Are City the only club to have received ‘controversial’ finance?

Tifo has done another video on City, with another bait-like Anti-City title(much like "Are City the dirtiest PL team?" which I pulled them up on and got them to change). Much like that video the actual video content is a lot more balanced than the title they gave it suggests. Shame really because they make good videos, with well researched data but they are clearly lowering themselves to click baiting and choosing subjects to pander to a certain demographic(City hating boneheads).



I've replied again(couldn't help myself, thank god I don't have a twitter account) and suggested some revisions such as UEFA's amendments to the rules after City had already submitted their accounts in accordance to the original rules. Also suggested they've overlooked that broadcasting views have a greater importance to a sponsor than shirt sales(that's what the kitmaker deal is all about, where City has been shafted the most and where the next revenue boost will hopefully come from) world class, record breaking, title winning players beamed to millions(and millions) of homes wearing the sponsors name vs porky united shirt wearing rags with their arses hanging out the back of their trousers? Which image do they think the shirt sponsors want? They could have offered a full breakdown of what sponsorship revenue other clubs are getting, which may suggest our current deal is possibly still undervalued. Do we even have confirmation how much the renegotiated deal is worth? We could do a United and invent new things to sponsor "short sponsor", "sock sponsor".

Worth a watch anyway, it even has some digs at UEFA in it but we know Rags and Dippers will cover their ears for those bits.
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
Tifo has done another video on City, with another bait-like Anti-City title(much like "Are City the dirtiest PL team?" which I pulled them up on and got them to change). Much like that video the actual video content is a lot more balanced than the title they gave it suggests. Shame really because they make good videos, with well researched data but they are clearly lowering themselves to click baiting and choosing subjects to pander to a certain demographic(City hating boneheads).



I've replied again(couldn't help myself, thank god I don't have a twitter account) and suggested some revisions such as UEFA's amendments to the rules after City had already submitted their accounts in accordance to the original rules. Also suggested they've overlooked that broadcasting views have a greater importance to a sponsor than shirt sales(that's what the kitmaker deal is all about, where City has been shafted the most and where the next revenue boost will hopefully come from) world class, record breaking, title winning players beamed to millions(and millions) of homes wearing the sponsors name vs porky united shirt wearing rags with their arses hanging out the back of their trousers? Which image do they think the shirt sponsors want? They could have offered a full breakdown of what sponsorship revenue other clubs are getting, which may suggest our current deal is possibly still undervalued. Do we even have confirmation how much the renegotiated deal is worth? We could do a United and invent new things to sponsor "short sponsor", "sock sponsor".

Worth a watch anyway, it even has some digs at UEFA in it but we know Rags and Dippers will cover their ears for those bits.
Click to expand...


i thought it was a good video
 
I hope this is the correct thread to post the following.................and If Ernie Whalley is a poster on Bluemoon....I salute you sir........
Many young fans will not have a clue to our history so please read and digest.

Yesterday, I noticed a response to the Q “What’s the difference between Man City and Man United written by an obviously post–1990 American Plastic Rag. I felt compelled to put the lad right on a few matters. Another City fan made perhaps a more telling observation – “City are in Manchester”

What is the difference between Manchester City and Manchester (United)?

Ernie Whalley
Ernie Whalley, lived in Manchester, UK
Answered 8hours ago

Oh dear. While I do not wish to involve myself in a slanging match with a Rag (Manchester United supporter) I fear that he has no knowledge of the ethos, culture or history of either club in the period before 1990 (the year when Manchester United started to commence its domination, taking over from Liverpool as England’s most successful club) and so I feel bound to address the topic. Both clubs were founded, within a couple of miles of each other, in working class areas in east Manchester. United was founded as Newton Heath LYR Football Club in 1878, changed its name to Manchester United in 1902 and moved to its current stadium, Old Trafford in 1910. City were actually founded by a woman, Anna Connell, daughter of the Vicar of St.Mark’s church, West Gorton in 1880, as a social project for local youths. The club was originally named St.Mark’s West Gorton, then Ardwick AFC, changing its name to Manchrester City in 1894. City was the first Manchester club to win a trophy, the FA cup in 1905.

