The Agenda (Merged)

[Didsbury Dave]

The suggestion that we'll structure payments to get around FFP is a bit much, Whether we pay upfront or in installments its still recorded the same on the books I think.

But as I said earlier, it may well depend on how we structure the actual deal, rather than the payments (which don't matter as you rightly say).

If we do a deal for a straight £30m then that's what goes in the books, whether we pay that in one lump sum or three instalments. But if we do a deal for £20m with another £10m contingent on hitting certain milestones (goals scored, games played, trophies won, etc) then I'm less sure about how we account for it. From what Mullock is saying I get the impression we only need to account for the add-on payments once the milestone is achieved.

Exactly as I read it. The fee has to be accounted for immediately, regardless of the payment terms, but if we agree to pay a £15m upfront fee and then £15m only if he's made 50 appearances or whatever, then it's a simple and pretty much incontestable workround. Still probably better payment terms than everyone else offers.

It's an interesting and encouraging article and reinforces my view that we did a good deal and uefa saved face.

 

[stony]

The suggestion that we'll structure payments to get around FFP is a bit much, Whether we pay upfront or in installments its still recorded the same on the books I think.

But as I said earlier, it may well depend on how we structure the actual deal, rather than the payments (which don't matter as you rightly say).

If we do a deal for a straight £30m then that's what goes in the books, whether we pay that in one lump sum or three instalments. But if we do a deal for £20m with another £10m contingent on hitting certain milestones (goals scored, games played, trophies won, etc) then I'm less sure about how we account for it. From what Mullock is saying I get the impression we only need to account for the add-on payments once the milestone is achieved.

Exactly as I read it. The fee has to be accounted for immediately, regardless of the payment terms, but if we agree to pay a £15m upfront fee and then £15m only if he's made 50 appearances or whatever, then it's a simple and pretty much incontestable workround. Still probably better payment terms than everyone else offers.

It's an interesting and encouraging article and reinforces my view that we did a good deal and uefa saved face.

Apart from the headline which will automatically prejudice any neutral before they've even started reading the actual article.

 

[SilverFox2]

It's a great way of diminishing our achievements by constantly calling us cheats

Surely all it says it that MCFC have found a way to comply with FFP and still buy players ?
Cheating is not in my opinion implied merely that the FFP rules were not harsh enough to stop a business plan that could overcome its objective.

In other words it criticises UEFA not City.

You infer as you please
It's just that it is usually at odds with most City fans

I think I agree with you there SF.

However, do we as City fans ,have our own Agenda that seeks to criticise everything that is not 100% pro City ?.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Surely all it says it that MCFC have found a way to comply with FFP and still buy players ?
Cheating is not in my opinion implied merely that the FFP rules were not harsh enough to stop a business plan that could overcome its objective.

In other words it criticises UEFA not City.

You infer as you please
It's just that it is usually at odds with most City fans

I think I agree with you there SF.

However, do we as City fans ,have our own Agenda that seeks to criticise everything that is not 100% pro City ?.

All most of us want (I would say) is fair and balanced reporting on our club. No reasonable person supporting any club could expect that club to be immune from criticism. Furthermore, no City fan I know wants the levels of fawning the media display toward united and Liverpool to be replicated when reporting on City.

The reason that posters are so tetchy is because there is a constant, prevailing background noise of inequitable reporting on our club. It isnt everywhere, but it's ubiquitous enough to create a discernible nuisance at the very least. It is perfectly natural to react robustly when something you care about is denigrated unfairly. This thread is a manifestation of that urge.

Any blue who cannot see the utter disparity in how we are reported on, compared to united and Liverpool in particular, has got serious Uncle Tom syndrome issues imo. Whether that impacts upon the standing of the club in any meaningful way, and to what extent, is entirely another debate, however. I would say to a limited extent.

As long as there are disrespectful motherfuckers running our club down I (and others, I would expect) reserve the right to point their failings out, not only in terms of their reporting on City, but also more generally. The fact that their journalistic shortcomings make this a relatively easy task perhaps goes some way to explaining the volume of content in this thread.

 

[George Hannah]

You infer as you please
It's just that it is usually at odds with most City fans

I think I agree with you there SF.

