Do you think we could have attracted £75m kit deals and a raft of international sponsors if we hadn't won all those trophies and hadn't been Europeean regulars?
Melts,
Mamba is clearly backtracking here. He hasn’t got a clue what he means. He’s disingenuous and I think he may have played us all. He’s wumming. He has to be.
No Melts.
Most who have enough money to dope up a PL club have actually had to earn that money. If they lost that money it would mean something and they can't just always get some more. Its not bottomless oil and state funding and therefore most would consider it throwing money away.
Of course he's wumming.
No one could be that stupid AND string a sentance together.
Backtracking?
So how many years was it?
State funding? 🤣
Stop it Mamba. Just stop 🤣
Figures Mamba?
I want these figures that you’ve admitted you don’t know 😂
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
Do you think we could have attracted £75m kit deals and a raft of international sponsors if we hadn't won all those trophies and hadn't been Europeean regulars?
==========
No but how did you get there having been worth 100m (approximately I think) about 10 years ago?
Why did everyone not do the same?
Its physically impossible without doping. You couldn't pay wages using income FFS.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
State funding? 🤣
======
Very strong point.
You sure showed me there.
Again, figures Mamba.
How much wages couldn’t we pay?
Again, your £100m is incorrect
“Approximately I think” 🤣
Could be a million, could be a billion. Doesn't really matter.
Every other club to have done this has been in administration. Either that or its never happened.
😂
Million or billion doesn’t really matter?
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
Again, your £100m is incorrect
======
We could say its 500m and its still doping to spend 5-6 times of that. Not even relevant.
Could be £100m or £500m? It’s not relevant 🤣
''For instance, buying six players at £15million each costs more than buying one for £80million – but it is the £80million buy which causes inflation''.
-----------------------------------------------
''Inflation'' is money supply (the amount of).
The more that is thrown into any given market weakens what currently exists hence what may have been 5mil prior to any additional money being pumped into any given market now becomes 10mil (for example).
The value of any existing currency becomes WEAKER ie you now need DOUBLE the amount to acquire the very same asset!
The same applies to property etc etc.......
It's all a con.
I'll get my coat............
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 12 minutes ago
No Melts.
Most who have enough money to dope up a PL club have actually had to earn that money. If they lost that money it would mean something and they can't just always get some more. Its not bottomless oil and state funding and therefore most would consider it throwing money away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, no, you’re missing my point. There are more billionaires now, they can’t invest though because they’re limited in what they can. That’s exactly why they changed ffp to relax it a couple of years ago.
I do think you’ve got the intentions of the owner wrong as well. He’s sold 13% to Chinese investors already and I’m convinced he will sell more over the next few years too. The 13% he sold values the asset at more than he has put in so far and the new overseas tv deal
will only increase that.
He’s always said that he ultimately wants to make money out of it. The difference is he could afford it if it didn’t happen and I imagine he’s had a lot more fun doing it with a football club than he did with Barclays (where he made more in two years than he’s invested in us so far in total).
To be clear as well, we are owned by Mansours private company and it is those Barclays funds that he used. We aren’t state funded as if we were, Etihad would have to be a related party transaction, which it isn’t. It doesn’t detract from the point of he could afford to lose it, but it is a very different model to PSG for example.
But how many years Melts?
Clear avoidance. You were insistent and persistent on the number of years as if it made a difference and now all of a sudden you've got more pressing things to say?
I told you this is how it goes every time.
Thanks boys
i thought it was common knowledge that it was indeed chelsea that ruined football. and that s@um sucking RM in second.
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 45 minutes ago
But how many years Melts?
Clear avoidance. You were insistent and persistent on the number of years as if it made a difference and now all of a sudden you've got more pressing things to say?
I told you this is how it goes every time.
Thanks boys
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many years what? I’ve already replied to you on that as you’d completely made up a statement earlier in this thread, or are you talking about something else?
It’s a bit disappointing that’s your response to that though.
casual 840 million pound CURRENT squad for City, 518 million for Liverpools over 320 million quid more
Yet its alright theyve not got a player in the top 20 transfer record fee bracket.
Sign in if you want to comment
City NOT Ruining Football
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 15/7/19
Do you think we could have attracted £75m kit deals and a raft of international sponsors if we hadn't won all those trophies and hadn't been Europeean regulars?
posted on 15/7/19
Melts,
Mamba is clearly backtracking here. He hasn’t got a clue what he means. He’s disingenuous and I think he may have played us all. He’s wumming. He has to be.
posted on 15/7/19
No Melts.
