Manchester City

[BangrakBob]

II think you need to look at it on a season by season basis, a team could spend 200m in a summer but another team spends 400m and finish above you your titles vs transfer spends is then skewed. You also do not take in to consideration wages which is a big indicator of success also. You also do not consider turn-over which is also an indicator of a team's ability to spend on wages.

You can compare spending to league position and see consistent patterns. It is also the cost of the entire squad in that season, not just the summer spending. I'll come back to you on this later tonight.

You only need look at Liverpool's turnover compared to Manchester Untied to see we are not in the same financial bracket, look at our stadium match day takings compared to Arsenal of United, look at the financial wealth of the owners of City and Chelsea to see we are not in their financial bracket.

United can spend 60M on one player, and bring a another loan player in and spend £346,000 a week on his wages, Liverpool cannot do that.

So what you are saying Bob is you have over spent to try to compete with the big 4 now, and in reality you should have spent on redeveloping Anfield and followed Arsenals path who built a new stadium and has competed without spending to much, by the way United has been on par spending wise with all the other teams, only this season we have imho spent to much, and funny the our main two buys cannot get in our starting 11.

See the graph referring to costs of a team and titles;

source: Paul Tompkins

I'm not too pig-headed to admit that years of neglect have left Liverpool well short in the financial stakes. When the EPL started Liverpool were the richest club, by 2005 we were half that of the top teams, by 2010 we were almost in administration. Once the stadium is revitalised and FFP does kick-in, we will start competing again.

We now have the 5th most expensive squad in the league...which currently where we sit and most likely where we will finish.

Edited April 17, 2015 by BangrakBob

[Bredbury Blue]

Nice one BangrakBob. Love to see someone fighting their corner with facts and not accusations (think you guys know who I mean on here, but if not, he's usually seen posting to himself on his team's forum...sad).

Think this is the full article Bob used and one that I'll be quoting from every time City are accussed (especially by ManU fans) of buying the Championship...all the top teams have been doing it in the Premier years, ManU most and Chelsea 2nd most.

http://tomkinstimes.com/2014/11/why-liverpool-never-win-the-league/

When you look back at Champions since 1960 you see apart from one offs from Spurs Ipswich Derby Forest Villa Blackburn that its the same clubs winning it...why, money.

Since 1992 even fewer teams...why, money.

Since Abramovich even fewer teams winning it...why, money.

Manu fans like us all to think that during their successful Premier years that they had the best team, full stop. And of course apart from Wengers great side and Chelsea / City seasons, ManU did have the best side/squad. Why? Money. Manu were the richest club who could afford to buy lots, buy the best.

[Bredbury Blue]

I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik. So if they were willing to rival what our Sheik has put in to City, then maybe Arse will be the next team to buy the Premier (and ManU will have 3 clubs to rival them in the wealth stakes).

[Chicog]

I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik. So if they were willing to rival what our Sheik has put in to City, then maybe Arse will be the next team to buy the Premier (and ManU will have 3 clubs to rival them in the wealth stakes).

They are just investors.

Silent Stan was brought in by Fizzsman as he was dying; David Dein (the f---ing judas) sold his shares to that fat c--t Jabba the Uzbek and we all hate him.

We don't want his money and he's never put anything into the club.

I have no idea who this third one is.

[mrbojangles]

I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik. So if they were willing to rival what our Sheik has put in to City, then maybe Arse will be the next team to buy the Premier (and ManU will have 3 clubs to rival them in the wealth stakes).

They are just investors.

Silent Stan was brought in by Fizzsman as he was dying; David Dein (the f---ing judas) sold his shares to that fat c--t Jabba the Uzbek and we all hate him.

We don't want his money and he's never put anything into the club.

I have no idea who this third one is.

Is the third one that Iranian/Brit geezer (Moosheer or something like that) who co-owns that holding company with Jabba? Not sure as things might have moved on since I read about the structure a few years back.

[Bredbury Blue]

I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik. So if they were willing to rival what our Sheik has put in to City, then maybe Arse will be the next team to buy the Premier (and ManU will have 3 clubs to rival them in the wealth stakes).

They are just investors.

Silent Stan was brought in by Fizzsman as he was dying; David Dein (the f---ing judas) sold his shares to that fat c--t Jabba the Uzbek and we all hate him.

We don't want his money and he's never put anything into the club.

I have no idea who this third one is.

Aren't all shareholders investing?

You don't know who the 3rd one is. Shameful. You want to spend a bit more time reading up and your team and getting informed, then you'll have a bit more to talk to yourself about on your Arse forum.

