Manchester City

[jellydog]

10 minutes ago, RonniePickering22 said:

 

When are ya coming back Jellybean?

Out of here later today Ronnie. Back in BKK for the winter weather !

[smokie36]

56 minutes ago, jellydog said:

Out of here later today Ronnie. Back in BKK for the winter weather !

 

Warmed up this afternoon mate but the mornings....no swimming this week I fear lol.

[Bredbury Blue]

City vs ManU
Arsenal vs Chelsea
Semis I reckon

[BangrakBob]

On 19/12/2017 at 7:59 AM, mrbojangles said:

Ah. So it's about us having more than you. Gotchya. 

 

But you still don't answer my question about the unfairness Spurs have on all of the clubs who don't have as much as you do. Stop whinging about the money Carms, your the 12th richest club in the world, your not skint, financially better off than the majority of clubs in the world and could spend more if your tight ass owner wanted to.

 Nah City are on  another level, that only city can afford. You are buying the best sports people in business and science, and training,

An amazing academy Churning out youngster for profit, not to play for City.

feeder clubs all over the world, churning more players for profit.

And spending 300 million a year on transfers. Pep saw a problem after last season and he spent a ton on fixing to put City back at the top and you will keep on doing that if you have to. 

You will just keep spending until no one else can compete. Eventually it will be self funded.

Welcome to Football’s new Dynasty

[jellydog]

18 minutes ago, BangrakBob said:

 Nah City are on  another level, that only city can afford. You are buying the best sports people in business and science, and training,

An amazing academy Churning out youngster for profit, not to play for City.

feeder clubs all over the world, churning more players for profit.

And spending 300 million a year on transfers. Pep saw a problem after last season and he spent a ton on fixing to put City back at the top and you will keep on doing that if you have to. 

You will just keep spending until no one else can compete. Eventually it will be self funded.

Welcome to Football’s new Dynasty

Crikey Bob ! I heard City aims to colonize Mars as well !

[Bredbury Blue]

"An amazing academy Churning out youngster for profit, not to play for City."

 

Bob you haven't been paying attention have you! There are no City youngsters coming through or playing for City or sold on not to play for City. I know that cause my Spurs brothers regularly tell me so. Also you need to know that the Premier is unfair because City are richer than Spurs (but it is fair for Spurs to be richer than all but 5 of the 92 clubs) and if City are lucky enough to win the Premier it is because we bought the Premier but when any other club wins the Premier its not because they bought the Premier (Chelsea used to be accused of the same crime but its no longer the case; strange that). I have just defined the City forum for you so there's no need for anyone to post anymore. 

[carmine]

14 hours ago, BangrakBob said:

 Nah City are on  another level, that only city can afford. You are buying the best sports people in business and science, and training,

An amazing academy Churning out youngster for profit, not to play for City.

feeder clubs all over the world, churning more players for profit.

And spending 300 million a year on transfers. Pep saw a problem after last season and he spent a ton on fixing to put City back at the top and you will keep on doing that if you have to. 

You will just keep spending until no one else can compete. Eventually it will be self funded.

Welcome to Football’s new Dynasty

 

Bob has just nailed it.  it is what it is.  Enough said about City in future, just enjoy the football and when they pick up more inevitable silverware just refer them to this post #24514

[carmine]

13 hours ago, jellydog said:

Crikey Bob ! I heard City aims to colonize Mars as well !

Thats a bit over the top JD, simply put, Bob nailed it and hopefully this is the end of the whole debate!!!!!!  'Tis for me anyway, much i'm sure to the glee of a few on here!!

Edited December 21, 2017 by carmine

[alfieconn]

8 minutes ago, carmine said:

 

Bob has just nailed it.  it is what it is.  Enough said about City in future, just enjoy the football and when they pick up more inevitable silverware just refer them to this post #24514

Nah nah Bob couldn't have said that as it's only spurs fans who think like that because it's certainly not common knowledge 

[mrbojangles]

21 hours ago, BangrakBob said:

 Nah City are on  another level, that only city can afford.

Had to stop reading at that point Bob as City aren't even the richest club. So what other level are United Barca RM etc  on?

