B
B
blueinsa
Guest
They are sponsors mate so i doubt its going to cost us anything.
They make it work with us and they then get to sell to others.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
They are sponsors mate so i doubt its going to cost us anything.
They make it work with us and they then get to sell to others.
What do you disagree with?
Everything you've written. You sound like Colin Schindler, another self-loathing prick. I've honestly never met any blue who feels the way you do. In fact you don't sound like a blue at all.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,076
Half wit gooners on that blog are now patting themselves on the back saying that they've seen off all City's arguments. It's quite easy to do that when they refuse to show any of our posts. What a bunch of pricks.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Half wit gooners on that blog are now patting themselves on the back saying that they've seen off all City's arguments. It's quite easy to do that when they refuse to show any of our posts. What a bunch of pricks.
Do they get to parade a trophy for that?
FootieFan86
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 202
- Team supported
- Liverpool FC
FFP would never last.
It's like a socialism in a capitalistic game.
It's like a socialism in a capitalistic game.
I have tried discussion in real life and online with gooners,Spurs,dippers and even the odd rag fan on money and our club and i might as well save my breath. It seems their glorious history only includes trophies won but how they were won and how they achieved success years ago with investment is conveniently forgotten. The only ones who do understand are the chavs as they have been in the same boat. I say fuck them! Don't try and reason with them,or explain or get them to understand. We are through the FFP minefield now and we are going to start to blow them out of the water once more.Let them sit on the sidelines whining and spouting their bile while we keep on racking up the trophies.They stalled us for a short while but now we are back!
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,076
Probably. They can put it in their trophy cabinet next to all their 4th place trophies and their "17 consecutive years in Europe and won fuck all" trophy.Do they get to parade a trophy for that?
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
That's a typical Arsenal's response, especially the second paragraphIn their eyes it does, its something that they are proud of , someone comparing what we have spent to their £50m Fizsmann money is frankly bizzare and embarssing
Sometimes you just have to admit that finishing in the top four without significant spending is a decent achievment , but you cant do that on here becuase people think you are wierd and any alternative views are shameful
They've spent hardly any money? If you truly believe that you are dumb.
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
I find most sensible fans of all clubs accept that money talks, and that the big clubs buy / bully their way to success.
Some of the more rabid fans aren't worth talking with as they struggle to take a sensible view on anything.
I can see why 'winning the lottery' irks a lot of opposition fans - but that's not a logical argument against it. We had the right stadium, with the right land, and the right opportunities, at the right time and at the right price. Largely by good fortune, but not entirely. Had we never chosen to move to the COMS, we'd likely be in the doldrums now, so SOME of our choices eventually influenced our good fortune.
It's not our fault that the level of investment at City is huge, whilst the level of investment elsewhere has been more modest (but every bit as influential, and over a longer period of time).
Reasoning with fellow City fans can be hard enough at times, trying to do so with opposition fans is harder still, but there are still plenty out there worth debating with (imo).
Some of the more rabid fans aren't worth talking with as they struggle to take a sensible view on anything.
I can see why 'winning the lottery' irks a lot of opposition fans - but that's not a logical argument against it. We had the right stadium, with the right land, and the right opportunities, at the right time and at the right price. Largely by good fortune, but not entirely. Had we never chosen to move to the COMS, we'd likely be in the doldrums now, so SOME of our choices eventually influenced our good fortune.
It's not our fault that the level of investment at City is huge, whilst the level of investment elsewhere has been more modest (but every bit as influential, and over a longer period of time).
Reasoning with fellow City fans can be hard enough at times, trying to do so with opposition fans is harder still, but there are still plenty out there worth debating with (imo).
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
Could be a London rag or an Arsenal fanRAG.
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
Arsenal are alleged to be the 6th highest spenders in Premier League history. So, one could argue they've done well relative to their spending.
But it's churlish to suggest they've not spent. The facts speak for themselves, they HAVE spent handsomely over the years.
I'm not going to say they've not done well, they have, but they've bought themselves into a top 6 position, and played their way to a better one. They'd not have played their way into top 4 without the spending though, they'd have likely played their way from mid-table by a few extra places instead.
This is what opposition fans simply refuse to see. The money buys them a 'ball park' position, then the playing acumen plays a part. It's a mix of both, but no amount of great play is going to see you win the league whilst not spending a penny, and no amount of spending will see you win the league without some great play.
Spurs are allegedly the 5th highest spenders in PL history, and there we see the opposite, they've bought themselves into the top 6 ball park, but arguably underachieved on the pitch.
But it's churlish to suggest they've not spent. The facts speak for themselves, they HAVE spent handsomely over the years.
I'm not going to say they've not done well, they have, but they've bought themselves into a top 6 position, and played their way to a better one. They'd not have played their way into top 4 without the spending though, they'd have likely played their way from mid-table by a few extra places instead.
