https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-city-liverpool-fc-transfers-24381475
I appreciate this is a Man City correspondant and theres going to be a bias approach, just the same as youd get in the Echo, but this is honestly 1 of the most ridiculous articles I think Ive ever read from a "journalist".
Point 1 - lfc have spent double what city have. This said on the eve of city signing phillips for 40 odd million and widespread reports cucarella will come in for 40 odd with us widely reported as being done. Fack me talk about premature. Before city fans bring out the fact jesus sterling etc have been/may be sold hes already pointed out in the article that net spend shouldnt matter as that only suits our agenda.
Point 2 - doesnt like the fact that people mention this 1 point difference between the teams across the last 4 seasons. Thats us setting things up for our own agenda. I mean cmon to fack, every "sane" liverpool fan knows city were absolute miles ahead of us 5 years ago. The whole point of comparing them last 4 years is to show how close its been since and what a fantastic competitive rivalry its been, albeit city coming out on top 3 to 1.
Point 3- salahs new deal now automatically appears to mean we pay city sort of wages as the going rate. He is the 1st person in the history of the club to be paid this sort of money. How many do city have in excess of 300k? I dont know the answer, id guess 5 or 6.
Anyone who knows my history knows I dont really grumble about citys spending. Its just 1 of those things, wed all love to have citys spending power and its not going to change so no point moaning about has always been my mantra but this idea that all of a sudden we are level in spending power is insane.
Any city fans out there able to confirm is this guy legit. Id expect this sort of pash on here as an article, not in a newspaper.
Article in the MEN
posted on 3/7/22
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 6 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
The whole point being saying City are doing what Liverpool can’t isn’t really true. The difference being city can seemingly do it Indefinitely whereas other teams have to create specific situations to allow them to.
--------------------------------------
Forget wages, sponsorship deals, player sales etc, City have earned more in prize money than any other club over the last 5 years (Liverpool may have edged it last season) so can afford to spend as they don't have any shareholders to pay out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool don't pay anything out to their shareholders either.
The difference between the two clubs is more that our owners don't put any money in, we have to be fully self sufficient
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City's owners haven't put anything in for the last 9 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dodgy sponsorship, dodgy loans amongst the city group, dodgy rights payments from other teams in the group which ARE financially doped...
I don't begrudge city the financing, I do find the attempts to whitewash it by fans highly amusing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You just believe what you want to believe.
You probably kid yourself that Pep hasn't won all those trophies with the attendant prize money it brings whilst the average gates at the Etihad are 20,000 a season and they all get in for nowt.
Nissan, Puma, Canon, Nexen Tyres etc all fiddle their books to give City extra sponsorship too.
posted on 3/7/22
I totally understand why the dippers are so aggrieved at City’s success. When you realise that Liverpool have never had to buy a player they have all come through their academy and they are on on national minimum wage.
posted on 3/7/22
comment by gone but never forgotten (U21659)
posted 3 hours, 18 minutes ago
I totally understand why the dippers are so aggrieved at City’s success. When you realise that Liverpool have never had to buy a player they have all come through their academy and they are on on national minimum wage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes all those local boys in the team
posted on 4/7/22
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 22 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
The whole point being saying City are doing what Liverpool can’t isn’t really true. The difference being city can seemingly do it Indefinitely whereas other teams have to create specific situations to allow them to.
--------------------------------------
Forget wages, sponsorship deals, player sales etc, City have earned more in prize money than any other club over the last 5 years (Liverpool may have edged it last season) so can afford to spend as they don't have any shareholders to pay out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool don't pay anything out to their shareholders either.
The difference between the two clubs is more that our owners don't put any money in, we have to be fully self sufficient
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City's owners haven't put anything in for the last 9 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 4/7/22
Liverpool are still the team that has spent the most in either gross spend or net spend per PL title
No other team that’s won the the PL even comes close to the amount they’ve spent for that one solitary title.
They can’t quite wrap their heads around it tho
posted on 4/7/22
Seen as you seem to have your spreadsheets handy, How much have your lot spent in the last 5 years both gross and net to win absolutely nothing?
posted on 4/7/22
You’re picking a timeline to suit your agenda
I chose the entire PL era. Money spent divided by titles won.
Of all the winners no one even gets close to your billion quid plus per title spend
posted on 4/7/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 hours, 5 minutes ago
You’re picking a timeline to suit your agenda
I chose the entire PL era. Money spent divided by titles won.
Of all the winners no one even gets close to your billion quid plus per title spend
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im picking a timeline to suit my agenda.
Says the guy who chooses only the last 30 years to suit his agenda.
Pot kettle black and all that jazz mate
posted on 5/7/22
comment by Mellor, Lovely Cushioned Header, FOR GERRARD, OOOOOOHHHHHH YAAAAAAA BEEEAAAUUUTTTYYYYY!!!!!!!!! (U1859)
posted 10 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 hours, 5 minutes ago
You’re picking a timeline to suit your agenda
I chose the entire PL era. Money spent divided by titles won.
Of all the winners no one even gets close to your billion quid plus per title spend
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im picking a timeline to suit my agenda.
Says the guy who chooses only the last 30 years to suit his agenda.
Pot kettle black and all that jazz mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So much anger! Can’t believe how sensitive the dippers have become
posted on 8/7/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 6 days, 3 hours ago
I wouldn't do this mate. No one, and I mean no one, is allowed to criticize LFC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree! Criticizing LFC can become a matter for the United Nations to address!