City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

I don't think many City fans would care as much about how the market works, if there wasn't the collusion from rival clubs and the media, to lay as much blame as they can at City's door for the state of the market.

When I mentioned the word "immoral" I used quote marks for a reason, it's what City's business dealings get labelled with all the time, when they are no different to anyone else's. In fact, City haven't really had a Grealish-like signing before.

When City try and sell players that are actually worth something, the energy changes too. There's so many double standards, that I can totally understand why City fans get frustrated listening to it all.

I've been watching a few informative videos on youtube about big-pharma, big-tech and even those who supply the military and how they use the media. How would sport be any different? It's all one big machine, one feeding into the other(sports industry paying into the media industry) and each part benefits from it. "Follow our agendas, ignore what we want you to and we all earn more money" is the pattern that seems to be repeated across different industries. In sports, they(the media) all like us to think they are independent but they are not, especially with the business models they have these days. There's so much money pumped into the media via these sources, people on their boards with vested interest etc. I think it's safe to guess how Sly and BT Sports feel, the Americans and their connected businesses too.
 
Last edited:
ChicagoBlue said:
Indeed. All part of “The Project.”
My apologies for not noting that. However, in the main, I believe we sell young talent on, often with buy back clauses, while reaping the money to assist in buying the top, top talent that helps make the first team better.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
Silva61 said:
It's a very simple strategy, makes you wonder why nobody else follows suit, probably got something to do with investment and foresight.
Click to expand...
I think clubs like Soton have done it with a modicum of success, but they usually have to blood the players in the First Team to get them the exposure.

City are starting to reap the rewards of their early recruiting and having winning teams at all age levels, with PL2 highlighting the quality of the 18-23 yr olds on our books that are not already out on loan somewhere.

To be fair, Chelsea have been doing this for some time now, too, which has led to some ding dong battles with them at Youth levels.
 
Silva61 said:
It's a very simple strategy, makes you wonder why nobody else follows suit, probably got something to do with investment and foresight.
Click to expand...
Why did the top four, before us and Chelsea came along, have to invest and have foresight they were the European qualifiers the money was rolling in and then the astute American businessmen, aka crooks, saw the big trough of cash and thought let's have some of that. We can go over to Blighty and take over the top teams, be in an influential position and then browbeat and bully the English owners of other clubs to get our way. Gee guys this is like taking candy from a kid. Then along came a new Chelsea owner and they thought we will have to accommodate this guy he is serious. Then feck me along came Sheikh Mansour, an Arab, with untold wealth and the toys flew out of their fecking prams. The rest as they say is history.
This story was behind a paywall at The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Sport.;-)
PS. I made the last bit up.
 
bluemanchester said:
Why did the top four, before us and Chelsea came along, have to invest and have foresight they were the European qualifiers the money was rolling in and then the astute American businessmen, aka crooks, saw the big trough of cash and thought let's have some of that. We can go over to Blighty and take over the top teams, be in an influential position and then browbeat and bully the English owners of other clubs to get our way. Gee guys this is like taking candy from a kid. Then along came a new Chelsea owner and they thought we will have to accommodate this guy he is serious. Then feck me along came Sheikh Mansour, an Arab, with untold wealth and the toys flew out of their fecking prams. The rest as they say is history.
This story was behind a paywall at The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Sport.;-)
PS. I made the last bit up.
Click to expand...
Pushing the spuds aside they managed to accommodate Chelsea it was all a bit new and great for the PL,but 5 don't go into 4.
 
Silva61 said:
Pushing the spuds aside they managed to accommodate Chelsea it was all a bit new and great for the PL,but 5 don't go into 4.
Click to expand...
Spurs were never top 4 in the PL era, not before the late 00s when we were pushing for the same places. They were a mid table club for most of the 90s. Finished below City the season before the takeover. I don't think it's an accident that so many people have the perception you have though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Premier_League_seasons

Having looked back properly, it seems Arsenal and Liverpool missed out on top 4, in 2 or 3 of the first 5 premier league seasons each. So it took some time for Gregg Dyke's plan to bear fruit. Regardless, it was the big 3 before Chelsea got investment. They(the big sly 3) were all top 4 regulars, unless one of them was having an off season. It was probably a lot to do with who had invested the most wisely and most recently, who got into the top 4 outside of that pack.

Blackburn(early 90s), Villa(early 90s), Newcastle(early to mid 90s), Leeds(mid to late 90s), Chelsea(late 90s) . Some of these clubs spent beyond their means to challenge as they did. We know what happened with Leeds and Chelsea were in trouble too before their buyout according to some sources.
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
Spurs were never top 4 in the PL era, not before the late 00s when we were pushing for the same places. They were a mid table club for most of the 90s. Finished below City the season before the takeover. I don't think it's an accident that so many people have the perception you have though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Premier_League_seasons

It was the big 3 before Chelsea got investment, unless one of them was having an off season(Liverpool mostly) and it was probably a lot to do with who had invested the most wisely most recently, who got into the top 4.

