Banned from Glory Glory

[gaudinho's stolen car]

I watched that thing with Alan Sugar last week, and as chairman of Tottenham he was part of the setting up of the Premier League, and he rang Sky to tell them how much ITV had bid, in order to make sure his business partner got the deal. He then went on to admit that every club had more money than they knew what to do with, and spunked the lot on player salaries and agents.

Your previous chairman is the proud architect of this money pit, don't start bitching about it now especially when Klinsmann was possibly the original football mercenary.

 

[Metal Biker]

I'd rather have the FFP than what we have now.

At the moment two clubs are in the top 4 who have been brought over and had "investment" put in. They're the two that are hardest to compete with financialy.

Your comparing football purelly to a business, that annoys me more than anything. It's not just a business it's something which is part of the community.

Your right, unfortuantely that is the only way to compete. But does it make it right still?
.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but professional football has always been a business. It's just that it's gone from being the equivalent of a corner shop to the equivalent of Walmart.

You might like to go back to the days when top clubs were owned by TV dealers and local doctors and the like, when TV was in black-and-white, when the crowd wore flat caps and carried rattles (and stood) and when the players got a decent wage but were not made for life by warming a bench for three years. Guess what? If all things were equal I wouldn't mind joining you, but it's impossible, and even if it wasn't, football would still be a business.

It is also impossible to make football 'fair' because clubs' sizes and incomes vary so much. Anyway, what is 'fair'? 'Fair' is an subjective not an objective term. I guarantee that if I drew up my manifesto for a 'fair' society and you drew up yours, the two would be utterly different. Simply because 'fair' means different things to different people.

Fans with a romantic view of football, who long for some non-existent golden age, are wasting their time supporting a Premier League team, be it City, Spurs or anyone else. They would be better off watching their local amateur side.

As for 'right' - there is no right or wrong in business (see above) only the law. And in the case of football, the rules of the game and the associations.
When laws and rules are passed, they often have unforseen effects. I think City will have no problem with the fair funding rules, certainly not in the long term. Other clubs are going to find they are a permanent glass ceiling.
And the privileged few, the likes of Rags, Barcelona, and Real Madrid for example, will be safe in their protective cocoon for ever. Very 'fair' that. Very 'right'.

Nicely done, sir!

 

[Newman Noggs]

I'm sorry to break it to you, but professional football has always been a business. It's just that it's gone from being the equivalent of a corner shop to the equivalent of Walmart.

You might like to go back to the days when top clubs were owned by TV dealers and local doctors and the like, when TV was in black-and-white, when the crowd wore flat caps and carried rattles (and stood) and when the players got a decent wage but were not made for life by warming a bench for three years. Guess what? If all things were equal I wouldn't mind joining you, but it's impossible, and even if it wasn't, football would still be a business.

It is also impossible to make football 'fair' because clubs' sizes and incomes vary so much. Anyway, what is 'fair'? 'Fair' is an subjective not an objective term. I guarantee that if I drew up my manifesto for a 'fair' society and you drew up yours, the two would be utterly different. Simply because 'fair' means different things to different people.

Fans with a romantic view of football, who long for some non-existent golden age, are wasting their time supporting a Premier League team, be it City, Spurs or anyone else. They would be better off watching their local amateur side.

As for 'right' - there is no right or wrong in business (see above) only the law. And in the case of football, the rules of the game and the associations.
When laws and rules are passed, they often have unforseen effects. I think City will have no problem with the fair funding rules, certainly not in the long term. Other clubs are going to find they are a permanent glass ceiling.
And the privileged few, the likes of Rags, Barcelona, and Real Madrid for example, will be safe in their protective cocoon for ever. Very 'fair' that. Very 'right'.

Very good post but i'm not sure you escape this syndrome even if you support a team from outside of the Premier League. The parachute payments paid to teams dropping out of the Premier league give them a clear advantage over the teams trying to go the other way. That, of course, was the intention. That some clubs still manage to cock it up, mentioning no names, doesn't change the point.

Given the fact that the FFPR rules are probably legally questionnable if anyone with money was minded to do so, I fully expect similar parachute payments to become payable to any club dropping out of the Champions League in the near future with a miminmum qualification of, say, three consecutive years entry.

 

[BlakeTheBlue]

I have to hold my hands up here guys. The reason pretty much all Blues are imediately put on what's called "Post Mod" over on Glory Glory is because of me. I have posted there for a about a year as CTID (original i know) the Spurs lads there will know all about me and i'm sure any blues who visit that site will have read my posts too.

I first went there to debate 4th last season and the abuse i got was fucking heavy duty. 4 posters in particular: Totman, Wriggley, African Spurs and especialy Mick Cooper are the bitterest, moronic cock suckers i have had the misfortune to come accross on any forum on the web.