This is what opposition fans simply refuse to see. The money buys them a 'ball park' position, then the playing acumen plays a part. It's a mix of both, but no amount of great play is going to see you win the league whilst not spending a penny, and no amount of spending will see you win the league without some great play.
Spurs are allegedly the 5th highest spenders in PL history, and there we see the opposite, they've bought themselves into the top 6 ball park, but arguably underachieved on the pitch.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Arsenal consistently outspent everyone bar the rags, Chelsea and the dippers during that period.
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
The figures I've got are from 2013
1) Chelsea
2) City
3) Liverpool
4) United
5) Spurs
6) Arsenal
But the point being, they're up there with the big spenders. They're kidding themselves if they think they've been working wonders on a shoestring budget.
Now that Ferguson's gone, we'll see United having to spend even more than before to compete. Spuds are the standout failures overall (imo)
1) Chelsea
2) City
3) Liverpool
4) United
5) Spurs
6) Arsenal
But the point being, they're up there with the big spenders. They're kidding themselves if they think they've been working wonders on a shoestring budget.
Now that Ferguson's gone, we'll see United having to spend even more than before to compete. Spuds are the standout failures overall (imo)
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
That's a typical Arsenal's response, especially the second paragraph
They've spent hardly any money? If you truly believe that you are dumb.
5th biggest spenders over the last 5 years, over £250M.
Do they think spending that much is fair on all the sides below them in the spending table?
No, do they fuck!
This Transfer League Table is a record of the amount of money spent in transfer fees by English Premier League Football Clubs since 2003.
The Reason for choosing 2003 as the starting point for this table is that this was the year which heralded the begining of hugely wealthy global business men buying football clubs with Roman Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea
The table also shows new investment which owners have made available to their club managers. The new investment can be seen season by season on the Club page from the Teams Transfer menu.
The "Purchased" column in this table shows the money spent on players in transfer fees by all the English Premier League clubs since 2003.
The "Sold" column shows the money received by the football club from the sale of players in the same period.
In the Nett" column the total of transfer fees received from the sale of Players is subtracted from the total money spent in transfer fees on purchasing players since 2003. This Nett figure is the "new investment" made available each season to the manager to buy players.
The "per season" column is the "Nett" total divided by the number of years that have passed since 2003 giving an average of the money spent in transfer fees by each premiership club each season since 2003.
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/pre...ague-tables/premier-league-table-2003-to-date
The Reason for choosing 2003 as the starting point for this table is that this was the year which heralded the begining of hugely wealthy global business men buying football clubs with Roman Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea
The table also shows new investment which owners have made available to their club managers. The new investment can be seen season by season on the Club page from the Teams Transfer menu.
The "Purchased" column in this table shows the money spent on players in transfer fees by all the English Premier League clubs since 2003.
The "Sold" column shows the money received by the football club from the sale of players in the same period.
In the Nett" column the total of transfer fees received from the sale of Players is subtracted from the total money spent in transfer fees on purchasing players since 2003. This Nett figure is the "new investment" made available each season to the manager to buy players.
The "per season" column is the "Nett" total divided by the number of years that have passed since 2003 giving an average of the money spent in transfer fees by each premiership club each season since 2003.
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/pre...ague-tables/premier-league-table-2003-to-date
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
Must be an Arsenal fan, they're the only ones who do Accounting 101 for Football
Must be an Arsenal fan, they're the only ones who do Accounting 101 for Football
Spurs fans have a tendency to celebrate the balance sheet rather than winning cups too.
Make your mind up, I thought I was a rag ?Must be an Arsenal fan, they're the only ones who do Accounting 101 for Football
I am an accountant though :-)
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
This Transfer League Table is a record of the amount of money spent in transfer fees by English Premier League Football Clubs since 2003.
The Reason for choosing 2003 as the starting point for this table is that this was the year which heralded the begining of hugely wealthy global business men buying football clubs with Roman Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea
The table also shows new investment which owners have made available to their club managers. The new investment can be seen season by season on the Club page from the Teams Transfer menu.
The "Purchased" column in this table shows the money spent on players in transfer fees by all the English Premier League clubs since 2003.
The "Sold" column shows the money received by the football club from the sale of players in the same period.
In the Nett" column the total of transfer fees received from the sale of Players is subtracted from the total money spent in transfer fees on purchasing players since 2003. This Nett figure is the "new investment" made available each season to the manager to buy players.
The "per season" column is the "Nett" total divided by the number of years that have passed since 2003 giving an average of the money spent in transfer fees by each premiership club each season since 2003.
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/pre...ague-tables/premier-league-table-2003-to-date
transfer spending, particularly by clubs called United and Arsenal, began before 2003.
Come back with a fair adjusted spending model and I'll pay some attention.