Maybe he realised that he was just another troll getting hits after his first exploits?cleavers said:Very constructive is name calling, just a thought, have you thought about debating some of the bullshit replies he's posted (because he clearly still doesn't get it), that would be more constructive.Dribble said:My Response:
You’re still a bitter twisted prick. I wouldn’t spare you my piss if you were on fire!!!!!
This is exactly the sort of debate to get into with him, that, and despite his protests, he was more than happy for it to happen to villa when he thought it would. Does anyone seriously think he'd have written the article he did, had villa now been in our position, yeah course he would.....goat boy said:aye, clearly a bright enough chap, your author, so empty abuse serves nothing.
the aim is the same but the stakes are so high. city were bought from a selection of at best 4, because the return on investment is there for the very long term. that return is 300 acres of cheap brownfield land next to the stadium, a mile from a major city business district and about 6 from one europes busiest airports
Indeed, that's why its not worth responding to them at all, let them learn the facts, eventually, they'll hate us even more then.Prestwich_Blue said:Really pisses me off that people simply don't have a clue about (a) FFP and (b) where City are going as a business. Fuck 'em.
really does have long term damage on other clubs
Excellent post MES, and another rational knock back to this fella, those worrying about his "blog" should copy and paste, but like you my attitude is "who cares ?"Mad Eyed Screamer said:There's always the one who says that united's money was earned so it's different.
But how was it earned?
The rags were one of the main players demanding that home clubs should keep the gate receipts rather than share them with the away team. So the rich got richer.
Then the rags were one of the instigators in forming the PL, demanding the more successful teams get a bigger share of the money. So the successful teams got richer so they could buy the better players, be more successful and earn more money.
Then the rags were one of the main players in the formation of the Champions League, designed that teams get at least 3 home games (we can't have the big boys getting knocked out in the 1st / 2nd round, can we), so the rich clubs get richer - oh, and 3rd placed will go into the Europa League, so those teams that fail to qualify have another chance of getting more money.
A level playing field? No chance.
So yes, united's money maybe ''legal'' football money, but it was greed and selfishness that got them into that position, without any thoughts for the game as a whole. City come along with big wads of cash and the big boys who have milked the golden cow for 2 decades squeal ''not fair''.
Who cares?
Mad Eyed Screamer said:There's always the one who says that united's money was earned so it's different.
But how was it earned?
The rags were one of the main players demanding that home clubs should keep the gate receipts rather than share them with the away team. So the rich got richer.
Then the rags were one of the instigators in forming the PL, demanding the more successful teams get a bigger share of the money. So the successful teams got richer so they could buy the better players, be more successful and earn more money.
Then the rags were one of the main players in the formation of the Champions League, designed that teams get at least 3 home games (we can't have the big boys getting knocked out in the 1st / 2nd round, can we), so the rich clubs get richer - oh, and 3rd placed will go into the Europa League, so those teams that fail to qualify have another chance of getting more money.
A level playing field? No chance.
So yes, united's money maybe ''legal'' football money, but it was greed and selfishness that got them into that position, without any thoughts for the game as a whole. City come along with big wads of cash and the big boys who have milked the golden cow for 2 decades squeal ''not fair''.
Who cares?
+3The Goat 10 said:+2allan harper said:Barcon said:"An article I wrote last week regarding Man City’s financial exploits in recent years, entitled (somewhat hyperbolically) A Manchester City Title May Signal the Death of Football As We Know It, received an enormous negative response.
Anyway, I admit that the way I phrased my article was tactless, and open to interpreting my writing as bitter and insulting. I thought I would try and justify some of my points".
That's all I read.
+1