Manchester city... ffp?

M18CTID said:
Maybe City should have achieved our recent success in a far less underhanded way. I nominate the Arsenal model followed by Henry "banned for life" Norris. Only a complete and utter genius could've finished 6th in division 2 and managed to become the only chairman in the history of the English league to blackmail his club into the top flight ahead of clubs who finished above them on merit. And of course, who can forget the period that followed - the original "Bank Of England club" using their superior financial muscle to break up by far the best team in England in Huddersfield Town and lure their manager and some of their best players to Arsenal.
Click to expand...

While this is all true, its also a bit of a red herring. You are talking about something that happen in 1919 after football was suspended for WWI. It really doesn't have much relevance to Arsenal as a club now. Arsenal went through several eras of ownership since then and as many others (like Wolves, Leeds, Forest, Blackburn) know one era of success is no guarantee of continued success. The modern day Arsenal was really the result of David Dein's ambitions from 1983 on. Dein was the force behind both the Graham and Wenger hires, backed them aggressively by pursuing a handful top transfers while still maintaining organic growth. In hindsight, its easy to see Dein's mistakes - the uninspiring Highbury renovations post-Taylor and the subsequent obsession with their lack of foresight on modern stadiums throughout the 90s. But overall Dein's strategy from 1983 to 2006 was successful and responsible for modern day Arsenal far more than Norris' shenanigans pre-WWII

So yeah, while the Norris stuff from 98 years ago is intriguing history and fun banter, its not a relevant example on why Arsenal grew to become a modern 'big club' under Dein/Graham/Wenger.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Manchester City and Chelsea epitomise everything that is wrong about the Premiership today: sugar-daddy clubs who can't stand on their own two feet, but need to buy their way to success using dodgy money.

I don't regard a single one of their trophies as legitimate since the respective owners took over. They've merely bought cheapened and tarnished baubles for cash.
Click to expand...

I must admit that I am a tad miffed at the vitriolic tone of this post. One would think that a Spurs fan of all people would be grateful for the £50 million of "dodgy money" they received from City recently, given that they have a new stadium to pay for with ever-spiralling costs. First we helped Arsenal pay off their stadium and now we're helping Spurs pay off theirs. What's not to like?
 
GlastonSpur said:
Manchester City and Chelsea epitomise everything that is wrong about the Premiership today: sugar-daddy clubs who can't stand on their own two feet, but need to buy their way to success using dodgy money.

I don't regard a single one of their trophies as legitimate since the respective owners took over. They've merely bought cheapened and tarnished baubles for cash.
Click to expand...

Good post!

Plenty of bites too. Bravo
 
M18CTID said:
I must admit that I am a tad miffed at the vitriolic tone of this post. One would think that a Spurs fan of all people would be grateful for the £50 million of "dodgy money" they received from City recently, given that they have a new stadium to pay for with ever-spiralling costs. First we helped Arsenal pay off their stadium and now we're helping Spurs pay off theirs. What's not to like?
Click to expand...
Not buying your own?
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
While this is all true, its also a bit of a red herring. You are talking about something that happen in 1919 after football was suspended for WWI. It really doesn't have much relevance to Arsenal as a club now. Arsenal went through several eras of ownership since then and as many others (like Wolves, Leeds, Forest, Blackburn) know one era of success is no guarantee of continued success. The modern day Arsenal was really the result of David Dein's ambitions from 1983 on. Dein was the force behind both the Graham and Wenger hires, backed them aggressively by pursuing a handful top transfers while still maintaining organic growth. In hindsight, its easy to see Dein's mistakes - the uninspiring Highbury renovations post-Taylor and the subsequent obsession with their lack of foresight on modern stadiums throughout the 90s. But overall Dein's strategy from 1983 to 2006 was successful and responsible for modern day Arsenal far more than Norris' shenanigans pre-WWII

So yeah, while the Norris stuff from 98 years ago is intriguing history and fun banter, its not a relevant example on why Arsenal grew to become a modern 'big club' under Dein/Graham/Wenger.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree that it's irrelevant because every event in history has a knock-on effect on the future so if Arsenal hadn't been admitted to the top flight in 1919, the club may have embarked on a totally different and less successful path to the one they did. Obviously, we'll never know for sure. In any case, I agree with the gist of your post besides that. The only reason I was making the point to the poster in the first place was because he came out with the laughable "no history" line and also to point out that no club is perfect and every club has baggage.

