing a multi billionaire oligarch to their club so I am sorry I just do not agree on your take on it I am also acutely aware I am in minority on here however there's a million of us just like me Who cuss like me, who just don't give a **** like me Who dress like me, walk talk and act like me And just might Hang on…
100% spot on. I never had a problem with Man Utd spending, I didn't like it but they earnt that position
See I did have a problem with their spending because it’s not a level playing field and did they earn it or did they take loans out and were allowed to use money they didn’t have and/or offset it Which another club may not be permitted to do? as I keep saying imho it’s all relative Many accuse Chelsea of blowing the playing field but Utd paying 90mil for Pogba started silly season which the Prem has never recovered from the levels of money spent in the Prem on players is obscene
They earnt it by being successful and building a squad. They spent £30m on a player when others were spending £15m-£20m but they usually only bought that one player in a window too. They used a lot of youth/club players to fill their squad Agree about the figures being obscene but that's a different argument
Long time no visit. How you Scousers and pretend Scousers getting on? As far as the Op Question is concerned I’m not sure if any of us will still be alive by the time any decision is made. It will be delayed and deferred and kicked down the road and appealed and everyone will have forgotten what it was all about and probably end up with a slap on the wrist and a suspended sentence that all involved have agreed with.
They got that initial outlay due to having a good season when sky injected a lot of money into the sport and winnings In essence they won a lottery of timing and good business and superb group of youth coming through Chelsea won a lottery too City won a lottery too As I said the lottery Utd won to you and many others Makes it more palatable however when you come from Crewe et al that really doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference We won’t agree and I am not trying to change your opinion just giving another take on it Both are right and both are wrong - just depends on your own personal viewpoint I am aware I just repeating myself lol sorry But appreciate what you are saying
Yep But clubs below the PL didn’t And this is where Prem fans get a slightly skewed view from It’s never been fair It never will be I have no Problem with City and the funds they have acquired The ‘rules’ have been placed and as yet city are innocent and if cleared will you accept it ? As I said they could claim they ‘earned’ the money by enticing the owner in the first instance You have your line and I have mine Just a different opinion I off to watch Hustle Otherwise I will be here all night lmao
No offence, but I don't understand how you can't see the difference. At the very least you must acknowledge there's a difference of degree if not of kind? City, and Chelsea before them, could field two full teams of almost identical quality, both able to hold their own with any other team in the league. No team in the 60's or 70's could do that. Liverpool grew to be arguably the best club side in the world of that era, without access to a pantheon of global superstars, or the resources to just pay 2 or 3 times the going rate for whoever they wanted. The two eras aren't even remotely comparable.
I do see a difference in the journey but the final destination is the same imho Those who are anti oil/billionaire money find it more palatable that the clubs ‘earned’ the money they ‘earned’ that money by taking players from clubs who couldn’t afford what they could afford - but that is okay Big dog bites little dog but it’s okay because they did it fairly? in the beginning as I alluded to a few days ago this could have been because of local demographics. Ie city bigger than rural area Then the bigger club (due to being in a more densely populated area) initially has a bit more money so wins a league - so an up and coming player decided they want to play for a better club than the one they are at so they go to that club. this then progresses to a bigger club taking players from smaller clubs but it’s okay because they have ‘earned’ that right to do so so fast forward a few decades and because the ‘Sport’ has clearly become a ‘business’ a business larger than the smaller businesses steps in and buys a club but this hasn’t been ‘earned’ Despite the fact that a business has clearly ‘earned’ its way to the top where it can buy another business and spend its money as it feels free to do so. I find that to be a tad hypocritical - what the ‘bigger’ clubs are doing I. Relation to the super size clubs now - it all smacks of jealousy to me I didn’t agree with the ffp rules - for me they have always looked like a way to protect the richer clubs under the guise of protecting the less fortunate clubs. I cannot ever do anything about the parity between all clubs but I don’t understand why you can’t see my point of view I am just on here debating it I find it intriguing that it tends to be supporters of clubs who have been in the top league for a rather unchallenged long time that have began the protestations I can’t find the right analogy but supporters of say Stockport or Barrow or Morcambe have no dogs in the race and many of them have the same sort of perspective on this because at the end of the day this has happened to them for decades but morally it’s okay because it was earned I think our takes on ‘earning’ are different. also I have asked as have other posters that should City be found innocent what will be your opinions then ? tbf I do find this interesting I like it when you say the eras aren’t comparable but they are the same industry- I understand what you are saying but I believe it to be the natural evolution of the business that is now football. Make no bones - football is a business not a sport. You only need to look at some of the discussions on these boards that To es used to be involved in to see that. In bygone eras those discussions would not have occurred it’s just a natural evolution imho
@Bumps I guess to me the difference comes down to this: say, you're working at job for 30 years, working your way up the ladder, earning your promotions, getting correct accreditations and putting in overtime... You're second in line and the CEO retires and promotes you his 21 year old nephew who just graduated but has the same last name as him, to take the helm upon his retirement. That's how it feels when an oil baron comes in an sweeps a club up by throwing untold riches at it when other clubs have been working hard to earn their money so they can get better players.