Until World War II City were locally regarded as Manchester’s premier club. United went through difficult financial times. On the first occasion City fans held a collection on match day to help prevent United becoming bankrupt and subsequently another collection to buy new kit for their neighbours – it was in this period that United gained their enduring nickname of ‘The Rags’.

Another financial crisis was averted by an investment from James Gibson, a prominent local businessman, a ‘sugar daddy’ if you like. All of which makes the typical United fan’s abuse of City’s owner, Sheikh Mansoor, faintly ridiculous.

Uo to the 1960s, when hooliganism attached itself to football the relationship between the clubs was fairly cordial. When United’s ground was bombed in WW II, City permitted their rivals to use their ground, Maine Road, for home games.

Up to 1990 the clubs competed on a level playing field, both enjoying periods of success and relative failure. United had the better of the 1960s, City the 70s.

United’s global fan base was largely built during the aftermath of the terrible disaster at Munich airport in 1958 when several team members of a very good young side, known as (after the Manager, Matt Busby, curiously an ex-City player) “The Busby Babes” died when their plane crashed. It has to be said that the club milked the public sentiment in a somewhat undignified, though very successful manner.

The 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s belonged to United who amassed trophy after trophy while City, dogged by managerial failure and financial mismanagement, declined. Ten years ago City was acquired by Sheikh Mansoor, head of the Abu Dhabi United Group. The subsequent capital injection sparked a revival, enabling the club to win three Premier League titles in 7 years.

The period from 1990 to date is well documented on the web and it would be tedious to recount it here. Fact is that both are now wealthy clubs, able to compete with the best from Liverpool and London and, on the European stage, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Paris St.Germain.

I would take with a pinch of salt the jibes of Man United supporters concerning City’s ultimate viability. The evidence is that Sheikh Mansoor is in it for the long haul, building up a network of football clubs. The marketing is exemplary – the club is very much in touch with its supporters and their needs. In addition, Mansoor has invested a considerable amount of resources in the formerly run-down environment in the region of the Etihad Stadium. United’s prosperity also deserves scrutiny. Their owners bought the ground with a series of bank loans and are currently milking the club in order to service the debt. A long term fall off in performance could see their global fan base start to dissipate and financial failure result. In history, nothing is permanent, as fans of Blackburn Rovers, far and away the most successful club in football’s early years, will surely tell you.

A word to my fellow responder, David Barnett. I realise you are American and that you have, presumably, elected to choose Man United because they were the most successful club around the time you became interested in football. Mancunians, people hailing from Manchester UK of whom I am one, do not ‘choose’ their football teams. Most, in deciding which team to support (generally around age 8 or 9), are conditioned by their environment, friends and family. I am proud to be the third generation of five generations of Blues (Manchester City supporters).

Lastly, the “greatness” of a football club, my friend, does not depend on mere success. I have buddies who are Liverpool supporters, Arsenal supporters, Burnley supporters, QPR supporters, even Port Vale supporters. Each thinks his/her club is “The Greatest”. And, know what, they are all of them right.
 
shemnel said:
i thought it was a good video
Click to expand...
I did too but it could have been better(the points I raised were valid, granted they churn out a lot of videos and so some facts are missed but that's what edits are for) and there's no excuse for the clickbait title. The content doesn't match the title, they have done this before in a video about the amount of tactical fouls City do, the content itself was balanced and fine but the comments showed people were clearly swayed by the title(in one ear out the other) "yeah man City are cheats" and so on.

I suppose even the United Glazers one from Jan is not really aimed at United fans. Plenty of ammo for those who hate United to use in their twitter wars, maybe that's their angle? It's quite shocking that leveraged buying has got them so far, it shouldn't be legal, you'd think those creating FFP rules would take a good look at that. Then again the worse state the Rags are in the better for everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Bluep*ss said:
I hope this is the correct thread to post the following.................and If Ernie Whalley is a poster on Bluemoon....I salute you sir........
Many young fans will not have a clue to our history so please read and digest.

Yesterday, I noticed a response to the Q “What’s the difference between Man City and Man United written by an obviously post–1990 American Plastic Rag. I felt compelled to put the lad right on a few matters. Another City fan made perhaps a more telling observation – “City are in Manchester”

What is the difference between Manchester City and Manchester (United)?