[Bredbury Blue]

http://www.sport.co.uk/football/owner-investment-at-clubs-like-city-and-chelsea-isnt-evil/5996785/

Owner Investment At Clubs Like City And Chelsea Isn't Evil - So We Should't Pretend That It Is

Hands up if you've ever heard Manchester City or Chelsea being branded as oil clubs, whos success is entirely down to the billions put in by owners to force them up the table. I know everyone has, and bar City or Chelsea supporters, you've probably used that to attack those clubs. But if you believe that the great problem in the game today is this kind of investment, then youre dead wrong, and you should be glad you didn't create policies to stop this, or youre Michel Platini, in which case not only are you dead wrong, but you should also be ashamed of create policies that stop this.A few years ago UEFA introduced Financial Fair Play, or FFP, a law claiming to bring fairness and fiscal responsibility to clubs, but in reality handing the biggest clubs what billion dollar corporations always want, laws that prevent competition. Platinis law states that clubs cannot spend more than they make from club-based income, which is ridiculous because individual clubs has vastly different incomes and exist in countries with different tax codes. The law basically legislates what clubs are allowed to spend. Manchester United, for instance, makes around £450m a year, while Manchester City make closer to £270m. So according to this law, United are allowed to spend twice as much as City, despite the fact that they have £380m more debt. Last summer City were fined by UEFA and prohibited from spending in excess of £49m net this year, which has assisted in helping Chelsea win the league by choking their spending. I agree, though, that some of it is Citys own poor transfer policy. But think about it for a moment. This summer Manchester City can spend only £49m net, even though they have the money lying around and no debt. This is the effect of the law, so that United can spend £150m again and continue to leap in front of the line. With their growing incomes, United could keep spending this kind of cash forever, while others cannot, and eventually United will also be fixed at the top, because as they keep winning, their income will continue to disproportionately rise to everyone elses, pummelling the competition. But you must be thinking, what about the fact that Uniteds money is club earned, and Citys isn't?Well, United themselves benefited from the massive investments by Martin Edwards in the 80's, and James Gibson during the depression. Arsenal too in the past have received vast amounts of money from owners, which helped them keep up with United in the nineties. My point is essentially that all big clubs have this kind of help. Real Madrid were aided by General Franco and the clubs president Santiago Bernebeau in the Fifties, and thats why they eventually became a behemoth. Why shouldn't Manchester City or Paris Saint-Germain have this opportunity? Does time stop today?Owner investment is a normal thing, which is needed at first. City made a £197m loss a couple of years ago, convincing everybody that their model was wrong. Well, last season the loss was just £23m, nowhere near that. City now make more money from football related work than Arsenal or Liverpool, and if Abu Dhabis government suddenly went bankrupt then they would still be able to compete with the big clubs, without being artificially propped up. And frankly, which is worse- Citys owners spending billions to build a great team, expanding the stadium and a new training ground, or Arsenals sitting on their cash as the team stagnates and the fans pay record prices? City have built a massive empire of a training ground, theyve slowly grown more responsible in paying for players, and are financially perfect. Clubs like Leeds United and Portsmouth dont collapse because they spend too much, they collapse because the money is in the form of loans from the owner, which he eventually wants back. Neither City nor Chelsea have done that.Besides, imagine how awful football would be without these owners. Manchester United and Arsenal would dominate the league, ruining the fantastic competition we love so much by eliminating the two clubs that this decade have made it interesting by challenging United. PSG wouldn't be around to go up the table, and establishment clubs like United, Arsenal and Bayern would continue to win every season. Frankly what distinguishes England from Spain and Germany is that people came in and invested in other teams, creating genuine challengers. The dream that owners would help out your own small town club and take it to the top has always existed, but now Platini has successfully stopped it. City have an ageing squad they cannot replace easily, when United had that problem a year ago they could.One thing I do believe is that there should be rules about fiscal responsibility. But they should be rules about debt, about how the clubs would deal with worst case scenarios. That would make clubs safer. There should be rules on whether owners are fit and proper, that they will run the club intelligently. However, the most important is in having laws that spread money more evenly, forcing top clubs like United to share more of it with the rest (which I will say, they already do for TV money, but not other commercial revenue) like the NFL does. There has to be some inequality as reward for success, but it should be cut by also spreading Champions League revenue, so that countries with single representatives dont end up becoming one club shows (Greece- Olympiacos and Switzerland- Basel comes to mind). Until rules are in place to spread money equally so nobody needs a billionaire owner, people need to shut up and accept that Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abrahamovich have done a service to the game, while the owners at Man United and Arsenal continue to steal from it.Oh, and Im a Manchester United supporter.

