Tevez thinking about retirement again?

[sam221985]

the main difference as I see it ..is the wages/ transfer fees etc...are all paid for by the fans , sponsors, TV, paying into the club...self generated through the poularity of the club...hence the reason United wage/turnover ratio is below 60%...

whereas city, chelsea and others a re happy to pay through the nose for success by the wallet of a generous benefactor ..and the wages to turnover reflects this ...both these clubs exceed greatly over 100% ...your outgoings exceed your income ....the fans, tv sponsors dont pay for your success..the sugar daddy does.


a valid point and clear difference between the two scenarios you mentioned

Who gives a fuck?

And it's not a valid point - it's a logical fallacy - even if what you say is true, YOU are the only one saying it's important and not providing any objective reason why it is.

These clichés are so 2008. Don't you bore yourself?

 

[bumbles]

the main difference as I see it ..is the wages/ transfer fees etc...are all paid for by the fans , sponsors, TV, paying into the club...self generated through the poularity of the club...hence the reason United wage/turnover ratio is below 60%...

whereas city, chelsea and others a re happy to pay through the nose for success by the wallet of a generous benefactor ..and the wages to turnover reflects this ...both these clubs exceed greatly over 100% ...your outgoings exceed your income ....the fans, tv sponsors dont pay for your success..the sugar daddy does.


a valid point and clear difference between the two scenarios you mentioned

Who gives a fuck?

And it's not a valid point - it's a logical fallacy - even if what you say is true, YOU are the only one saying it's important and not providing any objective reason why it is.

These clichés are so 2008. Don't you bore yourself?

a bit of contracdiction there fella...how can a fallacy be logical?...


I was responding to two posts that asked the question , I gave a valid reponse.

 

[Techno]

the main difference as I see it ..is the wages/ transfer fees etc...are all paid for by the fans , sponsors, TV, paying into the club...self generated through the poularity of the club...hence the reason United wage/turnover ratio is below 60%...

whereas city, chelsea and others a re happy to pay through the nose for success by the wallet of a generous benefactor ..and the wages to turnover reflects this ...both these clubs exceed greatly over 100% ...your outgoings exceed your income ....the fans, tv sponsors dont pay for your success..the sugar daddy does.


a valid point and clear difference between the two scenarios you mentioned

Your popularity and income will fall in direct proportion as you become less successful than you have over the last 20 years. It won't happen this season but you'll start to see the signs.

United were in the right place at the right time to capitalise on the big money that came into the game.

You had the benefit of an either very switched on or very lucky board who made the right decisions at the right time, you had a spell of stability and the money to buy your success - don't try and argue otherwise, you've spent a fortune it's just been spent over a longer period of time.

We're having to pay to catch up, Chelsea did it before us and I'm sure others will do it in the future.

Anyway, we're here to talk about City so naff off ;)

 

[Soulboy]

the main difference as I see it ..is the wages/ transfer fees etc...are all paid for by the fans , sponsors, TV, paying into the club...self generated through the poularity of the club...hence the reason United wage/turnover ratio is below 60%...

whereas city, chelsea and others a re happy to pay through the nose for success by the wallet of a generous benefactor ..and the wages to turnover reflects this ...both these clubs exceed greatly over 100% ...your outgoings exceed your income ....the fans, tv sponsors dont pay for your success..the sugar daddy does.


a valid point and clear difference between the two scenarios you mentioned

You do talk such ill-educated, ill-informed nonsense... to such an extent I would assume you are a rag who doesn't remember the old days before football was created in 1992?

In 1992, the rags carved up football between themselves and what would become the big 4... they created working arangements and TV deals that directly improved their fortunes at the expense of the rest of the league.

They set in motion a self-generating process whereby the money came to the "big" clubs (and remember that City at the time were going through a dodgy period but have traditionally been one of the top 4 supported clubs in this country for the last couple of decades... and WE would have been one of the favoured few had we been in at the beginning...), meaning that with the increased revenues, it bought success, which brought in more revenue, which brought in more success...

And then to top it up they went public, raised several millions, bought the best players (on huge wages) and realised more success... which brought in the European money, which enabled them to break the British transfer record a dozen times... to buy more success...

