Khaldoon's End of Season Interview

Metalartin said:
So:



Then:


Right Tebas.... because City are owned by a state and have had massive losses bailed out by our owner?



Sponsorship isn't funding? Barca haven't been Sponsored by Qatar for several years up until recently? Real aren't currently sponsored by a Dubai government own company for almost as long as City have been owned by Sheikh Mansour?

Didn't both Real and Barca get sanctions for some state related income?
Click to expand...

Real and Barca are political tools for Spain and Catalunya and always have been. To say these two have never been state funded is absolute bollocks. The state has used Real Madrid as a tool of power and foreign sponsorships linked to other states will have done deals exactly like Etihad did with us.
 
This interview has caused a lot of debate on Twitter, the bit surrounding inflation/distorting the market seems to be the main bone of contention.

I came across this thread which sums it up rather nicely (and deserves more attention).









 
Metalartin said:
If none of our journos pick up on and call him out on all of the holes even we can see from general knowledge, then they can have no complaints if we continue to view them as puppets for the cartel.
Click to expand...

Where are those bastions of truth David Conn and Miguel Delaney when you need them?
 
Metalartin said:
If none of our journos pick up on and call him out on all of the holes even we can see from general knowledge, then they can have no complaints if we continue to view them as puppets for the cartel.
Click to expand...

We play in a stadium built and paid for by the state, it's not unreasonable to assume our owners wouldn't be here without that stadium. There are plenty of arguments to fight but this isn't one of them, countries/councils have always "helped" club's that benefit them. West Ham got handed a stadium, Everton sold their training ground to the council, the same council approved compulsory purchase orders to knock down people's houses for Anfield to be redeveloped. It's laughable what he said but people in glass houses and all that.
 
Canyouseethesky said:
We play in a stadium built and paid for by the state, it's not unreasonable to assume our owners wouldn't be here without that stadium. There are plenty of arguments to fight but this isn't one of them, countries/councils have always "helped" club's that benefit them. West Ham got handed a stadium, Everton sold their training ground to the council, the same council approved compulsory purchase orders to knock down people's houses for Anfield to be redeveloped. It's laughable what he said but people in glass houses and all that.
Click to expand...

We pay to play in that stadium, as do West Ham in theirs.
 
Canyouseethesky said:
We play in a stadium built and paid for by the state, it's not unreasonable to assume our owners wouldn't be here without that stadium. There are plenty of arguments to fight but this isn't one of them, countries/councils have always "helped" club's that benefit them. West Ham got handed a stadium, Everton sold their training ground to the council, the same council approved compulsory purchase orders to knock down people's houses for Anfield to be redeveloped.
's laughable what he said but people in glass houses and all that.
Click to expand...
Ah the defence of the journos is here.

We've already paid off the stadium, the government are in profit on what the stadium cost to build if I remember right and more importantly, this was not in anyway against the rules of the game what Barca and Real got was(cheats?). The Man City and West Ham situation was a solution that suited both parties(club and council)... I don't think you can say the same for what happened in Spain and Catalonia.

That was just one small part of my point too, there are many holes that should be addressed if they do not have an agenda(how both clubs have received millions from Qatar and the UAE themselves, how Tebas has a links to an anti-muslim group in Spain and so on).

Lastly, glass houses is exactly why they should be mentioning all of it, he threw the first stone(long before the interview). They would if someone City related came out with such a shit argument full of hypocrisy and untruths.

So with that said... any sign of a critical response to Tebas' words? Not that it would change much it's just yet another nail in the coffin for any journo who did respond in that way to the interview. In a like for like comparison, Khaldoon's comments and points made, piss all over Tebas' for holding water.
 
Last edited:
Canyouseethesky said:
We play in a stadium built and paid for by the state, it's not unreasonable to assume our owners wouldn't be here without that stadium. There are plenty of arguments to fight but this isn't one of them, countries/councils have always "helped" club's that benefit them. West Ham got handed a stadium, Everton sold their training ground to the council, the same council approved compulsory purchase orders to knock down people's houses for Anfield to be redeveloped. It's laughable what he said but people in glass houses and all that.
Click to expand...


The stadium wasn’t built for City by the Government/state. Please get your facts right.

The stadium was built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

City agreed to move to the now Etihad stadium so it didn’t become a white elephant after the games. City gave MR and the surrounding land away for free to the council. It’s now houses.

City paid for the NS to be built after the games, It cost City £22mill. During the games it was a temporary stand.

City lease the stadium and pay rent to Sport England and Manchester City Council. The lease is for 250 years. City now pay £4mill a year to lease/rent the stadium. You do the maths. Up to £1bill, depending on further rent/lease increases. That £4mill per a year goes back to the local community, blue and red.

City have spent millions on the stadium, including the expansion of the stadium.

City have an option to buy the stadium out right.
 
Last edited:
Rolee said:
This interview has caused a lot of debate on Twitter, the bit surrounding inflation/distorting the market seems to be the main bone of contention.

I came across this thread which sums it up rather nicely (and deserves more attention).









Click to expand...

I was looking at it myself, the fullback position is the only place they can make that case but we needed to replace our fullbacks fast, with quality and experience of a type that is in short supply.