Yep I understand that As I said it’s like a club has won the lottery but in your analogy that is not illegal and that person would feel like **** But say there was another worker in that company who had done all of the above but due to not being as naturally intelligent had been overlooked and had never made it out of the mailroom despite that same dedication what do you think their opinion of the other chap coming in would be ? the situations are not the same imho btw just chatting with you As I keep saying I do see your view point but in this I just don’t.
The best analogy here is not some guy working hard for 30 years etc. its more like this. imagine you work in an industry where its competitive but you work hard and things go well for you but some mega rich dude who's got himself in trouble for beheading people and beating women decides your industry is ideal to rebuild his rep so he pours in 400% of any possible profit level as investment then pays double to all your staff to join his new company and goes about advertising how **** your service was and hor great his is. you'd be fairly ****ing pissed. especially given the fact you find the money is coming actually from laundering tory PPE money or some other ill gotten source.
No they couldn’t for all reasons above Leicester required a sugar daddy and to cheat to win the thing and yet they are held aloft as some fairytale. The irony for me here is clubs who were pissed about the ESL were in the greedy group did we need a premier league ‘product’ That last word being key We had a top tier anyway I am getting onto other topics MITO again I get what you are saying but you are being very selective over morality I have said this before and I dare say it will come up again morality and that league do not mix - to not see what other clubs including our own get up to is extremely myopic at best imho I have already said I understand what you guys are saying I just don’t agree with you. world is big enough for two differing opinions
I'm not. city have actually broken the rules, and indeed quite probably should be in court over failure to declare proper accounts for tax purposes, never mind with the Prem. yes you are right the whole of football is rife with money and leeches. That simply doesn't excuse city's action.
I think the phrase that I believe is applicable is those in glass houses If they are going to rectify this whole sordid mess then that is great but I just don’t see how that’s done. let’s not include the social atrocities to the accounting issues The two are not remotely the same unless we are going to delve into our own back yard. Prem is a cess pit imho I contribute to it by watching so I am not going to get on my high horse and preach. you have City guilty till proven innocent here. But when/if City are cleared we will all be good yeah or if found guilty we will all back the decision made by the relevant people as them will be the rules yeah.
That’s because city have already been found guilty once already and got off with a technicality. At the moment, the prem have also in effect found them guilty and now said to city it’s your time to defend yourself. Burden of proof is now in city to prove they aren’t guilty.
I'm not in a glass house If LFC are caught doing wrong (see u18 transfers) I call them out. I have called us out on super league. I can do no more than that! As for watching the prem making me culpable, nope. I pay for a service and thats it, I don't ask for much bar it be a relatively clean service. This is a case of fraud pure and simple IMO. They've been at it and caught and managed with UEFA to squeak out. Now the prem are using the same evidence but without the get outs. This all needs cleaning up. standing back and saying glass houses and all that is exactly the same as what I said to saint yesterday on VAR.... If you don't call it like you see it then whats the point? Its enabling city to get away with it just as Cheslea are being allowed away with blue murder in the last year financially. Theres a massive difference between companies competing and what is in effect financial doping on a grand scale in front of the entire world to see.
