Credit where’s credit due

Wait, so you're genuinely suggesting your sponsorship deals have nothing to do with your owners? They're completely independent?

It depends on what context you’re referring to them in, any that are are down as related party transactions as they have to be legally.

Thats not what you said though? You said we were fudging numbers and making fake sponsorship deals, which can only come from the Der Spiegel allegations, otherwise you’d know that Uefa already investigated the main deals and their value five years ago? Der Spiegel didn’t even allege there was additional money anyway, they questioned the origin of it.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
It depends on what context you’re referring to them in, any that are are down as related party transactions as they have to be legally.

Thats not what you said though? You said we were fudging numbers and making fake sponsorship deals, which can only come from the Der Spiegel allegations, otherwise you’d know that Uefa already investigated the main deals and their value five years ago? Der Spiegel didn’t even allege there was additional money anyway, they questioned the origin of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You found some ways around FFP and other times you were caught breaking the rules. I have no problem with City fans celebrating their teams victories but this delusion that you're playing by the same rules financially as sides like Liverpool or Spurs is ridiculous and embarrassing. Just own the fact you're where you are because your owners pumped the club full of their cash, no different to PSG or Chelsea.

Should your owner sell up and leave the club in a position where poor financial spending has consequences and you win the league it'll be a very different acheivement.

We didn’t find ways around ffp though, we failed it. No one has said we aren’t where we are because of the owners money, we’ve got a huge banner saying thank you to him for it that is up at every single game! That’s completely different to whether we are still solely reliant on it, he’s said as much himself when he first bought us.

The owner has already sold 13% to Chinese investors that values the club at more than he has put in, it’s been profitable for four years now and revenue will increase further due to the new puma deal being worth more than the current Nike one. Added to that, our three main new sponsors over the last few years (by, Nissan and Nexen) have nothing to do with Abu Dhabi or our owner.

You haven’t answered any of the questions I put to you, you’ve just responded with just a further view of your own perception of it. I get it, that’s fine, but don’t state it as fact and not expect to get challenged on it from people that have a vested interest in the subject (having lived through periods where we’ve had owners that took money out rather than put it in) and might know a bit more about it than your standard tabloid editorial section.

And why was FFP put in place to begin with? To protect the sanctity of the (at the time) big 4. So are you, as a club, guilty of putting rules in play that would stifle any competition and in effect protecting a monopoly?
The old first division was always about owners who put money into the club to grow it or for vanity reasons, the fact that these owners have now become global as just added an extra dimension to that model. No the newer and far more invidious model is the American business investment that did for Sunderland and Villa and very nearly Liverpool when their owners found out they weren't the cash cows that the Glazers made Manchester united.

comment by Milan Mišůn (U1734)
posted 18 hours, 15 minutes ago
This coming from a Man Utd fan as well! Wasn't expecting this from a United fan but fair play. From a Manchester United fan as well! Cheers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Give him a break. He was in a coma after Utd. lost to Cardiff when he wrote this. ):

comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 7 hours, 28 minutes ago
comment by Ron (U1646)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 6 hours, 13 minutes ago
Incredible season from Liverpool.

City you'd expect to be putting out those figures given the investment with zero worries about selling players but Liverpool over the last couple of seasons have been incredible in their off field work and that's paid off hugely this season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt there is much difference in the cost of Cities first 11 and Liverpool's.. city have just finished close to 100 points in consecutive seasons, let's see if liverpool can repeat next season before giving them all the plaudits and city none.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's like you can't read or choose not to, which one?

Come back to me when City have sold their best players in order to fund new signings - that's the very clear difference here.

City have no consequence to their financial actions, they've spent reasonably well but if a signing doesn't pan out they just buy someone else. The model really invalidates the Prem as a legitmate competition when one club is playing by completely different rules financially.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And how about the result(s) of Arsenal's investments in talent in recent years?

comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 16 hours, 52 minutes ago
Get in city.

I was sat somewhere.

Or stood uo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
🤣🤣

comment by Globaled (U7198)
posted 8 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 7 hours, 28 minutes ago
comment by Ron (U1646)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 6 hours, 13 minutes ago
Incredible season from Liverpool.

City you'd expect to be putting out those figures given the investment with zero worries about selling players but Liverpool over the last couple of seasons have been incredible in their off field work and that's paid off hugely this season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt there is much difference in the cost of Cities first 11 and Liverpool's.. city have just finished close to 100 points in consecutive seasons, let's see if liverpool can repeat next season before giving them all the plaudits and city none.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's like you can't read or choose not to, which one?

Come back to me when City have sold their best players in order to fund new signings - that's the very clear difference here.

City have no consequence to their financial actions, they've spent reasonably well but if a signing doesn't pan out they just buy someone else. The model really invalidates the Prem as a legitmate competition when one club is playing by completely different rules financially.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And how about the result(s) of Arsenal's investments in talent in recent years?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenal have been tragically poor and wasted millions of their hard earned cash on dross. In fact the only club that's spent worse is Man United.

As for City and this bizarre reluctance to admit their model and current success is down to a billionaire pumping his own money in through various grey areas is really pathetic. Own your spending, it's still an achievement to make almost 200 points over two seasons even if people like myself view it as ruining the Prem as a legitimate competition. For me it's the same as allowing steroids in sprinting, once you do either everyone has to take them or they'll almost certainly be left behind - currently City are taking steroids while the rest of the competition isn't.

Or a few sprinters have decided to run in a 3 legged race and expect everyone else to join them?