All the top English clubs have sugar daddies barring Everton.The only difference is ours is prepared to put his money where his mouth is rather than sit back and milk the proceeds.The sheer hypocrisy of rival supporters is astounding,I don't believe any one of you would be complaining if the boot was on the other foot and it all just comes across as rather sad and bitter.
I bought out a company struggling with cash flow a couple of years ago and put some cash into it and marketed it quite heavily and the outcome was that a rival local company couldn't compete and went under a couple of months ago (I bought the assets at auction to further complicate matters)
Do you see anything wrong in this as I just see it as business end of story even though the business that went under was doing ok until I intervened and I believe the bank are after his house now?
When your club is paying a reported £150-170k a week to Gareth Barry, you know somethings wrong
Pointless article, you cant defend City's spending
city's youngsters were fantastic last night. they gaine valuable experience and i am sure a few will make the grade.
150k a week to Gareth Barry
I heard that Wayne Bridge is on around 90k a week, and refused any loan deals to see out his contract at City
All the time he is smashing that fit one from The Saturdays
I rememebr my cousin asking how much Toure was on after the fa cup final. I said about £200k. His response was that he was worth every penny....i agreed.
"City is a business model. The owners are pouring in money to raise its profile and thereafter, it's income."
It's like pre incorporation cost for any business."
That is blatant tosh.
A better argument, would be to say City are trying to set up a national company all in one go. Say for instance you were going to set up a supermarket chain to rival Tesco, if you had the cash could you do it in one go? You could buy and build a few hundred sites, spend millions on advertising and start up with low prices and give aways to get customers in for the start up. It would cost a huge amount at the start but may make money in the long run. The problem is I can't think of a real world example where it has ever been shown to work. All big companies I can think of have started small and grown organically.
city's youngsters were fantastic last night. they gaine valuable experience and i am sure a few will make the grade.
------------------------------------------
Shame they wont ever get a chance with the 1st team though, how can you defend having putting one of your many £30 million players on the bench?
Paying a player £150k not to play
The Saturdays
No player is worth 200k a week!
wage bills only go in one direction..UPWARDs.
New deals will = higher pay. Hart, for example, has been there for a while and is now Englands No.1. His wages will have been much lower as his contract pre-dates the current ownership....it would be no surprise that his new(est) deal is worth probably 4 or 5 times what he was on before, and he has probably got 2 or 3 big contracts left in him, and each time will see a pay hike.
That is why Chelsea's wages are so high at £175m (averaging £120k a week for a 30 man squad), because players have been bought and given big contracts which have then been renewed and wages upped....City have distorted that process as well because we all know that Terry was tempted to move so Chelsea matched what he was being offered (Lucky escape for City).
http://www.visualevolution.co.uk/infographics/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/top_100_earners_in_world_football_2011.jpg
Shameful City
Devon
Totally agree! how can City not expect to pay him what the rest are on! now he is Englands no:1 and in good form he can ask for those wages
Financially City are ruining the PL with the hiked up wages, look at Rooney he played United into the new contract
Shameful
Paulpowersleftfoot
Well said. These guys are not sincere in their discussion. They bang about how they are a well run club yet are in debt. Recently, spurs wanted to alter therir wage cap to offer modric a new deal. Why? They now realise that good players cost more.
No player is worth 200k a week!
--
I would say 20k a week. Well, how much Lennon and Bentley get paid a week?
"All the top English clubs have sugar daddies barring Everton."
Spurs do not.
Their majority shareholders are indeed very rich.
But they bought THFC as a business, and run it with the same prudence as the myriad other businesses in their empire.
Being very rich does not imply Sugga Daddy (though the former is a pre-requisite for the latter) .
"I bought out a company struggling with cash flow a couple of years ago and put some cash into it and marketed it quite heavily and the outcome was that a rival local company couldn't compete and went under a couple of months ago (I bought the assets at auction to further complicate matters)"
So you are telling me you put a rival business under because they could not afford to engage in a marketing war, not because of matters such as the production quality/efficiences of their core product/service was superior to your business ??
If so, QED.
