Hi City Fans

I was just wondering what your honest thoughts were on the fact that you have had to buy your success? because im sure most of you moaned when chelsea did it.

im just wondering. cheers.

 

At least Chelsea had a decent team before they won the lottery, Man City were ****ing dire.

 

Says the manure "fan" from rochester.
Oot "fans" like you are more hated by proper reds than opposition fans.

 

How does it feel to know that your whole existence is due to bribery and corruption?

 

In the case of Mcfc72 (72 being his probable IQ) he no doubt hopes a bought title or two will stop the bitterness eating away at his already twisted being.

Before the FFP rules kick in and they drop outta the top 4 again like a sack of **** that is.

 

Year - Manchester United - Manchester City

98/99... £27,750,000................ £1,480,000
99/00... £17,800,000l................£7,450,000
00/01... £0............................. £13,250,000
01/02... £57,000,000................ £32,700,000
02/03... £29,050,000................ £10,250,000
03/04... £53,350,000................. £9,800,000
04/05... £27,200,000.................. £0
05/06... £19,500,000................ .£9,750,000
06/07... £18,600,000................. £2,400,000
07/08... £61,750,000................. £45,820,000

please log in to view this image

 

Good luck MCFC, if ever there's a set of fans that deserve success. it's them - totally different to the attitude of Chelsea fans when their sugar daddy rolled in......football has always been driven by deep pockets, it's just a different scale now - I just hope that the new money doesn't encourage too many of the 'prawn munchers' to your ranks.

 

Reverend Ramsey, well sure the same can be said of your team Arsenal,after all when they where succesful alot of that team had been bought by Arsene Wenger so the question goses right back at you mate.

As for me I look at it this way their is not a single team in any of the divisions from the Prem right down to the bottom club in league 2 who has got a full team that has not come through their own academy from school kids to full time pro players. Therefore every team who pays a transfer fee for any player, is trying to buy success by bring in players from other clubs.

 

Why can't you understand that Man Utd's money has been EARNT?

 

This has been discussed before in length and i agreed with the united fans that you did indeed earn the money but you cannot deny the money you have continued to receive from winning the PL and competing in the CL for years has not helped you stay at the top almost guaranteeing a flow of cash the rest of the clubs outside the top 4 could only dream of, look at the spending over the years do you honestly think you would have done so well if we had all been on a level playing field financially speaking?

 

Are you jealous because you're not getting any?

You can **** off too

 

Having ridiculous amounts pumped into your club by Sky isn't fairly earning it in my book. It distorted football and was wrong from the very start. And even if it were fair - and let's be clear, it wasn't - that still counts as buying success.

Man U fans have no right to pontificate.

 

Well said.

Stones and glass houses, United.

 

You might as well explain it to monkeys Father Jack
They imagine there's some strange kudos in having an unfair advantage now City have equal spend-ability their crying like babies.

 

All Premiership clubs were given money by Sky but Man Utd used their money better than others.

 

Man Utd, unlike Man City, spend less money than they earn you tools Man Utd earnt their money and spend within their means, Man City do not.

 

Why is Sky's money somehow more valid than Sheik Mansour's? Why do you think you can criticize Man City for spending money which their club itself didn't make when your club's whole 90s/00s boom was based on money which your club itself didn't make? All this money that comes in from external sources is as bad as the rest. "Hey, look at that guy's teeth that got destroyed by his meth addiction. Nothing like as bad as my nose which has been ruined by cocaine".

Personally, I think Man City, Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea have all been guilty of buying success. We were guilty of attempting it around the Millennium and were rightly shot down for our approach. I hope the same fate meets all the other clubs who have been complicit in this awful money-equals-success **** that top division English football has turned into since the ****ish revolutionaries decided to ruin it in 1992.

 

So making money through TV rights and through having a large fanbase isn't making money?

 

I think the footballing authorities should have fenced off TV money and put it into grassroots football and academies, rather than entrenching this current system of financial doping. It's clear that Sky's millions have ruined the competitiveness, fan experience and excitement of English football. It's also clear that money now is required for success to take place rather than simple ingenuity, atmosphere and hard work. Those things are plainly not a good state of affairs for English football to be in.

I talked about external money (Sky) not internal (fans buying merchandise). If the FA encroached on that, I'd have thought heavy-handed. But to answer the gist of your very loaded and strawman question, I don't think TV rights are a fair way of making money in football, just like I don't think players should have the right to charge their clubs for 'image rights' and bullshit like that. It's common sense really. If it's broke, fix it.

As a Man U fan, I can understand why you'd want this subsidized oligarchy at the top of English football to continue. But it's getting pretty boring for everyone else.

 

Hang on... how much debt are you in again?