[alfieconn]

21 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

Had to stop reading at that point Bob as City aren't even the richest club. So what other level are United Barca RM etc  on?

Depend's how you define the richest club, but City's owners certainly have the most cash at their disposal !

 

[mrbojangles]

15 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

Depend's how you define the richest club, but City's owners certainly have the most cash at their disposal !

 

I'd say PSG's owners have more. Qatar is the richest country on earth by GDP and PSG are owned by the Qatari Gov't. That's why they could buy Neymar for that price. Not denying our owners are rich but for all our money, I don't think we have ever smashed a world transfer record. United have smashed the Prem record.......several times

[Bredbury Blue]

Yet another money chat, yawn.

"Depend's how you define the richest club"

Isn't Deloitte the recognised guide. Latest version has
1. Manchester United — £515.3 million. 
2. Barcelona — £463.8 million
3. Real Madrid — £463.8 million
4. Bayern Munich — £442.7 million
5. Manchester City — £392.6 million
6. Paris St-Germain — £389.6 million
7. Arsenal — £350.4 million
8. Chelsea — £334.6 million
9. Liverpool — £302 million
12. Tottenham — £209.2 million
18. West Ham — £143.8 million
20. Leicester — £128.7 million

*seems contrary to popular opinions on here City are not the richest club in England, and not that much richer than Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool, but hey some of you keep your bias (yes I mean you spurs fans).

Richest football clubs in the world as ranked by Forbes magazine

Forbes' top 20 most valuable football teams
1. Manchester United $3.69bn (£2.86bn)
2. Barcelona $3.64bn (£2.82bn)
3. Real Madrid $3.58bn (£2.77bn)
4. Bayern Munich $2.71bn (£2.1bn)
5. Manchester City $2.08bn (£1.61bn)
6. Arsenal $1.93bn (£1.5bn)
7. Chelsea $1.85bn (£1.43bn)
8. Liverpool $1.49bn (£1.15bn)
9. Juventus $1.26bn (£976m)
10. Tottenham $1.06bn (£821m)
11. Paris St-Germain $841m (£652m)
12. Borussia Dortmund $808m (£626m)
13. AC Milan $802m (£621m)
14. Atletico Madrid $732m (£567m)
15. West Ham $634m (£491m)
16. Schalke 04 $629m (£487m)
17. Roma $569m (£441m)
18. Inter Milan $537m (£416m)
19. Leicester City $413m (£320m)
20. Napoli $379m (£294m)

*seems contrary to popular opinions on here that Spurs are not as hard up as their fans like to have us believe..maybe they need to spend some on their stagnant and thin squad to keep up with the others in the so called top 6.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Bredbury Blue

[BangrakBob]

22 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

Had to stop reading at that point Bob as City aren't even the richest club. So what other level are United Barca RM etc  on?

Sounds like you have no response to the points I made.

You know my points had nothing to do with current turn-over, revenue. United have spent years dominating football, to gain their global commercial success, yet they are still leveraged and laden with more than half a billion debt.

Yet there owners do not have a quarter of the wealth City have, nor the intentions to use it investing in the club. United's turn-over helps them compete with you on salaries and transfers.

The Sovereign wealth backed clubs have a massive debt free, edge on spending i.e.. City and PSG. What other owners could absorb 500M net losses in it's first 5 years of ownership and just keep spending cash.

PSG purchased Neymar from Barcelona, because of that wealth. City bid for Messi, in what world could any other club bid for Messi. There are only 2 clubs that could do that, City or PSG. 

All the players that have come to play for City in recent years have come for the money they will get paid. City can out match anyone on wages. Sanchez being touted to be offered 400K per week. 

Why, because of your wealth and every point I made in the previous post  points towards a team setting up to dominate, and it's not that you are a well run business it's because you have the wealth to invest massive amounts of money across all spectrums of football management.  

Who are the favourites to win the Champions League, City and PSG, why because of their wealth. Barcelona are sponsored by PSG, or were. And they took the piss out of them buying Neymar. They now sponsor Bayern Munich. 

City's owners just bought the naming right to Madrid's stadium.