As for Dein, well if he was still involved in the day-to-day running of Arsenal I reckon you'd have a fared a bit better than you have over recent years.
 
Still having a pop at City over FFP is pissing in the wind frankly and some people need to get over it. Money talks in a sport that has zero moral compass and the origins of their money is of little consequence to those who run the game. If you want a leveller playing field you'll, ironically, have to drop down a couple of divisions.

Not having a pop also means you don't get City fans dredging up examples of other clubs trying to get ahead of the pack at the very birth of the professional game as some sort of moral justification for their recent shenanigans.

However City got back to the top they're there and it's a challenge we should relish. Despite their new found resources they've hardly set the world alight anyway and all talk of a new dynasty and shift of power firmly to the blue half Manchester looks pretty daft really. If we had our own house in order there'd be far less wailing and gnashing of teeth about FFP and City.
 
GlastonSpur said:
You care about "fashion", I don't. And your "love" of having owners who simply buy success for you is destructive of the soul of sport. Moreover, I wonder how much you'd "love" it if 5 more sugar-daddies waltz into another 5 other Prem clubs, pump £2 billion into each and relegate City to mid-table cannon-fodder.
Click to expand...

If that happens then so be it. I'd have no issue with it whatsoever and I'll tell you for why. I was following City home and away week in, week out when we were at our lowest ever ebb in the late 1990's and as any true football fan who follows their club will tell you, what goes on out on the pitch is only one part of it. Away day regulars in particular will tell you this.

Did you know that when the Football Supporters Federation conducted an away fan survey a few years back and asked fans to name the number one reason as to why they follow their team away, only 4% cited their team's performance on the pitch as being the main reason? For most, the day out is the most important thing and the result is often secondary. Sure, we want to see our team win but some of the best days out I've ever had watching City have been when the team have made utter twats of themselves on the pitch. I've met numerous great people and made plenty of lifelong friends along the way and if I had the chance to do it all again I wouldn't change a single thing. From pitching up in a condemned hotel in Bournemouth for a whole weekend, to a 48-hour bender in Great Yarmouth ahead of our game at Ipswich that saw us relegated, to our first European trip to Belgium via Amsterdam, to the time we broke into the Aston Villa trophy room on the night Micah Richards equalised in the 94th minute, and many more besides - nope, I wouldn't change any of it and I guarantee that any true regular match-going fan of any club would wholeheartedly agree.
 
just a prediction. Stranger things will have happened in football if we spend roughly the same as city this summer, while having a much bigger wage bill. Far stranger things.
 
Barca84 said:
Still having a pop at City over FFP is pissing in the wind frankly and some people need to get over it. Money talks in a sport that has zero moral compass and the origins of their money is of little consequence to those who run the game. If you want a leveller playing field you'll, ironically, have to drop down a couple of divisions.

Not having a pop also means you don't get City fans dredging up examples of other clubs trying to get ahead of the pack at the very birth of the professional game as some sort of moral justification for their recent shenanigans.

However City got back to the top they're there and it's a challenge we should relish. Despite their new found resources they've hardly set the world alight anyway and all talk of a new dynasty and shift of power firmly to the blue half Manchester looks pretty daft really. If we had our own house in order there'd be far less wailing and gnashing of teeth about FFP and City.
Click to expand...

You won't get me disagreeing with most of that. I agree that City have under-achieved over the past few years and a lot of our signings simply haven't come off for one reason or another. And yes, it's a pointless pissing contest and I really shouldn't be biting at any perceived slight at my age but in my defence I got involved in this thread after seeing a laughably hypocritical post from a Chelsea fan of all people ;)

More importantly, it's good to see you back. I'll admit I was a bit worried about you when I saw you'd closed your account and the mods couldn't shed any light on it. In fact, one of them blamed me for driving you away:lol:
 
manc exile said:
I have two daughters who support city (and one who supports united), so get to talk a lot about them and they do make some good points that i have taken on board.

