comment by Wahl Icht * (U22180)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Arouna Jagielka oooh I wanna take ya, Heitinga Nikica come on pretty mama (U1308)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Wahl Icht * (U22180)
posted 48 seconds ago
Mahrez, Lescott, Wayne Bridge, Delph, it's furrrking endless man
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All have cups and league medals against their name at City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but it's not because of them. The point is all the players I listed were not worth the money City spent on them and it's them spending that money on that level of player that has led to fees like 80m for Maguire or 60m for Keita for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They achieved the end goal. Did what was needed. Delivered a league/cup
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
When was the last time City had the largest wage bill?
======
That's not relevant. The comparison must be in relation to the starting point for it to mean anything.
City were purchased for 100m and have gone on to spend well over 2 billion in wages since, that's wages alone.
There's no way an entity worth 100m can go on to genrarate that kind of money without being doped up.
The proof is not that you are leading the wage bill or not, the proof is that you are in the conversation in the first place.
Leaving aside the point that this ignores the fact that City have been spending within their means for five years, it is also irrelevant.
======
So you'd been doping the previous 6 years before the 5 years, by your own admission. You were living beyond your means for 6 years and within your means for the last 5.
Basically, City have ingested enough weider to keep them going for a lifetime and now they can go around saying they live within their means.
Most points in this article are blatantly dishonest.
Waiting to see how you wiggle outta that one.
Doped up.
You’re at it again 😂
By the way, your £100m figure isn’t correct
£2Billion in wages you say.
Any proof, any links?
OK. Give or take a couple hundred and the point still stands.
Its not like it would be much lower than that to dismiss my point so why bother?
Give or take a couple of hundred?
What million?
Yeah like that doesn’t matter 🤣
You’re now mentioning figures that contradict your own comments.
What are the ACTUAL figures Mamba?
I don't know the actual figures. I can only estimate. Doesn't take away from my point though.
Just watch how pedantic you're getting here and you'll know debating with a City fan on this topic is pointless.
🤣
Exactly. You don’t know.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
Give or take a couple of hundred?
What million?
Yeah like that doesn’t matter
=======
So a couple hundred mil will mean what?
City's entire turnover, that means ALL the money coming into the club including TV, players sales, winnings and everything, couldn't cover player wages alone for about 6 years.(again that could be 6 or 7 years but what's the difference?)
It didn't even come close to covering those wages and the turnaround has been amazing. The sheikh working hard behind the scenes of course.
That's player wages alone, without accounting for paying the tea lady and chauffeurs.
Get the fack outta town FFS.
What wages Mamba? What is the actual figure for wages?
What is City’s ACTUAL turnover?
Come on. Provide these figures that you don’t know...
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 seconds ago
What wages Mamba? What is the actual figure for wages?
What is City’s ACTUAL turnover?
Come on. Provide these figures that you don’t know...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t discuss with that tool. He will accuse you of being racist.
Do you write fantasy fiction for children in a professional capacity?
Just google the figures FFS.
There's some variance in estimates but the point is valid. I don't see how that's a problem.
If I am wrong then provide the correct figures
Also, fack off Arouna, don't bring the Liverpool thing into this.
Ferran Soriano has signalled Manchester City’s determination to dominate the English football landscape and finally crack Europe after they became only the second British club in history to surpass £500 million in annual revenues.
The Premier League champions have reported turnover of £500.50 million for 2017/18, a 44 per cent rise in five years and a near six fold increase in the 10 seasons since the club was bought by Arab billionaire Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan.
It leaves City trailing only Manchester United in revenue terms among the Premier League elite. United, who posted a turnover of £581 million for 2016/17, are due to publish their latest annual report on Tuesday week when revenues are expected to have stayed at a similar level.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/09/13/manchester-city-become-second-english-club-record-annual-revenues/
Robinho as a statement signing aside, we've rarely gone right to the top drawer, which is why we haven't broken the transfer record. Particularly the last few years, we seem to be buying very good relatively young players instead that still need a bit of development that is ideal for Guardiola.
Tebas, let's be honest, he represents the interests of Barca and Madrid far more than the rest of la liga. It'll be interesting to see what he says about the Griessman situation.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
Do you write fantasy fiction for children in a professional capacity?
=========
Obviously denial is a river in Africa
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/oct/01/manchester-city-annual-report-huge-loss
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/29/manchester-city-loss-wage-bill-income
How was that achieved without doping?
After spending ALL your money on half the team, how did you pay the rest, sign players, pay the tea lady, the groundskeeper, agents and agents fees etc etc.
Manchester City have overtaken Manchester United as the most valuable Premier League club, according to a new football finance study.