Like mentioned in that article, none of what they are doing at PSG or City has anything to do with the love of football, it's a tool for political strategy and dominating European football is a good one.

I don't understand why you don't accept it, or feel the need to deny it. It's obvious what is happening and why it's happening....because of your wealth. 

[Bredbury Blue]

Jesus Bob, got time on your hands today there on the Gold Coast?

[alfieconn]

20 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Jesus Bob, got time on your hands today there on the Gold Coast?

No answer to Bob then Trigg 

[alfieconn]

33 minutes ago, BangrakBob said:

Sounds like you have no response to the points I made.

You know my points had nothing to do with current turn-over, revenue. United have spent years dominating football, to gain their global commercial success, yet they are still leveraged and laden with more than half a billion debt.

Yet there owners do not have a quarter of the wealth City have, nor the intentions to use it investing in the club. United's turn-over helps them compete with you on salaries and transfers.

The Sovereign wealth backed clubs have a massive debt free, edge on spending i.e.. City and PSG. What other owners could absorb 500M net losses in it's first 5 years of ownership and just keep spending cash.

PSG purchased Neymar from Barcelona, because of that wealth. City bid for Messi, in what world could any other club bid for Messi. There are only 2 clubs that could do that, City or PSG. 

All the players that have come to play for City in recent years have come for the money they will get paid. City can out match anyone on wages. Sanchez being touted to be offered 400K per week. 

Why, because of your wealth and every point I made in the previous post  points towards a team setting up to dominate, and it's not that you are a well run business it's because you have the wealth to invest massive amounts of money across all spectrums of football management.  

Who are the favourites to win the Champions League, City and PSG, why because of their wealth. Barcelona are sponsored by PSG, or were. And they took the piss out of them buying Neymar. They now sponsor Bayern Munich. 

City's owners just bought the naming right to Madrid's stadium.

Like mentioned in that article, none of what they are doing at PSG or City has anything to do with the love of football, it's a tool for political strategy and dominating European football is a good one.

I don't understand why you don't accept it, or feel the need to deny it. It's obvious what is happening and why it's happening....because of your wealth. 

No no, the sheik has been a life long City supporter and has had an affinity for the city of manchester since he was knee high to a grasshopper  

[alfieconn]

50 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Yet another money chat, yawn.

"Depend's how you define the richest club"

Isn't Deloitte the recognised guide. Latest version has
1. Manchester United — £515.3 million. 
2. Barcelona — £463.8 million
3. Real Madrid — £463.8 million
4. Bayern Munich — £442.7 million
5. Manchester City — £392.6 million
6. Paris St-Germain — £389.6 million
7. Arsenal — £350.4 million
8. Chelsea — £334.6 million
9. Liverpool — £302 million
12. Tottenham — £209.2 million
18. West Ham — £143.8 million
20. Leicester — £128.7 million

*seems contrary to popular opinions on here City are not the richest club in England, and not that much richer than Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool, but hey some of you keep your bias (yes I mean you spurs fans).

Richest football clubs in the world as ranked by Forbes magazine

Forbes' top 20 most valuable football teams
1. Manchester United $3.69bn (£2.86bn)
2. Barcelona $3.64bn (£2.82bn)
3. Real Madrid $3.58bn (£2.77bn)
4. Bayern Munich $2.71bn (£2.1bn)
5. Manchester City $2.08bn (£1.61bn)
6. Arsenal $1.93bn (£1.5bn)
7. Chelsea $1.85bn (£1.43bn)
8. Liverpool $1.49bn (£1.15bn)
9. Juventus $1.26bn (£976m)
10. Tottenham $1.06bn (£821m)
11. Paris St-Germain $841m (£652m)
12. Borussia Dortmund $808m (£626m)
13. AC Milan $802m (£621m)
14. Atletico Madrid $732m (£567m)
15. West Ham $634m (£491m)
16. Schalke 04 $629m (£487m)
17. Roma $569m (£441m)
18. Inter Milan $537m (£416m)
19. Leicester City $413m (£320m)
20. Napoli $379m (£294m)

*seems contrary to popular opinions on here that Spurs are not as hard up as their fans like to have us believe..maybe they need to spend some on their stagnant and thin squad to keep up with the others in the so called top 6.