By the by, if we had a womens team, then I would probably have three daughters supporting united, but there is a separate thread for that
Click to expand...
You really aren't intelligent enough to carry out this act. You are clearly a city fan and have the arrogance to think you have others on here fooled, so I'm calling it out for what it is.. try harder.
 
Crashoutcassius said:
Just think we are being a bit hypocritical. Pep needs to spend mad money to win things. We spent a lot last summer and came 6th with worse results than under david moyes. We are shielding mourinho a bit here.
Click to expand...

We didn't have worse results last season than under Moyes thats nonsense mate. Under what criteria do you think we were worse last season than we were under Moyes?

Under Moyes we lost 12 times in the league and only won 2 games vs teams in the top half of the league, 2 wins in 18 games and both were scrappy home wins.
 
MUFC OK said:
You really aren't intelligent enough to carry out this act. You are clearly a city fan and have the arrogance to think you have others on here fooled, so I'm calling it out for what it is.. try harder.
Click to expand...


so i am a thick city fan?

believe what you want fella
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
. But overall Dein's strategy from 1983 to 2006 was successful and responsible for modern day Arsenal far more than Norris' shenanigans pre-WWII
Click to expand...

Didn't Dein stick in a huge amount (at the time) for Arsenal to sign the likes of Bergkamp in the early 90's
 
AshfordLad said:
Dont you like to rant a lot about trends of the recent past.

Heres a trend, in 10 years before 2003, Chelsea had won 6 trophies to spurs 1. That's 6 times more.
Click to expand...

Chelsea were the 2nd biggest spenders in the PL era from 1992 till 2003 they spent like 10mio pounds less than United did in that time period :wenger:
 
GifLord said:
Chelsea were the 2nd biggest spenders in the PL era from 1992 till 2003 they spent like 10mio pounds less than United did in that time period :wenger:
Click to expand...

Thats kind of weird actually. I'd have thought Liverpool/Arsenal would be.
 
Crashoutcassius said:
we came 6th in the league like. That is a big deal.
Click to expand...

Not as big a deal as coming 7th a year after being champions and having never finished outside the top 3 for over two decades.

We were worse under Moyes, much worse.
 
M18CTID said:
I must admit that I am a tad miffed at the vitriolic tone of this post. One would think that a Spurs fan of all people would be grateful for the £50 million of "dodgy money" they received from City recently, given that they have a new stadium to pay for with ever-spiralling costs. First we helped Arsenal pay off their stadium and now we're helping Spurs pay off theirs. What's not to like?
Click to expand...

Spurs were happy to sell Walker, City happy to buy - end of story. Gratitude doesn't come into it .... but your notion that it should speaks volumes.
 
Crashoutcassius said:
just a prediction. Stranger things will have happened in football if we spend roughly the same as city this summer, while having a much bigger wage bill. Far stranger things.
Click to expand...

A few years ago City offloaded a large amount of their non-playing staff wage bill onto the holding company. City's wage bill in reality is still easily the highest in the league.

From 2013 to 2015 their wage bill dropped from £233m to £194m whilst at the same time they clearly added to their wage bill looking at players sold vs players bought.
 
M18CTID said:
More importantly, it's good to see you back. I'll admit I was a bit worried about you when I saw you'd closed your account and the mods couldn't shed any light on it. In fact, one of them blamed me for driving you away:lol:
Click to expand...

:lol: There were a couple of (thankfully departed) blues who were raising my blood pressure more than it should but not yourself. But after some sustained recuperation from the rigours of this board I've decided to enter the fray again. It's not as bad here as other places after all!


But yeh I welcome the challenge from City really whatever the pros/cons of FFP are. I think a lot of United fans really thought we were going to be obliterated (on and off the pitch) but for me it just means this club has to rise to wherever the bar has been raised. And this club has the resources to do that so long as the right people are on board.