Why do you think you are so popular? Because you win things. Why do you win things? Becvause you have more money than anyone else.
Why do you have more money? Because private investors backed the club when you hardly had two pennies to rub together.

See how it works?

And you drag out the old chestnut.."the fans paid for it"... when they didn't.

The FA rebuilt you stadium for the 1966 World Cup... the financial investors paid for all Ferguson's signings in the early 90's... and if they'd relied on the fans paying, the crowds you were getting in the late 80's/early 90's of around 36,000 would certainly not have paid for it!

We are only getting our piece of the action in the same way you got it in the early 90's.

Grow up and accept it rather than bleating like some bloated spoilt half wit.

 

[Blue Elmo]

3 years is still a long time , by that time we could very well be premier league champions , nothing to worry about . Alot of players want to return to their home country nearing the end of their career . he is still here for the long haul , tevez will be the spearhead of our title challenge , he is a BLUE

 

[bumbles]

the main difference as I see it ..is the wages/ transfer fees etc...are all paid for by the fans , sponsors, TV, paying into the club...self generated through the poularity of the club...hence the reason United wage/turnover ratio is below 60%...

whereas city, chelsea and others a re happy to pay through the nose for success by the wallet of a generous benefactor ..and the wages to turnover reflects this ...both these clubs exceed greatly over 100% ...your outgoings exceed your income ....the fans, tv sponsors dont pay for your success..the sugar daddy does.


a valid point and clear difference between the two scenarios you mentioned

You do talk such ill-educated, ill-informed nonsense... to such an extent I would assume you are a rag who doesn't remember the old days before football was created in 1992?
United were the best supported club PRIOR to the 1992 intorduction of the PL...to argue otherwise is silly ...the link proves it <a class="postlink" href="http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm</a>
In 1992, the rags carved up football between themselves and what would become the big 4... they created working arangements and TV deals that directly improved their fortunes at the expense of the rest of the league.

yet more ill inofrmed BS...it was a COLLECTIVE agreement with first division teams ..all TV money shared equally...as for thsi gem about top 4 ..Chelsea werent a " top 4 " club then ...villa were , leeds were..your theory is puddled

They set in motion a self-generating process whereby the money came to the "big" clubs (and remember that City at the time were going through a dodgy period but have traditionally been one of the top 4 supported clubs in this country for the last couple of decades....... No you werent , see the link above



and WE would have been one of the favoured few had we been in at the beginning...), meaning that with the increased revenues, it bought success, which brought in more revenue, which brought in more success...

And then to top it up they went public, raised several millions, the float raised less than 15m ...60% went to the edwards family , the rest went on a new roof for the stretford end , and to pay for all seater after the taylor reeport


bought the best players (on huge wages) and realised more success... which brought in the European money,
which enabled them to break the British transfer record a dozen times... to buy more success...

Why do you think you are so popular? Because you win things. Why do you win things? Becvause you have more money than anyone else.


we were the most poular when we went down to the second division..we were the msot poular despite not winning the league for 26 years...again both these FACTS, contradict your point
Why do you have more money? Because private investors backed the club when you hardly had two pennies to rub together.

See how it works?

And you drag out the old chestnut.."the fans paid for it"... when they didn't.

The FA rebuilt you stadium for the 1966 World Cup... the FA LENT united £11,000 ...the club paid back £16,000 in 1969

the financial investors paid for all Ferguson's signings in the early 90's... See my point above about the PLC FACTS


and if they'd relied on the fans paying, the crowds you were getting in the late 80's/early 90's of around 36,000 would certainly not have paid for it!


Again the link I provided shows you to be incorrect.. the stadium had a lower capacity , but it was almost always 100% full

We are only getting our piece of the action in the same way you got it in the early 90's.

Grow up and accept it rather than bleating like some bloated spoilt half wit.

There are soo many holes in these myths I am going to enjoy ripping into it ..so here goes
...my points are above in red ( of course)<br /><br />-- Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:55 am --<br /><br />come on Soulboy ...jsut because I have blown your idea of how life is in your blue world..and shattered your myths about United dont be upset...accept it , let the truth be your friend...


dont sulk , I will be gentle next time ..I know you are probably feeling a little upset at the facts dispelling your misguided view of the world and your beleif systme has been challenged.