Blackburn(early 90s), Villa(early 90s), Newcastle(early to mid 90s), Leeds(mid to late 90s), Chelsea(late 90s) . Some of these clubs spent beyond their means to challenge as they did. We know what happened with Leeds and Chelsea were in trouble too before their buyout according to some sources.
Click to expand...
 
Silva61 said:
Top 4 never had anything to do with position in the table
Click to expand...
Yeah the correct term is the "Big Sly 3"

I still think the *Big 4" was only after Chelsea had investment and then later it became the Big 6 when City and Spurs started challenging.

It's true that it's more to do with the earning and spending power of the club, than it is the finishing positions. However, there's only so much money they can pump into clubs, if they aren't making top 4. That's how I understood the plan, "make top 4 and we'll disproportionately reward you and call it fair gains" over a number of years. Then they could stay there(top 4), enjoy champions league status and the money that comes with that(broadcast revenue) and grow their own commercial revenues off the back of it, until superclubs were born, that no other clubs could compete with. Spurs never really had any of that, despite what the media sycophants say.

If it turns out they(the PL) were pumping money into Spurs regardless of their finishing positions. To help them break into the top 4 and become the Big 6 club they've become, that would make interesting reading. I don't think that's what happened but it wouldn't surprise me one bit, considering Alan Sugar's relationship with Rupert and the way the media seem to suck up to Spurs.
 
Last edited:
mayo31 said:
Well why not

The player Kane wanted to come we are led to believe

So his career is not furthered due to Levy and others having a hatred of us or our Arab owners.

He loses out would you not think, at least on challenging for trophies
Click to expand...
Harold Kane is a Spurs player and hopefully stays that way.

What trophies he doesn't win in his career is irrelevant.
 
Keeper! said:
Harold Kane is a Spurs player and hopefully stays that way.

What trophies he doesn't win in his career is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
The point you are missing or ignoring is that in amongst all of this getting at City business is a player who has no beef with us is basically missing out on furthering his career

Look at it or feel however you want but that is a fact
 
Semper aggressus said:
We should burst their fucking ball and throw the cunting thing in the fucking road. Fuck Utd, fuck Chelsea, fuck Liverpool and Bayern and all of them. Spend half a billion in a month, smash every fucker, and if any of these little gobshite rag clubs complain we rip them several new arseholes in court by buying the very best lawyers money can get, and any corruptible media types to set these clubs and chairmen up for some huge falls. I really don’t know why we continue to tow the line of these red shits.
Click to expand...
Toe.
 
Semper aggressus said:
None of these fucking wankers gives a shit about us and most actively want us to fail. Surely those in charge at City must realise this, what I don’t understand is why we don’t just fuck the whole lot of these rag loving bastards and bulldoze our way to the very top.

Fuck their little cartel and hollow financial rules, that’s just the gobshite rags and history clubs on the continent crying and taking their ball home. We should burst their fucking ball and throw the cunting thing in the fucking road. Fuck Utd, fuck Chelsea, fuck Liverpool and Bayern and all of them. Spend half a billion in a month, smash every fucker, and if any of these little gobshite rag clubs complain we rip them several new arseholes in court by buying the very best lawyers money can get, and any corruptible media types to set these clubs and chairmen up for some huge falls. I really don’t know why we continue to tow the line of these red shits.
Click to expand...

The earliest mention of "Toe the line" is 1813, there are various possible origins of the phrase, one example are the red red lines in the house of commons. These were to keep rival politicians apart, they had to "Toe the line". Not always exclusively a line , it could be a scuff, mark or small trench which had to be be toed.
Tow is a common mispelling,
 
Metalartin said:
Yeah the correct term is the "Big Sly 3"

I still think the *Big 4" was only after Chelsea had investment and then later it became the Big 6 when City and Spurs started challenging.

It's true that it's more to do with the earning and spending power of the club, than it is the finishing positions. However, there's only so much money they can pump into clubs, if they aren't making top 4. That's how I understood the plan, "make top 4 and we'll disproportionately reward you and call it fair gains" over a number of years. Then they could stay there(top 4), enjoy champions league status and the money that comes with that(broadcast revenue) and grow their own commercial revenues off the back of it, until superclubs were born, that no other clubs could compete with. Spurs never really had any of that, despite what the media sycophants say.

If it turns out they(the PL) were pumping money into Spurs regardless of their finishing positions. To help them break into the top 4 and become the Big 6 club they've become, that would make interesting reading. I don't think that's what happened but it wouldn't surprise me one bit, considering Alan Sugar's relationship with Rupert and the way the media seem to suck up to Spurs.
Click to expand...
The big 4 came about because Sky manipulated the fixtures to make their “Super Sunday” programme
 
WRicko said:
Let me get this straight Levy who runs a less club and was also involved in the Super League in fact to s greater extent than us and just generally seems like the sort of person you wouldn’t want to be around is preferred to anyone at City Odd Can Khaldoon not pally rather than Tixi isn’t is chairmen usually rather than DOF or CEO ? Hasn’t he got more Charisma and pull with his connections outside football won’t that interest other owners
Click to expand...
More
Spurs have been tied up with Utd Arsenal Liverpool etc for decades and they group up to push stuff through that benefits them as a group
 
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