City are valued at £2.364bn, up £385m, while United are valued £2.087bn, a drop of £376m blamed on "higher wages and lower profit".
The top six account for almost three-quarters of the combined league value.
Burnley are seventh and described as the "most sensibly run club in the Premier League financially".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48145285
"City's entire turnover, that means ALL the money coming into the club including TV, players sales, winnings and everything, couldn't cover player wages alone for about 6 years.(again that could be 6 or 7 years but what's the difference?)"
That happened in the first full year after the takeover and in none since so that's just a false statement.
No it doesn’t work like that, you’re formulated an opinion. You provide the figures that backs up your opinion.
You don’t know the figures (you’ve admitted that), yet you’re of the opinion that whatever those figures are they will still back up your opinion.
You’re shooting in the dark Mamba. By your own admission.
Estimates?
You don’t need to estimate. This is all in the public domain.
Go do your research and come back when you can be bothered.
In absolute terms, Manchester United underwrote the largest salary bill, an estimated £296M ($385M) in 2017/18. Liverpool costs were £263M ($342M) with Manchester City at £260M ($338M). Chelsea’s wages costs were £244M ($317M) and Arsenal’s £223M ($290M). When it comes to value for money it is hard to beat Spurs’ wage bill of £147.6M ($192M).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2019/04/26/premier-league-wages-are-a-disgrace-except-when-your-teams-winning/
You see, it's not that hard to back up your claims if they're actually valid.
Over to you Mamba.
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
Do you write fantasy fiction for children in a professional capacity?
=========
Obviously denial is a river in Africa
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/oct/01/manchester-city-annual-report-huge-loss
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/29/manchester-city-loss-wage-bill-income
How was that achieved without doping?
After spending ALL your money on half the team, how did you pay the rest, sign players, pay the tea lady, the groundskeeper, agents and agents fees etc etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The vast majority of those are included in wages, they legally have to be. The last two are usually down as other expenses.
I think you're confusing profit and loss with balance sheet though, buying players wouldn't show on there aside from the amortisation.
Sign in if you want to comment
City NOT Ruining Football
Page 4 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 15/7/19
comment by Wahl Icht * (U22180)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Arouna Jagielka oooh I wanna take ya, Heitinga Nikica come on pretty mama (U1308)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Wahl Icht * (U22180)
posted 48 seconds ago
Mahrez, Lescott, Wayne Bridge, Delph, it's furrrking endless man
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All have cups and league medals against their name at City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but it's not because of them. The point is all the players I listed were not worth the money City spent on them and it's them spending that money on that level of player that has led to fees like 80m for Maguire or 60m for Keita for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They achieved the end goal. Did what was needed. Delivered a league/cup
posted on 15/7/19
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
When was the last time City had the largest wage bill?
======
That's not relevant. The comparison must be in relation to the starting point for it to mean anything.
City were purchased for 100m and have gone on to spend well over 2 billion in wages since, that's wages alone.
There's no way an entity worth 100m can go on to genrarate that kind of money without being doped up.
The proof is not that you are leading the wage bill or not, the proof is that you are in the conversation in the first place.
posted on 15/7/19
Leaving aside the point that this ignores the fact that City have been spending within their means for five years, it is also irrelevant.
======
So you'd been doping the previous 6 years before the 5 years, by your own admission. You were living beyond your means for 6 years and within your means for the last 5.
Basically, City have ingested enough weider to keep them going for a lifetime and now they can go around saying they live within their means.
Most points in this article are blatantly dishonest.
Waiting to see how you wiggle outta that one.
posted on 15/7/19
Doped up.
You’re at it again 😂
By the way, your £100m figure isn’t correct
posted on 15/7/19
£2Billion in wages you say.
Any proof, any links?
posted on 15/7/19
OK. Give or take a couple hundred and the point still stands.
Its not like it would be much lower than that to dismiss my point so why bother?
posted on 15/7/19
Give or take a couple of hundred?
What million?
Yeah like that doesn’t matter 🤣
posted on 15/7/19
You’re now mentioning figures that contradict your own comments.
What are the ACTUAL figures Mamba?
posted on 15/7/19
I don't know the actual figures. I can only estimate. Doesn't take away from my point though.
Just watch how pedantic you're getting here and you'll know debating with a City fan on this topic is pointless.
posted on 15/7/19
🤣
Exactly. You don’t know.
posted on 15/7/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
Give or take a couple of hundred?
What million?
Yeah like that doesn’t matter
=======
So a couple hundred mil will mean what?
City's entire turnover, that means ALL the money coming into the club including TV, players sales, winnings and everything, couldn't cover player wages alone for about 6 years.(again that could be 6 or 7 years but what's the difference?)