Don't mind Glaston - he's just getting fidgety waiting for a Sheikh to turn up in North London looking for a new hobby.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Spurs were happy to sell Walker, City happy to buy - end of story. Gratitude doesn't come into it .... but your notion that it should speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

What actually speaks volumes is that you completely and utterly failed to see that my post was made with tongue firmly in cheek.

However, in case you're struggling a bit I'll clarify that my other post in response to you was totally serious. I hope that clears things up ;)
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I feel you are badly mistaken. The idea that Rooney was on £750K a week is absolutely ludicrous, that should tell you all you need to know about the reliability of the German rags.
Click to expand...
Haven't read these reports but in general the "rags" you talk about are two of the most highly respected publications in Germany. Content created through journalism not guessing.
 
Barca84 said:
:lol: There were a couple of (thankfully departed) blues who were raising my blood pressure more than it should but not yourself. But after some sustained recuperation from the rigours of this board I've decided to enter the fray again. It's not as bad here as other places after all!


But yeh I welcome the challenge from City really whatever the pros/cons of FFP are. I think a lot of United fans really thought we were going to be obliterated (on and off the pitch) but for me it just means this club has to rise to wherever the bar has been raised. And this club has the resources to do that so long as the right people are on board.

Don't mind Glaston - he's just getting fidgety waiting for a Sheikh to turn up in North London looking for a new hobby.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, I'm not sure either of us would've come out with that after our little spat last summer:lol:

I deliberately kept a low profile on here in the wake of the derby at your place last season - I'll admit I can be a right twat at times but it wasn't right to come on and start gloating. I'm a bit too long in the tooth for that kind of behaviour and the older you get the more you tend to realise that this football lark isn't the be all and end all.

I don't always have an issue with Glaston - he's probably just upset that Abramovich didn't park his helicopter at WHL so he could go for a piss back in 2003. If he had, then we might well be having Chelsea fans accusing Spurs of ruining football:wenger:

And yeah, the reality is that United were never going away for any length of time and us blues should just be happy to see a team competing for honours rather than worrying who we might be competing for those honours with.
 
Barca84 said:
Still having a pop at City over FFP is pissing in the wind frankly and some people need to get over it. Money talks in a sport that has zero moral compass and the origins of their money is of little consequence to those who run the game. If you want a leveller playing field you'll, ironically, have to drop down a couple of divisions.

Not having a pop also means you don't get City fans dredging up examples of other clubs trying to get ahead of the pack at the very birth of the professional game as some sort of moral justification for their recent shenanigans.

However City got back to the top they're there and it's a challenge we should relish. Despite their new found resources they've hardly set the world alight anyway and all talk of a new dynasty and shift of power firmly to the blue half Manchester looks pretty daft really. If we had our own house in order there'd be far less wailing and gnashing of teeth about FFP and City.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this. Well said.
 
@M18CTID

Sure the butterfly effect can always be mentioned. Can even go further back if you want when Woolwich two main founders, Danskin and Humble, allegedly had a "spy network" throughout all the munitions factories where if a young lad could play footy he would "found a job" making more money at the Woolwich Arsenal. And I think the key to Arsenal losing their plot was the Fiszman-Dein fallout which left the club leaderless at the top.

Thunderhead said:
Didn't Dein stick in a huge amount (at the time) for Arsenal to sign the likes of Bergkamp in the early 90's
Click to expand...

It was Fiszman yeah but that is a fair point. He did inject £50M and that was definitely important in getting wages on par throughout the 90s and providing enough funds to secure Bergkamp, Platt, Vieira. Oh and as our PSG friends will remind, the Anelka deal was not exactly the most "classy" of moves either (@Ecstatic)

I should have mentioned Fiszman as well since it was Fiszman who pushed the stadium build while Dein mistakenly wanted to rent Wembley. So its fair that both contributed. Of course their fallout over some {suspect} diamond dial ended up really hurting the club and was the butterfly effect that leaves us in the current strange situation of having 2 of the richest 3 owners in world football (plus Kroenke is married into the WalMart fortune) yet our club is still the most miserly of any of the top 12-20 clubs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.