Well said. These guys are not sincere in their discussion. They bang about how they are a well run club yet are in debt. Recently, spurs wanted to alter therir wage cap to offer modric a new deal. Why? They now realise that good players cost more.
He was happy at the club, yes he is ambitious, any player is!
But once he sees that City are willing to pay him £150k a week its obvious it will unsettle him, we have to now pay what is expected!! will it ruin us financially in the long run?
Maybe
Who gives a rats ass ?
We're City and we'll pay what we want.....
We're City and we'll score what we want....
We're City and we'll do what we want.....
Spurs are in debt too..I think it's around 70 million.
Who gives a rats ass ?
We're City and we'll pay what we want.....
We're City and we'll score what we want....
We're City and we'll do what we want.....
----------------------------------------------------------
Nice
"These guys are not sincere in their discussion."
If you could just for one moment disguise your stupidity as ignorance.
"They bang about how they are a well run club yet are in debt."
Well run businesses MANAGE their debt burden.
They don't gamble or indulge in reckless/desperate frivolity when their revenues cannot support it.
Which brings us back to ...
Not when the financial fair play ruling comes in
"Who gives a rats ass ?
We're City and we'll pay what we want.....
We're City and we'll score what we want....
We're City and we'll do what we want....."
And that is the MOST HONEST and ACCURATE thing written to date by a Citeh fan on this article.
Enjoy the ride mate !!!
Mitch every club has debt!
Will the jealousy of Spurs fans EVER subside???
"Not when the financial fair play ruling comes in "
It's just a shame I can't see it ever working/being fullly enforced.
Mitch every club has debt!
--
That's your general opinion. There are clubs that aren't in debt. I think one of them is Stoke.
Sign in if you want to comment
Players wages - the facts
Page 2 of 14
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 27/10/11
All the top English clubs have sugar daddies barring Everton.The only difference is ours is prepared to put his money where his mouth is rather than sit back and milk the proceeds.The sheer hypocrisy of rival supporters is astounding,I don't believe any one of you would be complaining if the boot was on the other foot and it all just comes across as rather sad and bitter.
I bought out a company struggling with cash flow a couple of years ago and put some cash into it and marketed it quite heavily and the outcome was that a rival local company couldn't compete and went under a couple of months ago (I bought the assets at auction to further complicate matters)
Do you see anything wrong in this as I just see it as business end of story even though the business that went under was doing ok until I intervened and I believe the bank are after his house now?
posted on 27/10/11
When your club is paying a reported £150-170k a week to Gareth Barry, you know somethings wrong
Pointless article, you cant defend City's spending
posted on 27/10/11
city's youngsters were fantastic last night. they gaine valuable experience and i am sure a few will make the grade.
posted on 27/10/11
150k a week to Gareth Barry
I heard that Wayne Bridge is on around 90k a week, and refused any loan deals to see out his contract at City
All the time he is smashing that fit one from The Saturdays
posted on 27/10/11
I rememebr my cousin asking how much Toure was on after the fa cup final. I said about £200k. His response was that he was worth every penny....i agreed.
posted on 27/10/11
"City is a business model. The owners are pouring in money to raise its profile and thereafter, it's income."
It's like pre incorporation cost for any business."
That is blatant tosh.
A better argument, would be to say City are trying to set up a national company all in one go. Say for instance you were going to set up a supermarket chain to rival Tesco, if you had the cash could you do it in one go? You could buy and build a few hundred sites, spend millions on advertising and start up with low prices and give aways to get customers in for the start up. It would cost a huge amount at the start but may make money in the long run. The problem is I can't think of a real world example where it has ever been shown to work. All big companies I can think of have started small and grown organically.
posted on 27/10/11
city's youngsters were fantastic last night. they gaine valuable experience and i am sure a few will make the grade.
------------------------------------------
Shame they wont ever get a chance with the 1st team though, how can you defend having putting one of your many £30 million players on the bench?
Paying a player £150k not to play
The Saturdays
posted on 27/10/11
No player is worth 200k a week!
posted on 27/10/11
wage bills only go in one direction..UPWARDs.
