It's the age old struggle of old money looking down on new money. The thing that pisses City fans off regards this state owned shite, is that for one it's not true. And secondly, it's a phrase the media constantly use to undermine the clubs achievements on the pitch.Newcastle fan here.
I understand that your ownership structure is such that you are not directly owned by the state. The question I ask though is, what the fuck would it matter if you were?
State ownership is not forbidden by any relevant football authorities, and if they tried to do it, it would likely fall foul of the UK’s competition rules.
It seems the only people who have a problem with state ownership is those who feel like they would never be able to compete, I.E. the cabal. The thing is though, clubs being owned by state ownership is no more or less of a barrier from competing when they had the richest owners.
In reality there always has been, and always will be an unbalance of those who have money, and those who do not. It’s been that way since PNE started paying players, and the leagues ultimately became professional.
In a modern sense, take Tottenham Hotspur’s for example. Historically they are not really that much bigger than us (Newcastle). In the Premier League era, they have outdone us by winning 2 League Cups, credit to them, but not really something to say they are significantly bigger than us, if so then the argument that Leicester are bigger than them would be a fairly easy point to make in response. Anyway London prices has meant that they have been able to command higher ticket prices than any club in the North East region would ever be able to charge. Would they also be able build such a stadium if they were based up here, and also to host the events such as the NFL etc which all brings in them higher revenue?
I guess we’ll find out soon enough when our owners do what they will in regard to our new stadium.
Let’s flip things on its head. Would a Spurs based where they are in London have been able to build the stadium they had, been able to get merchandise sales etc through at the levels they do, or sell tickets at London prices if Mike Ashley had bought and gimped them for 14 years instead of settling to do it to us?
I’m going to hazard a guess and say not.
You see, the dynamics of having money, and not having money is never going to be simple, and it’s never going to be wholly level. Somewhere along the lines there is going to be circumstances that means one club can gain more money than the other. For every poor person in Liverpool who can’t afford a match ticket, you have someone from Dublin taking his place. Newcastle isn’t exactly an hours ferry ride from Norway to be able to do the same.
I guess my point is that the lines about where money can be earned, spent, and who can have it have never been defined, but always assumed. Much like those bankers who went complaining when the nerds fucked them over with GameStop shares due to not doing what is assumed, tough fucking luck, you can whinge all you want, but what is good enough for the Goose, is going to be good enough for the Gander.
I know I’ve went off on a tangent here, I know I’m largely preaching to the congregation, but I think my point is valid.
Bloxham was once described to me by a very seasoned salesman I knew who was flogging something to him, as the toughest negotiator he ever dealt with.Getting rid of purple soil from the dyeworks in order to build the Academy was what "remediation" meant. I did attend a conference years before when New Islington was being built. I'd seen a video of Tom Bloxham from Urban Splash stood by the canal bank with general tattiness in the background, and waxing lyrical about new housing and offices with waterside access. Later in the conference he said, "It's marvellous what you can do with a bit of imagination, and eleven million pounds of government grants". I'm not sure if the Sheikh got any grants for cleaning up the Clayton Aniline site.
It's the age old struggle of old money looking down on new money. The thing that pisses City fans off regards this state owned shite, is that for one it's not true. And secondly, it's a phrase the media constantly use to undermine the clubs achievements on the pitch.
Now get your fucking act together, and knock one of the cartel cunts out of the CL places.
Newcastle fan here.
I understand that your ownership structure is such that you are not directly owned by the state. The question I ask though is, what the fuck would it matter if you were?
State ownership is not forbidden by any relevant football authorities, and if they tried to do it, it would likely fall foul of the UK’s competition rules.
It seems the only people who have a problem with state ownership is those who feel like they would never be able to compete, I.E. the cabal. The thing is though, clubs being owned by state ownership is no more or less of a barrier from competing when they had the richest owners.
In reality there always has been, and always will be an unbalance of those who have money, and those who do not. It’s been that way since PNE started paying players, and the leagues ultimately became professional.
In a modern sense, take Tottenham Hotspur’s for example. Historically they are not really that much bigger than us (Newcastle). In the Premier League era, they have outdone us by winning 2 League Cups, credit to them, but not really something to say they are significantly bigger than us, if so then the argument that Leicester are bigger than them would be a fairly easy point to make in response. Anyway London prices has meant that they have been able to command higher ticket prices than any club in the North East region would ever be able to charge. Would they also be able build such a stadium if they were based up here, and also to host the events such as the NFL etc which all brings in them higher revenue?
I guess we’ll find out soon enough when our owners do what they will in regard to our new stadium.
Let’s flip things on its head. Would a Spurs based where they are in London have been able to build the stadium they had, been able to get merchandise sales etc through at the levels they do, or sell tickets at London prices if Mike Ashley had bought and gimped them for 14 years instead of settling to do it to us?
I’m going to hazard a guess and say not.
You see, the dynamics of having money, and not having money is never going to be simple, and it’s never going to be wholly level. Somewhere along the lines there is going to be circumstances that means one club can gain more money than the other. For every poor person in Liverpool who can’t afford a match ticket, you have someone from Dublin taking his place. Newcastle isn’t exactly an hours ferry ride from Norway to be able to do the same.
I guess my point is that the lines about where money can be earned, spent, and who can have it have never been defined, but always assumed. Much like those bankers who went complaining when the nerds fucked them over with GameStop shares due to not doing what is assumed, tough fucking luck, you can whinge all you want, but what is good enough for the Goose, is going to be good enough for the Gander.