Most who have enough money to dope up a PL club have actually had to earn that money. If they lost that money it would mean something and they can't just always get some more. Its not bottomless oil and state funding and therefore most would consider it throwing money away.
posted on 15/7/19
Of course he's wumming.
No one could be that stupid AND string a sentance together.
posted on 15/7/19
Backtracking?
So how many years was it?
posted on 15/7/19
State funding? 🤣
Stop it Mamba. Just stop 🤣
posted on 15/7/19
Figures Mamba?
I want these figures that you’ve admitted you don’t know 😂
posted on 15/7/19
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
Do you think we could have attracted £75m kit deals and a raft of international sponsors if we hadn't won all those trophies and hadn't been Europeean regulars?
==========
No but how did you get there having been worth 100m (approximately I think) about 10 years ago?
Why did everyone not do the same?
Its physically impossible without doping. You couldn't pay wages using income FFS.
posted on 15/7/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
State funding? 🤣
======
Very strong point.
You sure showed me there.
posted on 15/7/19
Again, figures Mamba.
How much wages couldn’t we pay?
posted on 15/7/19
Again, your £100m is incorrect
posted on 15/7/19
“Approximately I think” 🤣
posted on 15/7/19
Could be a million, could be a billion. Doesn't really matter.
Every other club to have done this has been in administration. Either that or its never happened.
posted on 15/7/19
😂
Million or billion doesn’t really matter?
posted on 15/7/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
Again, your £100m is incorrect
======
We could say its 500m and its still doping to spend 5-6 times of that. Not even relevant.
posted on 15/7/19
Look at you Ripley.
posted on 15/7/19
Could be £100m or £500m? It’s not relevant 🤣
posted on 15/7/19
Yeah, OK.
Later.
posted on 15/7/19
Yeah indeed, later 🤣
posted on 15/7/19
''For instance, buying six players at £15million each costs more than buying one for £80million – but it is the £80million buy which causes inflation''.
-----------------------------------------------
''Inflation'' is money supply (the amount of).
The more that is thrown into any given market weakens what currently exists hence what may have been 5mil prior to any additional money being pumped into any given market now becomes 10mil (for example).
The value of any existing currency becomes WEAKER ie you now need DOUBLE the amount to acquire the very same asset!
The same applies to property etc etc.......
It's all a con.
I'll get my coat............
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 12 minutes ago
No Melts.
Most who have enough money to dope up a PL club have actually had to earn that money. If they lost that money it would mean something and they can't just always get some more. Its not bottomless oil and state funding and therefore most would consider it throwing money away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, no, you’re missing my point. There are more billionaires now, they can’t invest though because they’re limited in what they can. That’s exactly why they changed ffp to relax it a couple of years ago.
I do think you’ve got the intentions of the owner wrong as well. He’s sold 13% to Chinese investors already and I’m convinced he will sell more over the next few years too. The 13% he sold values the asset at more than he has put in so far and the new overseas tv deal
will only increase that.
He’s always said that he ultimately wants to make money out of it. The difference is he could afford it if it didn’t happen and I imagine he’s had a lot more fun doing it with a football club than he did with Barclays (where he made more in two years than he’s invested in us so far in total).
To be clear as well, we are owned by Mansours private company and it is those Barclays funds that he used. We aren’t state funded as if we were, Etihad would have to be a related party transaction, which it isn’t. It doesn’t detract from the point of he could afford to lose it, but it is a very different model to PSG for example.
posted on 15/7/19
But how many years Melts?
Clear avoidance. You were insistent and persistent on the number of years as if it made a difference and now all of a sudden you've got more pressing things to say?
I told you this is how it goes every time.
Thanks boys
posted on 15/7/19
i thought it was common knowledge that it was indeed chelsea that ruined football. and that s@um sucking RM in second.
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 45 minutes ago
But how many years Melts?
Clear avoidance. You were insistent and persistent on the number of years as if it made a difference and now all of a sudden you've got more pressing things to say?
I told you this is how it goes every time.
Thanks boys
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many years what? I’ve already replied to you on that as you’d completely made up a statement earlier in this thread, or are you talking about something else?
It’s a bit disappointing that’s your response to that though.
posted on 15/7/19
casual 840 million pound CURRENT squad for City, 518 million for Liverpools over 320 million quid more
Yet its alright theyve not got a player in the top 20 transfer record fee bracket.
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7