This will be their sticking point despite all the above positions you mention and there will probably be comparisons to Liverpool because it suits their narrative. Liverpool got lucky though with their fullbacks. Robertson was a hopeful punt that paid off, Arnold is the first academy product they've had make the grade in years unless you count Sterling who only spent 2 years there before going pro. They were also allowed to ease them in from a position of no pressure, we had no such luxury after our first season under Pep, it needed rectifying fast.
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
I was looking at it myself, the fullback position is the only place they can make that case but we needed to replace our fullbacks fast, with quality and experience of type that is in short supply.

This will be their sticking point despite all the above positions you mention and there will probably be comparisons to Liverpool because it suits their narrative. Liverpool got lucky though with their fullbacks. Robertson was a hopeful punt that paid off, Arnold is the first academy product they've had make the grade in years unless you count Sterling who only spent 2 years there before going pro. They also were allowed to ease them in from a position of no pressure, we had no such luxury after our first season under Pep, it needed rectifying fast.
Click to expand...

City lost all 4 squad full backs that summer and they were all well over 30. We replaced the 4 with 3 signings which isn't that profligate especially as I'm struggling to think of a full back we'd actually paid a big fee for since the takeover. Zabaleta cost £6.45m, Clichy £7m, Kolarov £16m and Sagna was a free.
 
Last edited:
laserblue said:
City lost all 4 squad full backs that summer and they were all well over 30. We replaced the 4 with 3 signings which isn't that profligate especially as I'm struggling to think of a full back we've actually paid a big fee for since the takeover. Zabaleta cost £6.45m, Clichy £7m, Kolarov £16m and Sagna was a free.
Click to expand...

If I remember right the summer we spent all the money on the full backs we hadn’t spent any money on full backs for the previous 6/7 years. We also then went on to win 2 consecutive league titles with an average of 99 points plus 3 other trophies and a charity shield! So I’m not too arsed to be honest!
 
laserblue said:
City lost all 4 squad full backs that summer and they were all well over 30. We replaced the 4 with 3 signings which isn't that profligate especially as I'm struggling to think of a full back we've actually paid a big fee for since the takeover. Zabaleta cost £6.45m, Clichy £7m, Kolarov £16m and Sagna was a free.
Click to expand...
That's true but I was looking at it from the market distortion angle, they went especially overboard with the criticism of our fees on Mendy and Walker.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/tra...pielerposition_id=5&altersklasse=&leihe=&w_s=

It was a jump of £15.5m for Walker(we signed him first if I remember right) but this was 9years after the previous record was set by Dani Alves' transfer to Barcelona from Sevilla(£31.95m). So I wonder what the bar graph will look like.
 
Last edited:
laserblue said:
City lost all 4 squad full backs that summer and they were all well over 30. We replaced the 4 with 3 signings which isn't that profligate especially as I'm struggling to think of a full back we'd actually paid a big fee for since the takeover. Zabaleta cost £6.45m, Clichy £7m, Kolarov £16m and Sagna was a free.
Click to expand...

When another team in Stretford buy a Crystal Palace full back for North of £60m later this summer it’ll be a shrewd investment and money well spent.
 
Having watched both parts I'm struggling to understand the excitement about it to be honest. A shoeing for the mediocrity Tebas, nice words about the season past, lots of stuff about CFG (which doesn't interest me in the slightest), a vague promise to expand the stadium when the time is 'right' and not much else.

I like Khaldoon but his end of season thing is standard City TV.
 
Canyouseethesky said:
We play in a stadium built and paid for by the state, it's not unreasonable to assume our owners wouldn't be here without that stadium. There are plenty of arguments to fight but this isn't one of them, countries/councils have always "helped" club's that benefit them. West Ham got handed a stadium, Everton sold their training ground to the council, the same council approved compulsory purchase orders to knock down people's houses for Anfield to be redeveloped. It's laughable what he said but people in glass houses and all that.
Click to expand...
Which paper do you work for?
 
I think the most important statement was, to paraphrase, football is a small world and when people in leading positions say things something we get to know.
A clear dig at some of our Premier League rivals who are actively working against us.
 
Canyouseethesky said:
We play in a stadium built and paid for by the state, it's not unreasonable to assume our owners wouldn't be here without that stadium. There are plenty of arguments to fight but this isn't one of them, countries/councils have always "helped" club's that benefit them. West Ham got handed a stadium, Everton sold their training ground to the council, the same council approved compulsory purchase orders to knock down people's houses for Anfield to be redeveloped. It's laughable what he said but people in glass houses and all that.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense...

Our taking over the CoMS should be held up as the template for the best practice when it comes to building stadia for events like the olympics, commonwealth games etc.

There are white elephant stadia all around the world that have cost tax payers millions.

We take up a tenancy that pays significant sums back to the taxpayer while carrying out further development and making full use of the facility and people slag us off for it...

Pathetic...
 
Ardwick Green Blue said:
Having watched both parts I'm struggling to understand the excitement about it to be honest. A shoeing for the mediocrity Tebas, nice words about the season past, lots of stuff about CFG (which doesn't interest me in the slightest), a vague promise to expand the stadium when the time is 'right' and not much else.

I like Khaldoon but his end of season thing is standard City TV.
Click to expand...
Why do we have a "limit" facility?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top