[nev]

http://www.sport.co.uk/football/owner-investment-at-clubs-like-city-and-chelsea-isnt-evil/5996785/

Owner Investment At Clubs Like City And Chelsea Isn't Evil - So We Should't Pretend That It Is

Hands up if you've ever heard Manchester City or Chelsea being branded as oil clubs, whos success is entirely down to the billions put in by owners to force them up the table. I know everyone has, and bar City or Chelsea supporters, you've probably used that to attack those clubs. But if you believe that the great problem in the game today is this kind of investment, then youre dead wrong, and you should be glad you didn't create policies to stop this, or youre Michel Platini, in which case not only are you dead wrong, but you should also be ashamed of create policies that stop this.A few years ago UEFA introduced Financial Fair Play, or FFP, a law claiming to bring fairness and fiscal responsibility to clubs, but in reality handing the biggest clubs what billion dollar corporations always want, laws that prevent competition. Platinis law states that clubs cannot spend more than they make from club-based income, which is ridiculous because individual clubs has vastly different incomes and exist in countries with different tax codes. The law basically legislates what clubs are allowed to spend. Manchester United, for instance, makes around £450m a year, while Manchester City make closer to £270m. So according to this law, United are allowed to spend twice as much as City, despite the fact that they have £380m more debt. Last summer City were fined by UEFA and prohibited from spending in excess of £49m net this year, which has assisted in helping Chelsea win the league by choking their spending. I agree, though, that some of it is Citys own poor transfer policy. But think about it for a moment. This summer Manchester City can spend only £49m net, even though they have the money lying around and no debt. This is the effect of the law, so that United can spend £150m again and continue to leap in front of the line. With their growing incomes, United could keep spending this kind of cash forever, while others cannot, and eventually United will also be fixed at the top, because as they keep winning, their income will continue to disproportionately rise to everyone elses, pummelling the competition. But you must be thinking, what about the fact that Uniteds money is club earned, and Citys isn't?Well, United themselves benefited from the massive investments by Martin Edwards in the 80's, and James Gibson during the depression. Arsenal too in the past have received vast amounts of money from owners, which helped them keep up with United in the nineties. My point is essentially that all big clubs have this kind of help. Real Madrid were aided by General Franco and the clubs president Santiago Bernebeau in the Fifties, and thats why they eventually became a behemoth. Why shouldn't Manchester City or Paris Saint-Germain have this opportunity? Does time stop today?Owner investment is a normal thing, which is needed at first. City made a £197m loss a couple of years ago, convincing everybody that their model was wrong. Well, last season the loss was just £23m, nowhere near that. City now make more money from football related work than Arsenal or Liverpool, and if Abu Dhabis government suddenly went bankrupt then they would still be able to compete with the big clubs, without being artificially propped up. And frankly, which is worse- Citys owners spending billions to build a great team, expanding the stadium and a new training ground, or Arsenals sitting on their cash as the team stagnates and the fans pay record prices? City have built a massive empire of a training ground, theyve slowly grown more responsible in paying for players, and are financially perfect. Clubs like Leeds United and Portsmouth dont collapse because they spend too much, they collapse because the money is in the form of loans from the owner, which he eventually wants back. Neither City nor Chelsea have done that.Besides, imagine how awful football would be without these owners. Manchester United and Arsenal would dominate the league, ruining the fantastic competition we love so much by eliminating the two clubs that this decade have made it interesting by challenging United. PSG wouldn't be around to go up the table, and establishment clubs like United, Arsenal and Bayern would continue to win every season. Frankly what distinguishes England from Spain and Germany is that people came in and invested in other teams, creating genuine challengers. The dream that owners would help out your own small town club and take it to the top has always existed, but now Platini has successfully stopped it. City have an ageing squad they cannot replace easily, when United had that problem a year ago they could.One thing I do believe is that there should be rules about fiscal responsibility. But they should be rules about debt, about how the clubs would deal with worst case scenarios. That would make clubs safer. There should be rules on whether owners are fit and proper, that they will run the club intelligently. However, the most important is in having laws that spread money more evenly, forcing top clubs like United to share more of it with the rest (which I will say, they already do for TV money, but not other commercial revenue) like the NFL does. There has to be some inequality as reward for success, but it should be cut by also spreading Champions League revenue, so that countries with single representatives dont end up becoming one club shows (Greece- Olympiacos and Switzerland- Basel comes to mind). Until rules are in place to spread money equally so nobody needs a billionaire owner, people need to shut up and accept that Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abrahamovich have done a service to the game, while the owners at Man United and Arsenal continue to steal from it.Oh, and Im a Manchester United supporter.

Hahaha by a United supporter who reckons

Martin Edwards Invested heavily in United, all Edwards did was skim money from United, I think he should read up on United's history before writing about football.

[Chicog]

I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik. So if they were willing to rival what our Sheik has put in to City, then maybe Arse will be the next team to buy the Premier (and ManU will have 3 clubs to rival them in the wealth stakes).

They are just investors.