Ernie Whalley
Ernie Whalley, lived in Manchester, UK
Answered 8hours ago

Oh dear. While I do not wish to involve myself in a slanging match with a Rag (Manchester United supporter) I fear that he has no knowledge of the ethos, culture or history of either club in the period before 1990 (the year when Manchester United started to commence its domination, taking over from Liverpool as England’s most successful club) and so I feel bound to address the topic. Both clubs were founded, within a couple of miles of each other, in working class areas in east Manchester. United was founded as Newton Heath LYR Football Club in 1878, changed its name to Manchester United in 1902 and moved to its current stadium, Old Trafford in 1910. City were actually founded by a woman, Anna Connell, daughter of the Vicar of St.Mark’s church, West Gorton in 1880, as a social project for local youths. The club was originally named St.Mark’s West Gorton, then Ardwick AFC, changing its name to Manchrester City in 1894. City was the first Manchester club to win a trophy, the FA cup in 1905.

Until World War II City were locally regarded as Manchester’s premier club. United went through difficult financial times. On the first occasion City fans held a collection on match day to help prevent United becoming bankrupt and subsequently another collection to buy new kit for their neighbours – it was in this period that United gained their enduring nickname of ‘The Rags’.

Another financial crisis was averted by an investment from James Gibson, a prominent local businessman, a ‘sugar daddy’ if you like. All of which makes the typical United fan’s abuse of City’s owner, Sheikh Mansoor, faintly ridiculous.

Uo to the 1960s, when hooliganism attached itself to football the relationship between the clubs was fairly cordial. When United’s ground was bombed in WW II, City permitted their rivals to use their ground, Maine Road, for home games.

Up to 1990 the clubs competed on a level playing field, both enjoying periods of success and relative failure. United had the better of the 1960s, City the 70s.

United’s global fan base was largely built during the aftermath of the terrible disaster at Munich airport in 1958 when several team members of a very good young side, known as (after the Manager, Matt Busby, curiously an ex-City player) “The Busby Babes” died when their plane crashed. It has to be said that the club milked the public sentiment in a somewhat undignified, though very successful manner.

The 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s belonged to United who amassed trophy after trophy while City, dogged by managerial failure and financial mismanagement, declined. Ten years ago City was acquired by Sheikh Mansoor, head of the Abu Dhabi United Group. The subsequent capital injection sparked a revival, enabling the club to win three Premier League titles in 7 years.

The period from 1990 to date is well documented on the web and it would be tedious to recount it here. Fact is that both are now wealthy clubs, able to compete with the best from Liverpool and London and, on the European stage, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Paris St.Germain.

I would take with a pinch of salt the jibes of Man United supporters concerning City’s ultimate viability. The evidence is that Sheikh Mansoor is in it for the long haul, building up a network of football clubs. The marketing is exemplary – the club is very much in touch with its supporters and their needs. In addition, Mansoor has invested a considerable amount of resources in the formerly run-down environment in the region of the Etihad Stadium. United’s prosperity also deserves scrutiny. Their owners bought the ground with a series of bank loans and are currently milking the club in order to service the debt. A long term fall off in performance could see their global fan base start to dissipate and financial failure result. In history, nothing is permanent, as fans of Blackburn Rovers, far and away the most successful club in football’s early years, will surely tell you.

A word to my fellow responder, David Barnett. I realise you are American and that you have, presumably, elected to choose Man United because they were the most successful club around the time you became interested in football. Mancunians, people hailing from Manchester UK of whom I am one, do not ‘choose’ their football teams. Most, in deciding which team to support (generally around age 8 or 9), are conditioned by their environment, friends and family. I am proud to be the third generation of five generations of Blues (Manchester City supporters).

Lastly, the “greatness” of a football club, my friend, does not depend on mere success. I have buddies who are Liverpool supporters, Arsenal supporters, Burnley supporters, QPR supporters, even Port Vale supporters. Each thinks his/her club is “The Greatest”. And, know what, they are all of them right.
Click to expand...

FA cup win was 1904. I’m assuming this is just a typo.
 
Bluep*ss said:
I hope this is the correct thread to post the following.................and If Ernie Whalley is a poster on Bluemoon....I salute you sir........
Many young fans will not have a clue to our history so please read and digest.

Yesterday, I noticed a response to the Q “What’s the difference between Man City and Man United written by an obviously post–1990 American Plastic Rag. I felt compelled to put the lad right on a few matters. Another City fan made perhaps a more telling observation – “City are in Manchester”

What is the difference between Manchester City and Manchester (United)?