 

Nothing to do with spending power which is what the recent post's have been about !

[BangrakBob]

1 hour ago, alfieconn said:

No no, the sheik has been a life long City supporter and has had an affinity for the city of manchester since he was knee high to a grasshopper  

As noted by his attendance at matches, 1 in 9 years? ?

[owl sees all]

2-1 Arsenal v Liverpool

 

Hope I'm wrong.

[BangrakBob]

2 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

2-1 Arsenal v Liverpool

 

Hope I'm wrong.

we are going to batter them again...plenty of goals 4-1 Liverpool ?

[Bredbury Blue]

Manchester City (the City Football Group) are in talks to acquire 50 per cent of Belgian top flight side KV Oostende.

[carmine]

15 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Yet another money chat, yawn.

"Depend's how you define the richest club"

Isn't Deloitte the recognised guide. Latest version has
1. Manchester United — £515.3 million. 
2. Barcelona — £463.8 million
3. Real Madrid — £463.8 million
4. Bayern Munich — £442.7 million
5. Manchester City — £392.6 million
6. Paris St-Germain — £389.6 million
7. Arsenal — £350.4 million
8. Chelsea — £334.6 million
9. Liverpool — £302 million
12. Tottenham — £209.2 million
18. West Ham — £143.8 million
20. Leicester — £128.7 million

*seems contrary to popular opinions on here City are not the richest club in England, and not that much richer than Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool, but hey some of you keep your bias (yes I mean you spurs fans).

Richest football clubs in the world as ranked by Forbes magazine

Forbes' top 20 most valuable football teams
1. Manchester United $3.69bn (£2.86bn)
2. Barcelona $3.64bn (£2.82bn)
3. Real Madrid $3.58bn (£2.77bn)
4. Bayern Munich $2.71bn (£2.1bn)
5. Manchester City $2.08bn (£1.61bn)
6. Arsenal $1.93bn (£1.5bn)
7. Chelsea $1.85bn (£1.43bn)
8. Liverpool $1.49bn (£1.15bn)
9. Juventus $1.26bn (£976m)
10. Tottenham $1.06bn (£821m)
11. Paris St-Germain $841m (£652m)
12. Borussia Dortmund $808m (£626m)
13. AC Milan $802m (£621m)
14. Atletico Madrid $732m (£567m)
15. West Ham $634m (£491m)
16. Schalke 04 $629m (£487m)
17. Roma $569m (£441m)
18. Inter Milan $537m (£416m)
19. Leicester City $413m (£320m)
20. Napoli $379m (£294m)

*seems contrary to popular opinions on here that Spurs are not as hard up as their fans like to have us believe..maybe they need to spend some on their stagnant and thin squad to keep up with the others in the so called top 6.


 

This is possibly your most ridiculous comment of the year, saved the best till last i see!!!  Its little or nothing to do with the value it all about the cost to assemble.

 

You're just never going to get it!!  Or maybe you just can't accept it.  Yes, thats it.

[owl sees all]

11 hours ago, BangrakBob said:

we are going to batter them again...plenty of goals 4-1 Liverpool

Well said Bob. Not quite the result but as you said plenty of goals.

 

I had it in mind all week to post a 2-2 score but changed my mind as I was typing.

 

i didn't watch the game but from what I've read this morning it was outstanding.

[carmine]

15 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Jesus Bob, got time on your hands today there on the Gold Coast?

He's just questioned why you have no response.  You'll need to because you're going to get referred back to his post every time.  

[carmine]

2 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Well said Bob. Not quite the result but as you said plenty of goals.

 

I had it in mind all week to post a 2-2 score but changed my mind as I was typing.

 

i didn't watch the game but from what I've read this morning it was outstanding.

Outstanding for the neutral but a total nightmare for the defensive coaches.

[mrbojangles]

 

14 hours ago, BangrakBob said:

Sounds like you have no response to the points I made.