Silent Stan was brought in by Fizzsman as he was dying; David Dein (the f---ing judas) sold his shares to that fat c--t Jabba the Uzbek and we all hate him.

We don't want his money and he's never put anything into the club.

I have no idea who this third one is.

Aren't all shareholders investing?

You don't know who the 3rd one is. Shameful. You want to spend a bit more time reading up and your team and getting informed, then you'll have a bit more to talk to yourself about on your Arse forum.

What 3rd one?

You're the one that came up with this nonsense.

And when I say they are investors they have purchased shares but nothing else.

They didn't fund the stadium.

They don't write off debt using dodgy companies.

They don't tell their brother to sponsor the club for far more than it's worth using other peoples' money.

Etc, Etc.

Try and keep up lad.

[Bredbury Blue]

I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik. So if they were willing to rival what our Sheik has put in to City, then maybe Arse will be the next team to buy the Premier (and ManU will have 3 clubs to rival them in the wealth stakes).

They are just investors.

Silent Stan was brought in by Fizzsman as he was dying; David Dein (the f---ing judas) sold his shares to that fat c--t Jabba the Uzbek and we all hate him.

We don't want his money and he's never put anything into the club.

I have no idea who this third one is.

Aren't all shareholders investing?

You don't know who the 3rd one is. Shameful. You want to spend a bit more time reading up and your team and getting informed, then you'll have a bit more to talk to yourself about on your Arse forum.

What 3rd one?

You're the one that came up with this nonsense.

And when I say they are investors they have purchased shares but nothing else.

They didn't fund the stadium.

They don't write off debt using dodgy companies.

They don't tell their brother to sponsor the club for far more than it's worth using other peoples' money.

Etc, Etc.

Try and keep up lad.

YOU want to try reading posts more carefully. What I posted was "I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik". The 3rd one is Farhad Moshiri. It's YOU who wants to try keeping up lad!

[mrbojangles]

Aren't all shareholders investing?

You don't know who the 3rd one is. Shameful. You want to spend a bit more time reading up and your team and getting informed, then you'll have a bit more to talk to yourself about on your Arse forum.

What 3rd one?

You're the one that came up with this nonsense.

And when I say they are investors they have purchased shares but nothing else.

They didn't fund the stadium.

They don't write off debt using dodgy companies.

They don't tell their brother to sponsor the club for far more than it's worth using other peoples' money.

Etc, Etc.

Try and keep up lad.

YOU want to try reading posts more carefully. What I posted was "I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik". The 3rd one is Farhad Moshiri. It's YOU who wants to try keeping up lad!

Cheers BB. That's the one I was thinking of. I said Mosheer but it's Moshiri and he's the one who co-owns Red and White Holdings isn't he?

[mrbojangles]

http://www.sport.co.uk/football/owner-investment-at-clubs-like-city-and-chelsea-isnt-evil/5996785/

Owner Investment At Clubs Like City And Chelsea Isn't Evil - So We Should't Pretend That It Is

