Yes. According to the Deloitte money leagues Spurs were earning 30-40 mil per season more than City when you got taken over. City might like to pad out their stadium attendance figures with deals like kids go free and two for one but spurs were the bigger club (still are probably).
Go back as far as you like I think you will find City in general have always had bigger crowds, nice try though switching it to money!
Deffo agree with you about the sugar daddy problem messing the game up. But I wouldn't say Blackburn or Everton have particularly amazing fan bases - Blackburn in particular still get lower attendances than City did in the third tier back in 99. Unfortunately the hypothetical 60,000 stadium and all the success down to the fans would still give clubs like Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal big advantages. Those three and Norwich, Chelsea and Spurs are the only ones who have their stadia 99% full on average. Even City with all the discounted ticket offerings only get an average attendance of 47,000 in a 48,000 stadium, and with ticket prices way lower than Utd. And the Sky money actually helps lower clubs. Look at a club like Utd, who have revenue of around £330 million a year of which £60 million comes from Sky, and Blackburn with revenue of around £60 million a year of which around £45 million comes from Sky. Who needs the Sky money more? It's the Champions League money, and externalities, that are the problem imo. Spurs and Arsenal got around 30 million Euros apiece, Chelsea got 45 million and Utd got 56 million. But you can add an additional £6-12 million for having at least four sell out home games (six for Utd), and any number of additional commercial bonuses from sponsors for getting on the big stage. When you add that to the wage inflation at the top of the game, that has jumped up so sharply since Abramovich took over Chelsea, without the CL money or a sugar daddy clubs can find it very hard to attract the top players and thus can't get in the top four. Even Liverpool are now finding it hard to get back in after dropping out despite all their transfer market spending. Don't see why you should hate anyone to be honest - football has never really been fair, how else did Liverpool manage to dominate for so long? Success begets more success, as it does in pretty much every other walk of live. Hate life? Depends how far they would get. Last year you got around another 3 million Euro for reaching the second round, 3.5m for QF, 4m for SF, 6m for runner up and 9m for winner. So if they'd gone all the way they'd earn another 20 million Euro, compared to a max of around 5 million in the EL, but if they only got to the second round the difference wouldn't be too much. It's the qualification for the group stage that's the big money spinner, getting an English club at least 20 million Euro even if they don't get a single point. Only cos you have always had a larger stadium. Spurs have always had fewer empty seats, and a higher percentage of seats filled, than City. That is even the case this season, where Eastlands has been 98% full whilst WHL has been 99.5% full.
Only cos you have always had a larger stadium. Spurs have always had fewer empty seats, and a higher percentage of seats filled, than City. That is even the case this season, where Eastlands has been 98% full whilst WHL has been 99.5% full.[/QUOTE] So does that logic apply to the swamp and St James Park? For f*** sake he said they have a bigger fanbase and I ?d it because it's not true! you have proved the point by saying they have empty seats in a smaller stadium so there is no point in them having a bigger one!
This is bull. Plain and simple. All team have sponsers. You can get them and teams can maximise them. It is a very different than someone coming in and spending over 500million on a team that simple doesn't have the means to survive with that much expendature otherwise. The club has made that money, by they themselves expanding the brand. Who are cities sponsers? Seems like most of the money is coming from one source one way or another. What did city do to expand their brand? They got lucky like a guy who wins the lotto. He's rich but he hasn't earned any of it. Compare that to a man who had to work and earn his millions. They are two different things. Both have wealth but both did not attain it the same way. A bit like how Paris Hilton is famous really.
So does that logic apply to the swamp and St James Park? For f*** sake he said they have a bigger fanbase and I ?d it because it's not true! you have proved the point by saying they have empty seats in a smaller stadium so there is no point in them having a bigger one![/QUOTE] You always have a couple of hundred empty seats cos the club has to have a margin of safety to prevent overcrowding and fines, and also some fans are always ill / delayed / barred from entering for whatever reason. The highest percentage attendance in the league is Utd, who have 99.6%, followed by Spurs with 99.4%. But Spurs have way fewer empty seats than City, and even fewer empty seats than Arsenal who have a stadium that's full as possible every week. And of course Spurs had a season ticket waiting list of 22,000 in 2008, which has probably gone up in the interim what with their CL and EL qualification. That implies that they could fill a 58,000 capacity stadium, whilst City can't even fill a 48,000 stadium and have no waiting list.
You always have a couple of hundred empty seats cos the club has to have a margin of safety to prevent overcrowding and fines, and also some fans are always ill / delayed / barred from entering for whatever reason. The highest percentage attendance in the league is Utd, who have 99.6%, followed by Spurs with 99.4%. But Spurs have way fewer empty seats than City, and even fewer empty seats than Arsenal who have a stadium that's full as possible every week. And of course Spurs had a season ticket waiting list of 22,000 in 2008, which has probably gone up in the interim what with their CL and EL qualification. That implies that they could fill a 58,000 capacity stadium, whilst City can't even fill a 48,000 stadium and have no waiting list.[/QUOTE] So if we remove 13,000 seats and create a standby list to cover for ill, delayed, and barred for whatever reason fans, we could get to 100% and win the attendance league as well, great idea! Any thoughts on how we cover for the away fans not coming? Don't worry about the waiting list I'm working on that, I think a financial incentive may help. Oh there we go again throwing our money around!
Fact is spurs (maybe even Newcastle) are trying to mount a challenge to the top 4. A challenge that is severely hampered by mid table teams who have benefited from a billion pounds of bought talent. The only increase in competition such clubs have brought about is by reducing the number of top 4 spots up for grabs, making it even more stagnant than before.
No, last time I checked 4 was still 4 and if I'm correct Spurs and Newcastle are in there, so it can't be City your worried about, must be sombody behind you, well it is coming upto Panto time!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sure all lottery winners don't enjoy their wealth because jealous people don't respect them. Its a wonder why any of us would even play the lottery.
Good to see that as you lose the argument you get more and more incoherent. Or are you seriously suggesting City should use their money to bribe people to support them now? That's just embarrassing! Actually I'd say the better analogy is the thick kid whose parents pay for them to go to all the best schools so they still get the best jobs. Do they enjoy their success less than the clever kids who are stuck in comprehensives and thus have relatively little hope of getting a decent job? Probably not. Is it fair on all the other kids without rich parents? Probably not, but it's how the world works.