You know my points had nothing to do with current turn-over, revenue. United have spent years dominating football, to gain their global commercial success, yet they are still leveraged and laden with more than half a billion debt. Yet there owners do not have a quarter of the wealth City have, nor the intentions to use it investing in the club. United's turn-over helps them compete with you on salaries and transfers. United's owners take huge sums out

Because United's owners treat them like a Cash Cow and take huge amounts of money out. Yet United still smash Prem transfer records (something City haven't done). Personally, I don't care if the Glaziers bankrupt them

 

The Sovereign wealth backed clubs have a massive debt free, edge on spending i.e.. City and PSG. What other owners could absorb 500M net losses in it's first 5 years of ownership and just keep spending cash.

As per FFFP, the books have to be balanced. City (and PSG) got fined for breaching FFFP but our fine was actually returned as we proved all the conditions were met as is laid down in FFFP rules. Owners are not allowed to pump endless amounts of money into clubs to fund buying players and paying wages. It would take too long to discuss FFFP in this response but we have talked about this in extreme detail in the past. 

 

PSG purchased Neymar from Barcelona, because of that wealth. City bid for Messi, in what world could any other club bid for Messi. There are only 2 clubs that could do that, City or PSG.

As far as I am aware, City have never bid for Messi. As for PSG with Neymar, I haven't a clue how that deal has been done and also staying within FFFP. They are investigating and we'll see the results. 

 

All the players that have come to play for City in recent years have come for the money they will get paid. City can out match anyone on wages. Sanchez being touted to be offered 400K per week. 

Every player goes to a club for money but if you see the passion our players are playing with, it's an insult to say they are just there for the money. As for Sanchez, if he does come for free then 400k per week is probably about right in todays money. Because you save on the circa 60mil transfer fee it works out that you are paying him about 100k per week or less, as you don't have to stump up the 60mil up front, you are paying it over 4 or 5 years depending on the contract.

 

Why, because of your wealth and every point I made in the previous post  points towards a team setting up to dominate, and it's not that you are a well run business it's because you have the wealth to invest massive amounts of money across all spectrums of football management. 

I think you'll find they are super savvy business people and they are running it extremely well. They had to invest heavily at the start because FFFP was coming in but we sold about 13% of City to the Chinese for £265m which was more than what our owners bought us for in the first place.

 

Who are the favourites to win the Champions League, City and PSG, why because of their wealth.

 Probably but that's almost always been the case hasn't it? City don't have Ronaldo, Neymar or Messi though. City does have Pep though 

 

Barcelona are sponsored by PSG, or were. And they took the piss out of them buying Neymar. They now sponsor Bayern Munich. 

City's owners just bought the naming right to Madrid's stadium.

IPIC have nothing to do with City's owners. In Spain, our investment is in Girona

 

Like mentioned in that article, none of what they are doing at PSG or City has anything to do with the love of football, it's a tool for political strategy and dominating European football is a good one.

You could be right but are our owners the only one's guilty of investing in football and not loving it? Does Henry love Football and not the American type? I think in fairness, the only foreign super rich investor who loves Premier League football is Abramovich.

 

I don't understand why you don't accept it, or feel the need to deny it. It's obvious what is happening and why it's happening....because of your wealth. 

I don't think we have ever denied anything Bob. We know we are extremely lucky to have our owners and we have said that time and time again. We know they are wealthy and lucky that they don't strip us of profits but re-invest. We are also lucky that they have proved they are in it for the long haul. What we argue against is clubs doing the "woe is me, City are rich and it's not fair" whinge when their clubs are also rich.

Bob. Tried to respond to your points in red above. I'm on my bladdy holidays ya know and you are too aren't you

[wilai]

42 minutes ago, carmine said:

Outstanding for the neutral but a total nightmare for the defensive coaches.

We don't have one Gotta a keeper coach though

[wilai]

Someone enjoyed it anyway!

 

Vincent Kompany‏Verified account @VincentKompany 5h5 hours ago

More

Football is beautiful. #AFCvLFC #Neutral

[Bredbury Blue]

Carmine "possibly your most ridiculous comment of the year".

Steady on, try READING my post instead of getting emotional as you always do.

Your buddy posted "Depend's how you define the richest club" to which I referred to Deloitte and Forbes who both provide a report each year on the top 20 RICHEST/WEALTHIEST clubs in the world.