Hands up if you've ever heard Manchester City or Chelsea being branded as oil clubs, whos success is entirely down to the billions put in by owners to force them up the table. I know everyone has, and bar City or Chelsea supporters, you've probably used that to attack those clubs. But if you believe that the great problem in the game today is this kind of investment, then youre dead wrong, and you should be glad you didn't create policies to stop this, or youre Michel Platini, in which case not only are you dead wrong, but you should also be ashamed of create policies that stop this.A few years ago UEFA introduced Financial Fair Play, or FFP, a law claiming to bring fairness and fiscal responsibility to clubs, but in reality handing the biggest clubs what billion dollar corporations always want, laws that prevent competition. Platinis law states that clubs cannot spend more than they make from club-based income, which is ridiculous because individual clubs has vastly different incomes and exist in countries with different tax codes. The law basically legislates what clubs are allowed to spend. Manchester United, for instance, makes around £450m a year, while Manchester City make closer to £270m. So according to this law, United are allowed to spend twice as much as City, despite the fact that they have £380m more debt. Last summer City were fined by UEFA and prohibited from spending in excess of £49m net this year, which has assisted in helping Chelsea win the league by choking their spending. I agree, though, that some of it is Citys own poor transfer policy. But think about it for a moment. This summer Manchester City can spend only £49m net, even though they have the money lying around and no debt. This is the effect of the law, so that United can spend £150m again and continue to leap in front of the line. With their growing incomes, United could keep spending this kind of cash forever, while others cannot, and eventually United will also be fixed at the top, because as they keep winning, their income will continue to disproportionately rise to everyone elses, pummelling the competition. But you must be thinking, what about the fact that Uniteds money is club earned, and Citys isn't?Well, United themselves benefited from the massive investments by Martin Edwards in the 80's, and James Gibson during the depression. Arsenal too in the past have received vast amounts of money from owners, which helped them keep up with United in the nineties. My point is essentially that all big clubs have this kind of help. Real Madrid were aided by General Franco and the clubs president Santiago Bernebeau in the Fifties, and thats why they eventually became a behemoth. Why shouldn't Manchester City or Paris Saint-Germain have this opportunity? Does time stop today?Owner investment is a normal thing, which is needed at first. City made a £197m loss a couple of years ago, convincing everybody that their model was wrong. Well, last season the loss was just £23m, nowhere near that. City now make more money from football related work than Arsenal or Liverpool, and if Abu Dhabis government suddenly went bankrupt then they would still be able to compete with the big clubs, without being artificially propped up. And frankly, which is worse- Citys owners spending billions to build a great team, expanding the stadium and a new training ground, or Arsenals sitting on their cash as the team stagnates and the fans pay record prices? City have built a massive empire of a training ground, theyve slowly grown more responsible in paying for players, and are financially perfect. Clubs like Leeds United and Portsmouth dont collapse because they spend too much, they collapse because the money is in the form of loans from the owner, which he eventually wants back. Neither City nor Chelsea have done that.Besides, imagine how awful football would be without these owners. Manchester United and Arsenal would dominate the league, ruining the fantastic competition we love so much by eliminating the two clubs that this decade have made it interesting by challenging United. PSG wouldn't be around to go up the table, and establishment clubs like United, Arsenal and Bayern would continue to win every season. Frankly what distinguishes England from Spain and Germany is that people came in and invested in other teams, creating genuine challengers. The dream that owners would help out your own small town club and take it to the top has always existed, but now Platini has successfully stopped it. City have an ageing squad they cannot replace easily, when United had that problem a year ago they could.One thing I do believe is that there should be rules about fiscal responsibility. But they should be rules about debt, about how the clubs would deal with worst case scenarios. That would make clubs safer. There should be rules on whether owners are fit and proper, that they will run the club intelligently. However, the most important is in having laws that spread money more evenly, forcing top clubs like United to share more of it with the rest (which I will say, they already do for TV money, but not other commercial revenue) like the NFL does. There has to be some inequality as reward for success, but it should be cut by also spreading Champions League revenue, so that countries with single representatives dont end up becoming one club shows (Greece- Olympiacos and Switzerland- Basel comes to mind). Until rules are in place to spread money equally so nobody needs a billionaire owner, people need to shut up and accept that Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abrahamovich have done a service to the game, while the owners at Man United and Arsenal continue to steal from it.Oh, and Im a Manchester United supporter.

Whether he's got all the facts 100% right WRT to Martin Edwards, he makes a lot of very valid points there.

[Chicog]

YOU want to try reading posts more carefully. What I posted was "I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik". The 3rd one is Farhad Moshiri. It's YOU who wants to try keeping up lad!

Cheers BB. That's the one I was thinking of. I said Mosheer but it's Moshiri and he's the one who co-owns Red and White Holdings isn't he?

He's not a "third shareholder", he's Usmanov's partner and representative in Britain.

Not that it matters because....

They didn't fund the stadium.

They don't write off debt using dodgy companies.

They don't tell their brother to sponsor the club for far more than it's worth using other peoples' money.

Which is why we don't really give a toss and if they buggered off it wouldn't make the slightest difference to us.

And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal.

[mrbojangles]

YOU want to try reading posts more carefully. What I posted was "I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik". The 3rd one is Farhad Moshiri. It's YOU who wants to try keeping up lad!

Cheers BB. That's the one I was thinking of. I said Mosheer but it's Moshiri and he's the one who co-owns Red and White Holdings isn't he?

He's not a "third shareholder", he's Usmanov's partner and representative in Britain.

Of course he's a shareholder.

"Moshiri and longstanding business partner Alisher Usmanov are co-owners of Red & White Holdings" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhad_Moshiri_(businessman)

"In 2013 Moshiri and Usmanov upped their stake in Arsenal to more than 30%." http://www.forbes.com/profile/farhad-moshiri/

[Bredbury Blue]

YOU want to try reading posts more carefully. What I posted was "I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik". The 3rd one is Farhad Moshiri. It's YOU who wants to try keeping up lad!

Cheers BB. That's the one I was thinking of. I said Mosheer but it's Moshiri and he's the one who co-owns Red and White Holdings isn't he?

He's not a "third shareholder", he's Usmanov's partner and representative in Britain.

Not that it matters because....

They didn't fund the stadium.

They don't write off debt using dodgy companies.

They don't tell their brother to sponsor the club for far more than it's worth using other peoples' money.

Which is why we don't really give a toss and if they buggered off it wouldn't make the slightest difference to us.