 

[NantwichBlue]

yet more ill inofrmed BS...it was a COLLECTIVE agreement with first division teams ..all TV money shared equally...as for thsi gem about top 4 ..Chelsea werent a " top 4 " club then ...villa were , leeds were..your theory is puddled

It all started in 1985 when the 'Famous Five' threatened to resign from the league if all gate monies didn't go to the home team. They also got the majority of TV revenues as past of the deal. As Edwards was quoted as saying:

“The smaller clubs are bleeding the game dry ………they should be put to sleep.”

the float raised less than 15m ...60% went to the edwards family , the rest went on a new roof for the stretford end , and to pay for all seater after the taylor reeport

The flotation valued utd at 47 million, Edwards sold 1.7million shares on a that day netting him £6 million, still had over 3 million shares though. Ticket prices at the time seating £5.75 - 7; standing £4. By 1993 (after the Streford End has rebuilt) ticket pricing was now £10 - £16. You could say the fans apathy for the flotation/ticket price increases were down to the on field success. This however was the long road of screwing the fans for every penny they had. Edwards didn't care he saw it was a money making cow (although it needed Knighton to open his eyes to how much he could make).

You've won all the trophies, but what has your club become? An expensive hooker, with every pimp looking to get their piece.

FCutd, The Red Knights, boycott of season tickets, yellow and gold scarves and owners that are bleeding you dry and YES YOU the fans are paying for it.

So as I say you've won all the trophies but ultimately at what cost?

 

[bumbles]

yet more ill inofrmed BS...it was a COLLECTIVE agreement with first division teams ..all TV money shared equally...as for thsi gem about top 4 ..Chelsea werent a " top 4 " club then ...villa were , leeds were..your theory is puddled

It all started in 1985 when the 'Famous Five' threatened to resign from the league if all gate monies didn't go to the home team. They also got the majority of TV revenues as past of the deal. As Edwards was quoted as saying:

“The smaller clubs are bleeding the game dry ………they should be put to sleep.”

the float raised less than 15m ...60% went to the edwards family , the rest went on a new roof for the stretford end , and to pay for all seater after the taylor reeport

The flotation valued utd at 47 million, Edwards sold 1.7million shares on a that day netting him £6 million, still had over 3 million shares though. Ticket prices at the time seating £5.75 - 7; standing £4. By 1993 (after the Streford End has rebuilt) ticket pricing was now £10 - £16. You could say the fans apathy for the flotation/ticket price increases were down to the on field success. This however was the long road of screwing the fans for every penny they had. Edwards didn't care he saw it was a money making cow (although it needed Knighton to open his eyes to how much he could make).

You've won all the trophies, but what has your club become? An expensive hooker, with every pimp looking to get their piece.

FCutd, The Red Knights, boycott of season tickets, yellow and gold scarves and owners that are bleeding you dry and YES YOU the fans are paying for it.

So as I say you've won all the trophies but ultimately at what cost?

I could be asking you the same question very shorthly ....as much as you hate united..its what you crave..and the players, managers, owners are a lot further removed from your fans than ours and thats says a lot

 

[NantwichBlue]

I could be asking you the same question very shorthly ....as much as you hate united..its what you crave..

So we crave fans forming a 'breakaway' football club?

and the players, managers, owners are a lot further removed from your fans than ours and thats says a lot

Have you any evidence of this?

 

[bumbles]

I could be asking you the same question very shorthly ....as much as you hate united..its what you crave..

So we crave fans forming a 'breakaway' football club?

thats a different club ...my point is ..you want to be as big or bigger than United...your owners, the manager, the players , Mancini have all said it...you want the succcess we have had, you want ot the size of support we have , even in a perverse way your supporters want to be as hated as united so it build s a seige mentality

and the players, managers, owners are a lot further removed from your fans than ours and thats says a lot

What has the arbs got in common with manchester ...the same as the glazers
what has your incoming players got in common with your club apart form the money ...at least our success has been built on some players having a love of the club ..same with teh manager, the coaches( yours included)


Have you any evidence of this?