Ernie Whalley
Ernie Whalley, lived in Manchester, UK
Answered 8hours ago

Oh dear. While I do not wish to involve myself in a slanging match with a Rag (Manchester United supporter) I fear that he has no knowledge of the ethos, culture or history of either club in the period before 1990 (the year when Manchester United started to commence its domination, taking over from Liverpool as England’s most successful club) and so I feel bound to address the topic. Both clubs were founded, within a couple of miles of each other, in working class areas in east Manchester. United was founded as Newton Heath LYR Football Club in 1878, changed its name to Manchester United in 1902 and moved to its current stadium, Old Trafford in 1910. City were actually founded by a woman, Anna Connell, daughter of the Vicar of St.Mark’s church, West Gorton in 1880, as a social project for local youths. The club was originally named St.Mark’s West Gorton, then Ardwick AFC, changing its name to Manchrester City in 1894. City was the first Manchester club to win a trophy, the FA cup in 1905.

Until World War II City were locally regarded as Manchester’s premier club. United went through difficult financial times. On the first occasion City fans held a collection on match day to help prevent United becoming bankrupt and subsequently another collection to buy new kit for their neighbours – it was in this period that United gained their enduring nickname of ‘The Rags’.

Another financial crisis was averted by an investment from James Gibson, a prominent local businessman, a ‘sugar daddy’ if you like. All of which makes the typical United fan’s abuse of City’s owner, Sheikh Mansoor, faintly ridiculous.

Uo to the 1960s, when hooliganism attached itself to football the relationship between the clubs was fairly cordial. When United’s ground was bombed in WW II, City permitted their rivals to use their ground, Maine Road, for home games.

Up to 1990 the clubs competed on a level playing field, both enjoying periods of success and relative failure. United had the better of the 1960s, City the 70s.

United’s global fan base was largely built during the aftermath of the terrible disaster at Munich airport in 1958 when several team members of a very good young side, known as (after the Manager, Matt Busby, curiously an ex-City player) “The Busby Babes” died when their plane crashed. It has to be said that the club milked the public sentiment in a somewhat undignified, though very successful manner.

The 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s belonged to United who amassed trophy after trophy while City, dogged by managerial failure and financial mismanagement, declined. Ten years ago City was acquired by Sheikh Mansoor, head of the Abu Dhabi United Group. The subsequent capital injection sparked a revival, enabling the club to win three Premier League titles in 7 years.

The period from 1990 to date is well documented on the web and it would be tedious to recount it here. Fact is that both are now wealthy clubs, able to compete with the best from Liverpool and London and, on the European stage, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Paris St.Germain.

I would take with a pinch of salt the jibes of Man United supporters concerning City’s ultimate viability. The evidence is that Sheikh Mansoor is in it for the long haul, building up a network of football clubs. The marketing is exemplary – the club is very much in touch with its supporters and their needs. In addition, Mansoor has invested a considerable amount of resources in the formerly run-down environment in the region of the Etihad Stadium. United’s prosperity also deserves scrutiny. Their owners bought the ground with a series of bank loans and are currently milking the club in order to service the debt. A long term fall off in performance could see their global fan base start to dissipate and financial failure result. In history, nothing is permanent, as fans of Blackburn Rovers, far and away the most successful club in football’s early years, will surely tell you.

A word to my fellow responder, David Barnett. I realise you are American and that you have, presumably, elected to choose Man United because they were the most successful club around the time you became interested in football. Mancunians, people hailing from Manchester UK of whom I am one, do not ‘choose’ their football teams. Most, in deciding which team to support (generally around age 8 or 9), are conditioned by their environment, friends and family. I am proud to be the third generation of five generations of Blues (Manchester City supporters).

Lastly, the “greatness” of a football club, my friend, does not depend on mere success. I have buddies who are Liverpool supporters, Arsenal supporters, Burnley supporters, QPR supporters, even Port Vale supporters. Each thinks his/her club is “The Greatest”. And, know what, they are all of them right.
Click to expand...
@Bluep*ss where can I find this exchange? Cheers
 
I seem to recognize the name Ernie Whalley from posts in the MEN?
An excellent poster and a true Blue.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.