And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal.

You STILL haven't read my post as written which merely states that your team has 3 SHAREHOLDERS with a combined worth more than our Sheik etc, so your posts thereafter make no sense in response to mine...you have a habit of responding to what you think is stated.

Regarding Moshiri not being a shareholder, I bow to your greater knowledge...

Independent March 2015

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/three-arsenal-shareholders-appear-on-forbes-billionaires-list--with-a-combined-net-worth-of-149billion-10082922.html

Arsenal shareholders Stan Kroenke, Alisher Usmanov and Farhad Moshiri appear on Forbes' rich list - with a combined net worth of £14.9bn

[Bredbury Blue]

All those accusations from Chicog about the 'thieving' Sheik, when it turns out that Arsenal have been sold to an 'Uzbek criminal' [Chicog: "And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal."].

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Chicog]

All those accusations from Chicog about the 'thieving' Sheik, when it turns out that Arsenal have been sold to an 'Uzbek criminal' [Chicog: "And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal."].

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Yes but unlike you we don't kiss his arse and we don't fawn over him for squandering other peoples money on players.

We hate the bloke, and we hate Dein for involving him (He was trying to get one over the board for refusing to move to Wembley).

Nice attempt at twisting the truth, but you'll really have to do better.

[mrbojangles]

All those accusations from Chicog about the 'thieving' Sheik, when it turns out that Arsenal have been sold to an 'Uzbek criminal' [Chicog: "And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal."].

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Hey BB. Do you know who is funding the redevelopment of the Bernabeu? Yep, the Sheikh. Real Madrid struck a £350m investment deal with a company (IPIC) headed by Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour.

And the reason is cos RM have a debt of £474m in their most recent financial accounts, so they can't afford it themselves. How is it with a debt that size they get away with conforming to FFP. Bladdy baffling.

[Chicog]

All those accusations from Chicog about the 'thieving' Sheik, when it turns out that Arsenal have been sold to an 'Uzbek criminal' [Chicog: "And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal."].

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Hey BB. Do you know who is funding the redevelopment of the Bernabeu? Yep, the Sheikh. Real Madrid struck a £350m investment deal with a company (IPIC) headed by Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour.

And the reason is cos RM have a debt of £474m in their most recent financial accounts, so they can't afford it themselves. How is it with a debt that size they get away with conforming to FFP. Bladdy baffling.

They've always had special treatment. Last time they were in a hole that big (after they bought Zidane), Madrid council bought their training ground off them for the size of the debt and built them a new one for free.

Obviously there's politics involved there too.

[mrbojangles]

All those accusations from Chicog about the 'thieving' Sheik, when it turns out that Arsenal have been sold to an 'Uzbek criminal' [Chicog: "And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal."].

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Hey BB. Do you know who is funding the redevelopment of the Bernabeu? Yep, the Sheikh. Real Madrid struck a £350m investment deal with a company (IPIC) headed by Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour.

And the reason is cos RM have a debt of £474m in their most recent financial accounts, so they can't afford it themselves. How is it with a debt that size they get away with conforming to FFP. Bladdy baffling.

They've always had special treatment. Last time they were in a hole that big (after they bought Zidane), Madrid council bought their training ground off them for the size of the debt and built them a new one for free.

Obviously there's politics involved there too.

Yep and that's why FFP is a total farce.

[Bredbury Blue]

YOU want to try reading posts more carefully. What I posted was "I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik". The 3rd one is Farhad Moshiri. It's YOU who wants to try keeping up lad!

Cheers BB. That's the one I was thinking of. I said Mosheer but it's Moshiri and he's the one who co-owns Red and White Holdings isn't he?

He's not a "third shareholder", he's Usmanov's partner and representative in Britain.

Not that it matters because....

They didn't fund the stadium.

They don't write off debt using dodgy companies.

They don't tell their brother to sponsor the club for far more than it's worth using other peoples' money.

Which is why we don't really give a toss and if they buggered off it wouldn't make the slightest difference to us.

And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal.

*Per information given to the club from Red and White Securities, Red and White Securities Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Red and White Holdings Ltd (Jersey registered, no. 98333). Alisher Burkhanovich Usmanov and Ardavan Farhad Moshiri each beneficially own 50% of the entire issued share capital of the parent company.This information is provided pursuant to the rules of The Football Association Premier League Limited.Copyright 2015 The Arsenal Football Club plc. Permission to use quotations from this article is granted subject to appropriate credit being given to www.arsenal.com as the sourceRead more at http://www.arsenal.com/the-club/corporate-info/the-arsenal-board#gUAypHMFVq0GRbHQ.99

Shows how much you know..Keep up will ya

[Bredbury Blue]

All those accusations from Chicog about the 'thieving' Sheik, when it turns out that Arsenal have been sold to an 'Uzbek criminal' [Chicog: "And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal."].

