We don't. It's been converted to equity. As for cartel we've had 3 different winners in the last 3 years. Can you honestly predict who would win/challenge for the league this season? Could you have done 10 years ago? Easily. Not everybody can realistically challenge at the moment but I'd much rather have 4 strong contenders than 2. If we're being honest 10 years ago United and Arsenal were so far ahead of the rest it was behind laughable
But you spent it without being a top European side to make yourself one... and spent it in half the time Initially? It's 10 years on and you're still making huge losses. You've got it without actually grasping it. United built up slowly and on the back of success, you did neither. Is United's way better? Yes. Is United spending vast sums that there "earn" from sales of Beckham/Ronaldo/Rooney shirts over in China in the interests of competition? No. It's not a loan as you will never pay it back and will never be asked to... and will never pay interest. The Premier League and Uefa distribute a big chunk of the amount of money spent between all the competitors and a certain amount gets allocated according to a team's success in the tournament. Is that different to one person running a club at losses in excess of £60mill a year(including the Sky and CL money)? You know it is. Nothing to do with the evil media twisting everything, you're almost unanimously accepted by the media, it's the fans that have a problem with it. The league would be even more predictable if it was just United winning everything. For the record, I don't have a huge problem with Chelseas and Citys in the grand scheme of things but I will disagree with you when you're using excuses that don't even make sense. Anyway, I didn't want to get into all this. I just wanted to point out that you're not "dramatically" reducing your losses
Converted to equity? How? If somebody already owns 100% of shares, the only way you can increase their equity "holding", is by dilution. Yes, I can quite easily predict who will chAllenge for the title this season. It will be City, Utd, or Chelsea. Strange how two of those three comprise what I would call the new cartel. Chelsea had a bad season in the Prem last year, but they will be challenging this year, thanks to yet more "loans" from your benefactor. Arsenal are out of the running nowadays, IMO. They are the first casualties of the massive City and Chelsea spending sprees.
I repeat, if you read my posts they were to do with the title of the thread FFP why are you obsessed with this who's won more, ok you may have won a few more cups than us but a bigger club, ur havin a laf, the league is the big one and we have won it twice since you last won it over half a century ago, big clubs have good grounds and big crowds you have neither!
Man City's turnover: £153m Man City's wage bill: £174m Why haven't UEFA included them on the list of teams they're investigating? They clearly can't pay their own way.
nothing gets the spuds worked up like the truth. The more abusive Liverpool referenced replies the more I know I hit the nail on the head, nothing gets you lot spitting feathers like the unpalatable truth about spuds. Calling the champions a smaller club than last years 4th place team a team that has not won fk all for a very very very long time. A club that cannot attract top names but are rather a shop window for players looking for better things, Berba vDV Modric to name but some. Those players took any auld half arsed prem club cos why? 1. The exposure globally of the prem 2. They'll be guaranteed game time joining a half arsed club like spuds. 3. They'll look good compared to the rest of tat sheite team and get a contract with a proper club. Dembele will be with you 2 years at most if he continues to be as good as he is. Enjoy this season you giant shop window club
And here we have living proof of the dumbing down of education standards. Surely you must be waiting for the nice white bus to come and take you to your special school? What an irrelevant moron!
RE MB post - I repeat you said you were on a similar level to us pre your lottery wins, and you were/are are simply wrong on that score We were a much bigger and more successful club than City A couple of cups? no wonder you were/are under the delusion your team was of similar size - it was 6 cups - that's a 6-0 hammering you took off us over 30 years Cups were actually bigger in the 80s than they are now, but let's agree the league is the key issue - we beat you on that hands down and then some on that score too - you ended up in DIV 3 we have been ever -presents in the top flight since 1980 - in the 31 seasons bewteen 1980-2010 we absolutely slaughtered you 26-5, a complete and utter hammering As you say the League is the biggy - and boy did we dominate City So that's 6-0 to us in the cups 26-5 to us in the league, and yet you were on a similar level to us - course you were Had you not been given a stadium and then some oil wells, you would have continued to labour in our shadow. Maybe not no much as the previous 30 years, but no way would you have got to our level. IMHO of course
More successful? Yes. Undeniably. Bigger? No. You were a cup team and always have been, although a very good cup team that played good stylish football I might add. As for domination yes you may have dominated City in that time period but what did you win? It accounted for nothing. City were doing okay under Shinawatra, they were about midtable/lower half which is what Spurs were at the time. Both are big clubs in their own right but to suggest Spurs are/were a bigger club than City is a tad nieve IMO. City are easily amongst the top 5 in England now club size was and before Mansour they would easily have been in the top 10.
We were ahead of City when Shinawatra was around - we'd just finished fifth twice in a row and won the Carling Cup in that period, before Ramos lost the plot and Comolli lost a lot of our bank balance. Also, if we're "just a cup team", what were City before the billions turned up? A team who'd recently been in the third tier that were hoping for a decent cup run, whilst looking over their shoulder for most of the season.
I didn't read DL's post as he's on ignore, but I gather he talks about us as just 'a cup team' I've already explained THAT IN THE LEAGUE WE HAMMERED CITY 26-5 btween 1980-2010 I hope this helps THAT'S 26-5 BTW, TO US in case anyone isn't sure
And in his sig? On behalf of Liverpool fans everywhere, I suggest that you stop embarrassing your club.
Apart from Arsenal, Everton United and Liverpool I'd argue all the successful clubs are cup teams so that isn't a dig. I include Chelsea in that to an extent, although our league performance has improved since Harding and moreso RA. Didn't Spurs finish 11th the season Sheikhs came in? I could be wrong but if I am I'll hold my hands up. The only point I was trying to make is I don't believe Spurs were as far ahead of City as GHoddle10 seems to believe.
In that time we had three straight seasons in Europe (two for finishing fifth, one for the CC win), City had one for the Fair Play League - but what also stands out in that season is that we signed Vedran Corluka from them, their Fan's Player of the Year from the previous season, without much difficulty. I doubt we'd be finding it easy to bring in David Silva this season somehow...
We were 6-0 and 26-5 ahead of City before the benefits of a free stadium and the oil wells started rolling in. We may not have continued such a huge level of domination, that's hard to keep up I accept, but continue to dominate we surely would have. IMHO.
Blackburn have been champions once as well, are they a bigger club than Spurs or as big as your club?
We're not talking about Champions of a good 16 years ago, we're talking about the current Champions, the team that has a larger fanbase and better playing staff.
lol trying to justify things to DL and the biggest scouse idiot on not606....whenever DL argues a point...you know there will be some manic obsessive trait behind his comments with regards Spurs.