It didn't even come close to covering those wages and the turnaround has been amazing. The sheikh working hard behind the scenes of course.
That's player wages alone, without accounting for paying the tea lady and chauffeurs.
Get the fack outta town FFS.
posted on 15/7/19
What wages Mamba? What is the actual figure for wages?
What is City’s ACTUAL turnover?
Come on. Provide these figures that you don’t know...
posted on 15/7/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 seconds ago
What wages Mamba? What is the actual figure for wages?
What is City’s ACTUAL turnover?
Come on. Provide these figures that you don’t know...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t discuss with that tool. He will accuse you of being racist.
posted on 15/7/19
Do you write fantasy fiction for children in a professional capacity?
posted on 15/7/19
Just google the figures FFS.
posted on 15/7/19
There's some variance in estimates but the point is valid. I don't see how that's a problem.
If I am wrong then provide the correct figures
Also, fack off Arouna, don't bring the Liverpool thing into this.
posted on 15/7/19
Ferran Soriano has signalled Manchester City’s determination to dominate the English football landscape and finally crack Europe after they became only the second British club in history to surpass £500 million in annual revenues.
The Premier League champions have reported turnover of £500.50 million for 2017/18, a 44 per cent rise in five years and a near six fold increase in the 10 seasons since the club was bought by Arab billionaire Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan.
It leaves City trailing only Manchester United in revenue terms among the Premier League elite. United, who posted a turnover of £581 million for 2016/17, are due to publish their latest annual report on Tuesday week when revenues are expected to have stayed at a similar level.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/09/13/manchester-city-become-second-english-club-record-annual-revenues/
posted on 15/7/19
Robinho as a statement signing aside, we've rarely gone right to the top drawer, which is why we haven't broken the transfer record. Particularly the last few years, we seem to be buying very good relatively young players instead that still need a bit of development that is ideal for Guardiola.
Tebas, let's be honest, he represents the interests of Barca and Madrid far more than the rest of la liga. It'll be interesting to see what he says about the Griessman situation.
posted on 15/7/19
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
Do you write fantasy fiction for children in a professional capacity?
=========
Obviously denial is a river in Africa
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/oct/01/manchester-city-annual-report-huge-loss
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/29/manchester-city-loss-wage-bill-income
How was that achieved without doping?
After spending ALL your money on half the team, how did you pay the rest, sign players, pay the tea lady, the groundskeeper, agents and agents fees etc etc.
posted on 15/7/19
Manchester City have overtaken Manchester United as the most valuable Premier League club, according to a new football finance study.
City are valued at £2.364bn, up £385m, while United are valued £2.087bn, a drop of £376m blamed on "higher wages and lower profit".
The top six account for almost three-quarters of the combined league value.
Burnley are seventh and described as the "most sensibly run club in the Premier League financially".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48145285
posted on 15/7/19
"City's entire turnover, that means ALL the money coming into the club including TV, players sales, winnings and everything, couldn't cover player wages alone for about 6 years.(again that could be 6 or 7 years but what's the difference?)"
That happened in the first full year after the takeover and in none since so that's just a false statement.
posted on 15/7/19
No it doesn’t work like that, you’re formulated an opinion. You provide the figures that backs up your opinion.
You don’t know the figures (you’ve admitted that), yet you’re of the opinion that whatever those figures are they will still back up your opinion.
You’re shooting in the dark Mamba. By your own admission.
Estimates?
You don’t need to estimate. This is all in the public domain.
Go do your research and come back when you can be bothered.
posted on 15/7/19
In absolute terms, Manchester United underwrote the largest salary bill, an estimated £296M ($385M) in 2017/18. Liverpool costs were £263M ($342M) with Manchester City at £260M ($338M). Chelsea’s wages costs were £244M ($317M) and Arsenal’s £223M ($290M). When it comes to value for money it is hard to beat Spurs’ wage bill of £147.6M ($192M).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2019/04/26/premier-league-wages-are-a-disgrace-except-when-your-teams-winning/
posted on 15/7/19
You see, it's not that hard to back up your claims if they're actually valid.
Over to you Mamba.
posted on 15/7/19
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
Do you write fantasy fiction for children in a professional capacity?
=========
Obviously denial is a river in Africa
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/oct/01/manchester-city-annual-report-huge-loss
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/29/manchester-city-loss-wage-bill-income
How was that achieved without doping?
After spending ALL your money on half the team, how did you pay the rest, sign players, pay the tea lady, the groundskeeper, agents and agents fees etc etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The vast majority of those are included in wages, they legally have to be. The last two are usually down as other expenses.
I think you're confusing profit and loss with balance sheet though, buying players wouldn't show on there aside from the amortisation.
Page 4 of 7
6 | 7