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Yes but unlike you we don't kiss his arse and we don't fawn over him for squandering other peoples money on players.

We hate the bloke, and we hate Dein for involving him (He was trying to get one over the board for refusing to move to Wembley).

Nice attempt at twisting the truth, but you'll really have to do better.

Missed the point again I see...should I spell out your hypocrisy for you?

[Chicog]

YOU want to try reading posts more carefully. What I posted was "I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik". The 3rd one is Farhad Moshiri. It's YOU who wants to try keeping up lad!

Cheers BB. That's the one I was thinking of. I said Mosheer but it's Moshiri and he's the one who co-owns Red and White Holdings isn't he?

He's not a "third shareholder", he's Usmanov's partner and representative in Britain.

Not that it matters because....

They didn't fund the stadium.

They don't write off debt using dodgy companies.

They don't tell their brother to sponsor the club for far more than it's worth using other peoples' money.

Which is why we don't really give a toss and if they buggered off it wouldn't make the slightest difference to us.

And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal.

*Per information given to the club from Red and White Securities, Red and White Securities Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Red and White Holdings Ltd (Jersey registered, no. 98333). Alisher Burkhanovich Usmanov and Ardavan Farhad Moshiri each beneficially own 50% of the entire issued share capital of the parent company.This information is provided pursuant to the rules of The Football Association Premier League Limited.Copyright 2015 The Arsenal Football Club plc. Permission to use quotations from this article is granted subject to appropriate credit being given to www.arsenal.com as the sourceRead more at http://www.arsenal.com/the-club/corporate-info/the-arsenal-board#gUAypHMFVq0GRbHQ.99

Shows how much you know..Keep up will ya

Moshiri is Jabba's Bagman. Are you that dumb?

[Chicog]

All those accusations from Chicog about the 'thieving' Sheik, when it turns out that Arsenal have been sold to an 'Uzbek criminal' [Chicog: "And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal."].

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Yes but unlike you we don't kiss his arse and we don't fawn over him for squandering other peoples money on players.

We hate the bloke, and we hate Dein for involving him (He was trying to get one over the board for refusing to move to Wembley).

Nice attempt at twisting the truth, but you'll really have to do better.

Missed the point again I see...should I spell out your hypocrisy for you?

You're comparing apples to oranges and you're too dumb to realise it.

[JacknDanny]

All those accusations from Chicog about the 'thieving' Sheik, when it turns out that Arsenal have been sold to an 'Uzbek criminal' [Chicog: "And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal."].

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Hey BB. Do you know who is funding the redevelopment of the Bernabeu? Yep, the Sheikh. Real Madrid struck a £350m investment deal with a company (IPIC) headed by Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour.

And the reason is cos RM have a debt of £474m in their most recent financial accounts, so they can't afford it themselves. How is it with a debt that size they get away with conforming to FFP. Bladdy baffling.

They've always had special treatment. Last time they were in a hole that big (after they bought Zidane), Madrid council bought their training ground off them for the size of the debt and built them a new one for free.

Obviously there's politics involved there too.

Yep and that's why FFP is a total farce.

Absolutely.

And I am not talking as a City fan, but a football fan.

City are lucky, because we got in before they locked the door. And even now they still 'tweek' things around to favour the 'old school'.

If the powers that be were genuine and wanted a level playing field for all, then they should have a salary cap and transfer limit which is exactly the same for every club.

Obviously that will never happen, which brings me to question why FFP was brought in in the first place. The answer to me, is obvious.... to protect the 'established elite'

[Bredbury Blue]

YOU want to try reading posts more carefully. What I posted was "I understand that Arse 3 main shareholders combined are richer than our Sheik". The 3rd one is Farhad Moshiri. It's YOU who wants to try keeping up lad!

Cheers BB. That's the one I was thinking of. I said Mosheer but it's Moshiri and he's the one who co-owns Red and White Holdings isn't he?

He's not a "third shareholder", he's Usmanov's partner and representative in Britain.

Not that it matters because....

They didn't fund the stadium.

They don't write off debt using dodgy companies.

They don't tell their brother to sponsor the club for far more than it's worth using other peoples' money.

Which is why we don't really give a toss and if they buggered off it wouldn't make the slightest difference to us.

And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal.

*Per information given to the club from Red and White Securities, Red and White Securities Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Red and White Holdings Ltd (Jersey registered, no. 98333). Alisher Burkhanovich Usmanov and Ardavan Farhad Moshiri each beneficially own 50% of the entire issued share capital of the parent company.This information is provided pursuant to the rules of The Football Association Premier League Limited.Copyright 2015 The Arsenal Football Club plc. Permission to use quotations from this article is granted subject to appropriate credit being given to www.arsenal.com as the sourceRead more at http://www.arsenal.com/the-club/corporate-info/the-arsenal-board#gUAypHMFVq0GRbHQ.99

Shows how much you know..Keep up will ya

Moshiri is Jabba's Bagman. Are you that dumb?