I know I’ve went off on a tangent here, I know I’m largely preaching to the congregation, but I think my point is valid.
And that is, of course, because as yet NUFC haven’t won anything.You have still been relatively unscathed by all that shit. But you will understand soon enough.
100% correct and even more so when the State is 26,000 square miles.Newcastle fan here.
I understand that your ownership structure is such that you are not directly owned by the state. The question I ask though is, what the fuck would it matter if you were?
State ownership is not forbidden by any relevant football authorities, and if they tried to do it, it would likely fall foul of the UK’s competition rules.
It seems the only people who have a problem with state ownership is those who feel like they would never be able to compete, I.E. the cabal. The thing is though, clubs being owned by state ownership is no more or less of a barrier from competing when they had the richest owners.
In reality there always has been, and always will be an unbalance of those who have money, and those who do not. It’s been that way since PNE started paying players, and the leagues ultimately became professional.
In a modern sense, take Tottenham Hotspur’s for example. Historically they are not really that much bigger than us (Newcastle). In the Premier League era, they have outdone us by winning 2 League Cups, credit to them, but not really something to say they are significantly bigger than us, if so then the argument that Leicester are bigger than them would be a fairly easy point to make in response. Anyway London prices has meant that they have been able to command higher ticket prices than any club in the North East region would ever be able to charge. Would they also be able build such a stadium if they were based up here, and also to host the events such as the NFL etc which all brings in them higher revenue?
I guess we’ll find out soon enough when our owners do what they will in regard to our new stadium.
Let’s flip things on its head. Would a Spurs based where they are in London have been able to build the stadium they had, been able to get merchandise sales etc through at the levels they do, or sell tickets at London prices if Mike Ashley had bought and gimped them for 14 years instead of settling to do it to us?
I’m going to hazard a guess and say not.
You see, the dynamics of having money, and not having money is never going to be simple, and it’s never going to be wholly level. Somewhere along the lines there is going to be circumstances that means one club can gain more money than the other. For every poor person in Liverpool who can’t afford a match ticket, you have someone from Dublin taking his place. Newcastle isn’t exactly an hours ferry ride from Norway to be able to do the same.
I guess my point is that the lines about where money can be earned, spent, and who can have it have never been defined, but always assumed. Much like those bankers who went complaining when the nerds fucked them over with GameStop shares due to not doing what is assumed, tough fucking luck, you can whinge all you want, but what is good enough for the Goose, is going to be good enough for the Gander.
I know I’ve went off on a tangent here, I know I’m largely preaching to the congregation, but I think my point is valid.
Newcastle fan here.
I understand that your ownership structure is such that you are not directly owned by the state. The question I ask though is, what the fuck would it matter if you were?
State ownership is not forbidden by any relevant football authorities, and if they tried to do it, it would likely fall foul of the UK’s competition rules.
It seems the only people who have a problem with state ownership is those who feel like they would never be able to compete, I.E. the cabal. The thing is though, clubs being owned by state ownership is no more or less of a barrier from competing when they had the richest owners.
In reality there always has been, and always will be an unbalance of those who have money, and those who do not. It’s been that way since PNE started paying players, and the leagues ultimately became professional.
In a modern sense, take Tottenham Hotspur’s for example. Historically they are not really that much bigger than us (Newcastle). In the Premier League era, they have outdone us by winning 2 League Cups, credit to them, but not really something to say they are significantly bigger than us, if so then the argument that Leicester are bigger than them would be a fairly easy point to make in response. Anyway London prices has meant that they have been able to command higher ticket prices than any club in the North East region would ever be able to charge. Would they also be able build such a stadium if they were based up here, and also to host the events such as the NFL etc which all brings in them higher revenue?
I guess we’ll find out soon enough when our owners do what they will in regard to our new stadium.
Let’s flip things on its head. Would a Spurs based where they are in London have been able to build the stadium they had, been able to get merchandise sales etc through at the levels they do, or sell tickets at London prices if Mike Ashley had bought and gimped them for 14 years instead of settling to do it to us?
I’m going to hazard a guess and say not.
You see, the dynamics of having money, and not having money is never going to be simple, and it’s never going to be wholly level. Somewhere along the lines there is going to be circumstances that means one club can gain more money than the other. For every poor person in Liverpool who can’t afford a match ticket, you have someone from Dublin taking his place. Newcastle isn’t exactly an hours ferry ride from Norway to be able to do the same.
I guess my point is that the lines about where money can be earned, spent, and who can have it have never been defined, but always assumed. Much like those bankers who went complaining when the nerds fucked them over with GameStop shares due to not doing what is assumed, tough fucking luck, you can whinge all you want, but what is good enough for the Goose, is going to be good enough for the Gander.
I know I’ve went off on a tangent here, I know I’m largely preaching to the congregation, but I think my point is valid.
Rich Americans are, you know, morally superior to rich Arabs. For a start, they don’t have brown skin. They are not Muslims. They speak English, after a fashion. Oh yes, far superior.100% correct and even more so when the State is 26,000 square miles.
Tiny in fact a fifth of the size of New York City, but as you said utterly irrelevant.
The owner of Liverpool is worth 6 billion USD, but is heralded as some sort of living god.
Fair = less than a cartel club can possibly hope for.I still can’t get my head around how the PL can say that our new deal with Etihad is not ‘fair and reasonable’. They have nothing to compare it with. We are World Club Champions, PL Champions and Etihad will have their name on every single City shirt around the world (we have 10(?) clubs internationally). How many shirts is that plus seen on national and international TV all year round. How on earth can the PL put a value on that??