New deals will = higher pay. Hart, for example, has been there for a while and is now Englands No.1. His wages will have been much lower as his contract pre-dates the current ownership....it would be no surprise that his new(est) deal is worth probably 4 or 5 times what he was on before, and he has probably got 2 or 3 big contracts left in him, and each time will see a pay hike.
That is why Chelsea's wages are so high at £175m (averaging £120k a week for a 30 man squad), because players have been bought and given big contracts which have then been renewed and wages upped....City have distorted that process as well because we all know that Terry was tempted to move so Chelsea matched what he was being offered (Lucky escape for City).
posted on 27/10/11
http://www.visualevolution.co.uk/infographics/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/top_100_earners_in_world_football_2011.jpg
Shameful City
posted on 27/10/11
Devon
Totally agree! how can City not expect to pay him what the rest are on! now he is Englands no:1 and in good form he can ask for those wages
Financially City are ruining the PL with the hiked up wages, look at Rooney he played United into the new contract
Shameful
posted on 27/10/11
Paulpowersleftfoot
Well said. These guys are not sincere in their discussion. They bang about how they are a well run club yet are in debt. Recently, spurs wanted to alter therir wage cap to offer modric a new deal. Why? They now realise that good players cost more.
posted on 27/10/11
No player is worth 200k a week!
--
I would say 20k a week. Well, how much Lennon and Bentley get paid a week?
posted on 27/10/11
"All the top English clubs have sugar daddies barring Everton."
Spurs do not.
Their majority shareholders are indeed very rich.
But they bought THFC as a business, and run it with the same prudence as the myriad other businesses in their empire.
Being very rich does not imply Sugga Daddy (though the former is a pre-requisite for the latter) .
"I bought out a company struggling with cash flow a couple of years ago and put some cash into it and marketed it quite heavily and the outcome was that a rival local company couldn't compete and went under a couple of months ago (I bought the assets at auction to further complicate matters)"
So you are telling me you put a rival business under because they could not afford to engage in a marketing war, not because of matters such as the production quality/efficiences of their core product/service was superior to your business ??
If so, QED.
posted on 27/10/11
Well said. These guys are not sincere in their discussion. They bang about how they are a well run club yet are in debt. Recently, spurs wanted to alter therir wage cap to offer modric a new deal. Why? They now realise that good players cost more.
He was happy at the club, yes he is ambitious, any player is!
But once he sees that City are willing to pay him £150k a week its obvious it will unsettle him, we have to now pay what is expected!! will it ruin us financially in the long run?
Maybe
posted on 27/10/11
Who gives a rats ass ?
We're City and we'll pay what we want.....
We're City and we'll score what we want....
We're City and we'll do what we want.....
posted on 27/10/11
Spurs are in debt too..I think it's around 70 million.
posted on 27/10/11
Who gives a rats ass ?
We're City and we'll pay what we want.....
We're City and we'll score what we want....
We're City and we'll do what we want.....
----------------------------------------------------------
Nice
posted on 27/10/11
"These guys are not sincere in their discussion."
If you could just for one moment disguise your stupidity as ignorance.
"They bang about how they are a well run club yet are in debt."
Well run businesses MANAGE their debt burden.
They don't gamble or indulge in reckless/desperate frivolity when their revenues cannot support it.
Which brings us back to ...
posted on 27/10/11
Not when the financial fair play ruling comes in
posted on 27/10/11
"Who gives a rats ass ?
We're City and we'll pay what we want.....
We're City and we'll score what we want....
We're City and we'll do what we want....."
And that is the MOST HONEST and ACCURATE thing written to date by a Citeh fan on this article.
Enjoy the ride mate !!!
posted on 27/10/11
Mitch every club has debt!
posted on 27/10/11
Will the jealousy of Spurs fans EVER subside???
posted on 27/10/11
"Not when the financial fair play ruling comes in "
It's just a shame I can't see it ever working/being fullly enforced.
posted on 27/10/11
Mitch every club has debt!
--
That's your general opinion. There are clubs that aren't in debt. I think one of them is Stoke.
Page 2 of 14
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10