He may we be a Bagman, but are you too dumb to accept the FACT that he is a major SHAREHOLDER. Digging your hole gain on here and losing any credibility you may have had. Be the big man and admit when your wrong and stop continuing to try to squirm out of your mistakes. If I'm dumb, you must be dumber!

[Bredbury Blue]

All those accusations from Chicog about the 'thieving' Sheik, when it turns out that Arsenal have been sold to an 'Uzbek criminal' [Chicog: "And David Dein's an idiot for selling to that Uzbek criminal."].

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Yes but unlike you we don't kiss his arse and we don't fawn over him for squandering other peoples money on players.

We hate the bloke, and we hate Dein for involving him (He was trying to get one over the board for refusing to move to Wembley).

Nice attempt at twisting the truth, but you'll really have to do better.

Missed the point again I see...should I spell out your hypocrisy for you?

You're comparing apples to oranges and you're too dumb to realise it.

Not really, I'm merely bringing to every bodies attention the hypocrisy of your constant ACCUSATION on here (which you've made no attempt to substantiate with FACTS despite my requests to enlighten me) of City being funded by a 'thieving' Sheik, when by your own words of your team being sold to an Uzbek criminal, and yet you like to take the moral high ground. It's therefore YOU who is too dumb to realise your hypocrisy.

I await your next squirming post.

[Chicog]

Not really, I'm merely bringing to every bodies attention the hypocrisy of your constant ACCUSATION on here (which you've made no attempt to substantiate with FACTS despite my requests to enlighten me) of City being funded by a 'thieving' Sheik, when by your own words of your team being sold to an Uzbek criminal, and yet you like to take the moral high ground. It's therefore YOU who is too dumb to realise your hypocrisy.

I await your next squirming post.

Let me try and explain it in terms you'd understand:

We don't want Jabba's filthy money - it's stolen. We never did, we never will, and he's never done anything other than own shares. We'd rather he sold up and f---ed off. He's scum.

You love your Sheikh's money, even though it's stolen. You'd swallow his gentleman's relish if you thought it would keep him spending lots of other people's lolly paying 150k a week to players to sit on the bench.

Can you see the difference?

If not, I'm afraid you aren't very bright.

Nice try though.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Chicog

[Bredbury Blue]

"You've got Liverpool and Man Utd, the two biggest clubs in this country, and the rest of them are fighting to be there over the next 20 years. Brendan Rodgers has claimed that it will take Manchester City 20 years to be as big a club as Liverpool.

In my time in Thailand, it has always seemed to me that Liverpool had the biggest local support. Past few seasons I now see City shirts obviously related to revent success. In recent years though I see more and more Chelsea shirts, which could be related to being top all season but I don't think so as I saw a lot last season also. Who do you reckon has the biggest thai support these days?

[Bredbury Blue]

Not really, I'm merely bringing to every bodies attention the hypocrisy of your constant ACCUSATION on here (which you've made no attempt to substantiate with FACTS despite my requests to enlighten me) of City being funded by a 'thieving' Sheik, when by your own words of your team being sold to an Uzbek criminal, and yet you like to take the moral high ground. It's therefore YOU who is too dumb to realise your hypocrisy.

I await your next squirming post.

Let me try and explain it in terms you'd understand:

We don't want Jabba's filthy money - it's stolen. We never did, we never will, and he's never done anything other than own shares. We'd rather he sold up and f---ed off. He's scum.

You love your Sheikh's money, even though it's stolen. You'd swallow his gentleman's relish if you thought it would keep him spending lots of other people's lolly paying 150k a week to players to sit on the bench.

Can you see the difference?

If not, I'm afraid you aren't very bright.

Nice try though.

Hypocritical chicog, lets be very clear here that all City fans have no reason NOT to be very happy with being selected by the sheik and we are all ecstatic with all he does for us. Following up on your unproven accusations on the sheik, I searched t'internet and found nothing to make me think that your comments are not accusations but facts, and as you continually make unfounded accusations and make no attempt to substantiate them makes me think you're delusional. Stump up the facts or leave it out.

As this is a Man City forum, and you clearly are not a City fan, everytime that you now post any accusations that 'flames' (think thats what you hipsters call it...I would call it intentional attempt to antagonise), I shall be posting a request to have you banned from this forum.

I trust you're now clear that Moshiri IS a major shareholder of Arse. Anything else you'd like us City fans to tell you about your club? Doh!