You've fallen into the same trap as most others when judging our owner. He isn't in it to play as you put it, but he's in it for long term investment and to use the club as a marketing tool for Abu Dhabi. That's why the main sponsor is Etihad. You and others may think it's just another way of putting money into the club to circumvent FFP, but Etihad are our sponsors to promote themselves and bring both the airline, the club and by association Abu Dhabi into the spotlight. Too many people look no further than the end of their nose. Our owner is planning for 20 or 30 years down the line.
Going on current form, then yes. Both Leicester and Arsenal were better than us last season (repeat in case it doesn't register with you; LAST SEASON). In the same way that 10 teams were better than your mob last season. And if you want to talk "absolute nonsense", then try using league positions of teams from different countries as some sort of absurd yardstick to compare their strengths relative to one another.
Yes; I thought that was clear from my original post re. Southampton. If you go on each club's respective histories, it's patently obvious you are the better club. Therefore, you really should have been able to put two and two together and work out I was talking about current form. As I was about Leicester being better than us. Are you really that simple that you couldn't work that out? I don't think you are. I shouldn't have to be pointing out what I thought was obvious.So he's in it to play?
Either an owner is there to take money out of the club, or he's there to put money into the club. Your owner is putting money into the club. My point still stands. There's nothing wrong with it; don't take offence from it.
Okay, so now we're talking about "last season".
Good to know. Maybe specify that at the start before having to correct yourself.
Glad you also picked up on what absolute nonsense is. I was worried you wouldn't understand my analogy.
So he's in it to play?
Either an owner is there to take money out of the club, or he's there to put money into the club. Your owner is putting money into the club. My point still stands. There's nothing wrong with it; don't take offence from it.
I wasn't taking any offence I was just explaining why our owner is different to every other owner in the Premier league. In fact he's probably unique in world football.
When you said "in it to play" I presumed you mean he uses the club as a plaything. Which is one of those lazy accusations that gets thrown at us by people who have no understanding of what is going on at City. If you didn't mean that I apologise.
"Either an owner is there to take money out of the club, or he's there to put money into the club. Your owner is putting money into the club. My point still stands"
Did you actually read my post? I explained exactly what Mansour is doing and your notion of an owner either doing one thing or the other is too simplistic a view considering what Mansour is doing to City. Check out Balague's comments on why Pep joined us instead of the rags or Chelsea. The biggest project that has ever happened in football history is taking place in Manchester. When you see what the club are doing and have plans to do, it is simply mind blowing. It's not like the Glazers who are milking the tit dry for as long as they can. It isn't like Abramovich who is seemingly just on an ego trip. It is something entirely different.
Yes; I thought that was clear from my original post re. Southampton. If you go on each club's respective histories, it's patently obvious you are the better club. Therefore, you really should have been able to put two and two together and work out I was talking about current form. As I was about Leicester being better than us. Are you really that simple that you couldn't work that out? I don't think you are. I shouldn't have to be pointing out what I thought was obvious.
That's what I'm trying to say. Did I really need to? Stevie Wonder could see what I was getting at!Nah mate, when I said 'in it to play', I meant to play the game. Do what needs to be done.
Either an owner is going to give to a club, or he's going to take. That's what it boils down to, every single time. Your owner is there to give. Now I don't want to keep this off topic conversation on your forum any longer.
You didn't say current form though mate, you said they were a better team! No worries :).
I don't think this move can be criticised on that basis Southampton are a better team. Yes, they finished higher last season, but that is because they were better managed than Everton where Martinez had a shocker. With the squad Everton had you could argue that they should have finished around 6th. Therefore, if they take a better manager, invest £100m into a fairly talented squad, then logically (which doesn't always apply in football!) they should have a much better season and could think about challenging for the top 6. From Koeman's perspective, he has probably taken Saints about as far as they can possibly go (a Leicester style miracle not with standing), so if he can double his salary and go to a larger club and invest in a squad which has under-performed it makes a lot of sense.
The PL is full of wealthy owners who buy clubs for their own individual reasons. Some, to profit from. Like United, like Swansea will be now, like Villa. Others, to play. Like your oil sheikhs. Like Moshiri is.
Thanks for the advice on transfer budgets. I do pay attention to what players go where and for how much and I've concluded that £100m + any proceeds will be more than enough for us this season, but nonetheless, thanks.
Kenwright has definitely screwed us over multiple times. I don't slag you off for buying trophies, never once have I mentioned it. I quite like City as they remind me of Everton in a lot of aspects, but on more extreme ends of the spectrum. You've been both at the bottom (what is now League 1) and at the top. As have we, just not so far down. Football is about money and now Everton can compete and get back to where we've been so often throughout our existence.
So are Leicester a better team than you lot? What about United? Chelsea? Arsenal? Does this also mean they're better than Real and Athletico Madrid because they only finished second and third in their leagues?
Absolute nonsense of the highest degree.
Nah mate, when I said 'in it to play', I meant to play the game. Do what needs to be done.
Either an owner is going to give to a club, or he's going to take. That's what it boils down to, every single time. Your owner is there to give. Now I don't want to keep this off topic conversation on your forum any longer.