This season i returned was to debate 4th yet again just as they were all saying it was over and we had clinched it (after we had just beaten Blackburn). They imediately saw this as me returning to "WUM" when it genuinely wasn't. I told then nothing was over, We still had tough games and it could still go either way. They weren't up for debating and i was met with the usual "Citeh ruining football, No history blah blah blah" bollocks. A couple more blues signed up being a little less diplomatic than myself and the rest is history.

I was put on post mod, the other blues were banned and now pretty much any view about us other than we are the devil incarnate isn't allowed.

 

[Vienna_70]

Yeah, I sued to like Man City but now it seems like your fans are turning into what Chelsea fans are, forgetting what they were ebfore being brought and believing they have a divine right to success because of the money their owner spends.

As I recall we were finishing above you in the PL before Abramovich came along. :)

That was because of the money Matthew Harding had ploughed into CFC for several years.

We had one (dodgy) year of Frank's money before Sheikh Mansour bought us.

 

[stony]

Yeah, I sued to like Man City but now it seems like your fans are turning into what Chelsea fans are, forgetting what they were ebfore being brought and believing they have a divine right to success because of the money their owner spends.

As I recall we were finishing above you in the PL before Abramovich came along. :)

That was because of the money Matthew Harding had ploughed into CFC for several years.

We had one (dodgy) year of Frank's money before Sheikh Mansour bought us.

It wasn't even Franks money. He just used next years Sky money and bought the players on the drip.

 

[Vienna_70]

Yeah, I sued to like Man City but now it seems like your fans are turning into what Chelsea fans are, forgetting what they were ebfore being brought and believing they have a divine right to success because of the money their owner spends.

As I recall we were finishing above you in the PL before Abramovich came along. :)

That was because of the money Matthew Harding had ploughed into CFC for several years.

We had one (dodgy) year of Frank's money before Sheikh Mansour bought us.

It wasn't even Franks money. He just used next years Sky money and bought the players on the drip.

I think the point I was trying to make was that we have gone from relegation fodder to Champions' League in four seasons.

Less time than Chelsea took from when Harding started pouring money in?

Though I'm not entirely sure of their timeline.

 

[stony]

Yeah, I sued to like Man City but now it seems like your fans are turning into what Chelsea fans are, forgetting what they were ebfore being brought and believing they have a divine right to success because of the money their owner spends.

As I recall we were finishing above you in the PL before Abramovich came along. :)

That was because of the money Matthew Harding had ploughed into CFC for several years.

We had one (dodgy) year of Frank's money before Sheikh Mansour bought us.

It wasn't even Franks money. He just used next years Sky money and bought the players on the drip.

I think the point I was trying to make was that we have gone from relegation fodder to Champions' League in four seasons.

Less time than Chelsea took from when Harding started pouring money in?

Though I'm not entirely sure of their timeline.

Chelsea fans are quick to forget the money Harding spunked into the club.

Can you remember everyone laughing when our owners said they wanted to be among the best in the world?
Not funny any more is it ;-)

 

[Castiel]

Yeah, I sued to like Man City but now it seems like your fans are turning into what Chelsea fans are, forgetting what they were ebfore being brought and believing they have a divine right to success because of the money their owner spends.

As I recall we were finishing above you in the PL before Abramovich came along. :)

That was because of the money Matthew Harding had ploughed into CFC for several years.

We had one (dodgy) year of Frank's money before Sheikh Mansour bought us.

So where does it end? Harding invested in Chelsea, the club became successful. Abramovich who is significantly richer than Harding was, invested substantially more and the club became more successful. The only difference between Harding, Abramovich, Levy and the Sheikh is relative net worth. Every professional club has some kind of bankroll going on, all this is just posturing and moaning over who has the wealthier man behind the curtain.

Chelsea fans are quick to forget the money Harding spunked into the club.

Can you remember everyone laughing when our owners said they wanted to be among the best in the world?
Not funny any more is it ;-)

We named a stand after him and he is hardly forgotten. His investment wasn't obscene to the scales of Abramovich and the Sheikh either. You'll probably find it was on par with Levy's into Spurs and completely dwarfed by the investment United, Arsenal and Liverpool have benefited from for decades.

 

[stony]

We named a stand after him and he is hardly forgotten. His investment wasn't obscene to the scales of Abramovich and the Sheikh either. You'll probably find it was on par with Levy's into Spurs and completely dwarfed by the investment United, Arsenal and Liverpool have benefited from for decades.

I got banned from the shed end for saying that City were doing what Chelsea had done. There are Chelsea fans on there moaning that we are buying the league. ycnmiu