He's Back!

[jimbo101]

Re: He's Back!!!!!

I think his core reasoning is that by us having to pay 'over the odds' on transfers and wages, this cascades down & affects every other club, putting them under more financial pressure than in 'normal' circumstances.
Not an unrealistic assertion.

What this doesn't address though is the cosy Champions league cartel over the past 20+ years that prevents clubs outside the Sky 4 from ever being able to compete without the kind of investment we have been lucky enough to benefit from.
So you have 2 choices - let the same 4 clubs, who have benefitted from millions in champions league revenues, to continue to dominate the league...
or allow someone to invest THEIR OWN MONEY in an attempt to break up their little club.

I know what I vote for :)

 

[yerwot?]

Re: He's Back!!!!!

the concept of fairness is important as the vast majority of successful clubs have achieved success this way????
Maybe once upon a time but the sky4 put an end to a level playing field
The wealth going to the wealthiest is a recipe for stagnation, the title decided long before the season end, the cup shared by the same teams year after year, but that's ok because they earned it???
FFP is a desperate attempt to keep the status quo; no matter how it is spun.
Far from being the "death of football" the Sheik has breathed new life into the game, the money going back into football, unlike the Glazer model, where it vanishes into a tax haven, but that's ok because they earned it??
This second blog could have been written by Coulson, it is apparently polite and conciliatory but actually it just says "i'm right, you are wrong, now fuck off"

 

[cleavers]

Re: He's Back!!!!!

It would be good to invite this fella on here to debate his "blog" and see how he answers these comments, he won't come though, his arguments are easily shot to pieces.

 

[beano46]

Re: He's Back!!!!!

"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

+2

+3

 

[zeven]

Re: He's Back!!!!!

HAHA, funny to see how he tries to get up from the hole he digged for himself. Instead he flood it with water and drowned.

i particulary liked the part where he try to justify Lerners money to be OK because hes not half as rich as our owner.

 

[Damocles]

Re: He's Back!!!!!

My Response:
You’re still a bitter twisted prick. I wouldn’t spare you my piss if you were on fire!!!!!

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.

Nope. Anybody who puts that much thought into an article which follows the exact same conclusions all the way through is a zealot who wants a soapbox rather than an intelllectual debate on his article

Thus, leaving a reply calling him a **** is reasonable

 

[cleavers]

Re: He's Back!!!!!

Nope. Anybody who puts that much thought into an article which follows the exact same conclusions all the way through is a zealot who wants a soapbox rather than an intelllectual debate on his article

Thus, leaving a reply calling him a **** is reasonable

The best response is no response at all to be honest, his original article was just a bitter filled pile of shit, his backtrack response didn''t change much for me. If he came on here to debate his blog, there's hundreds more intelligent than me who could offer responses that would shoot his argument down, as this thread shows.

Name calling to people like this, is in my opinion pointless, we'd probably call them a WUM on here.

 

[Santiago Street]

Re: He's Back!!!!!

So the fact that the rags income eminates from their cynical marketing strategy to flog shirts to daft kids in South East Asia whereas ours comes from the largesse of one incredibly wealthy man puts the rags on higher moral ground than us is an absurd argument.

And whilst it's absolutely proper that they honour the memory of Munich each year and do so in a very dignified way, only the naive amongst us would fail to believe that the marketing gurus and corporate strategists at OT are very much aware of the effect that keeping Munich in the public's mind has on said shirt sales.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: He's Back!!!!!

He criticises us for spending money above what we generate from turnover and contrasts it with united.

How the fuck does he think they got to where they are today?.That is precisely what they did in the late eighties and early nineties. It is like some rabid royalist trying to deny that our Royal Family's right to rule didn't originate at the point of a sword several hundred years ago and was instead decreed by god.

It has always faintly amused me when people pontificate about the good of the game and at the same time see a virtue in success being a direct function of shirt sales in Asia, as if that is some meaningful measure of the Corinthian spirit. They equate a club's worth to compete on the pitch with the efficacy of their marketing department. Do they realise how absurd that sounds in sporting terms?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Re: He's Back!!!!!

That was my thought as well. Just let the guy fade away with no hits. Why do we have to take some idiot seriously just because he has a keyboard and some free time?

I may not have expressed it the same way, but I am with Dribble on this one.

My Response:
You’re still a bitter twisted prick. I wouldn’t spare you my piss if you were on fire!!!!!

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.

Nope. Anybody who puts that much thought into an article which follows the exact same conclusions all the way through is a zealot who wants a soapbox rather than an intelllectual debate on his article

Thus, leaving a reply calling him a **** is reasonable