However, do we as City fans ,have our own Agenda that seeks to criticise everything that is not 100% pro City ?.

All most of us want (I would say) is fair and balanced reporting on our club. No reasonable person supporting any club could expect that club to be immune from criticism. Furthermore, no City fan I know wants the levels of fawning the media display toward united and Liverpool to be replicated when reporting on City.

The reason that posters are so tetchy is because there is a constant, prevailing background noise of inequitable reporting on our club. It isnt everywhere, but it's ubiquitous enough to create a discernible nuisance at the very least. It is perfectly natural to react robustly when something you care about is denigrated unfairly. This thread is a manifestation of that urge.

Any blue who cannot see the utter disparity in how we are reported on, compared to united and Liverpool in particular, has got serious Uncle Tom syndrome issues imo. Whether that impacts upon the standing of the club in any meaningful way, and to what extent, is entirely another debate, however. I would say to a limited extent.

As long as there are disrespectful motherfuckers running our club down I (and others, I would expect) reserve the right to point their failings out, not only in terms of their reporting on City, but also more generally. The fact that their journalistic shortcomings make this a relatively easy task perhaps goes some way to explaining the volume of content in this thread.

yeah - wot 'e said

 

[Didsbury Dave]

You infer as you please
It's just that it is usually at odds with most City fans

I think I agree with you there SF.

However, do we as City fans ,have our own Agenda that seeks to criticise everything that is not 100% pro City ?.

All most of us want (I would say) is fair and balanced reporting on our club. No reasonable person supporting any club could expect that club to be immune from criticism. Furthermore, no City fan I know wants the levels of fawning the media display toward united and Liverpool to be replicated when reporting on City.

The reason that posters are so tetchy is because there is a constant, prevailing background noise of inequitable reporting on our club. It isnt everywhere, but it's ubiquitous enough to create a discernible nuisance at the very least. It is perfectly natural to react robustly when something you care about is denigrated unfairly. This thread is a manifestation of that urge.

Any blue who cannot see the utter disparity in how we are reported on, compared to united and Liverpool in particular, has got serious Uncle Tom syndrome issues imo. Whether that impacts upon the standing of the club in any meaningful way, and to what extent, is entirely another debate, however. I would say to a limited extent.

As long as there are disrespectful motherfuckers running our club down I (and others, I would expect) reserve the right to point their failings out, not only in terms of their reporting on City, but also more generally. The fact that their journalistic shortcomings make this a relatively easy task perhaps goes some way to explaining the volume of content in this thread.

A good post GDM, and one I agree with. The problem I have with this thread and debate though is twofold: firstly, most of the stuff debated on this thread is ridiculous: pundit comments, commentator accents, running orders, referees, league tables etc. and the second is the context that it is painted in: they all hate us, they want to stop us, they are all rags etc.

Most people seem unaware that he season-ticket holding, forum-contributing rabid fan represents about 5% of any football audience. Most of the rest are neutrals or neutrals with a casual allegience. And for them, in the tabloid world, the narrative is still that city are the club who spent a fortune. Because we are. And it's more interesting to the neutral if anyone spends a load of money and cocks it up. Liverpool and Man United create their own narrative. We are creating ours, and we are rapidly becoming the money club who pulled it off. The cock ups are largely behind us now and he press are catching up to that. That article sums it up.

It might be a trite comment but it's just the way it is. And as you do allude to, it's sent a load of people paranoid and a bit daft. All perspective has been lost.

 

[George Hannah]

Any blue who cannot see the utter disparity in how we are reported on, compared to united and Liverpool in particular, has got serious Uncle Tom syndrome issues imo.

A good post GDM, and one I agree with

does that mean you are an avuncular Thomas then?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think I agree with you there SF.

However, do we as City fans ,have our own Agenda that seeks to criticise everything that is not 100% pro City ?.

All most of us want (I would say) is fair and balanced reporting on our club. No reasonable person supporting any club could expect that club to be immune from criticism. Furthermore, no City fan I know wants the levels of fawning the media display toward united and Liverpool to be replicated when reporting on City.

The reason that posters are so tetchy is because there is a constant, prevailing background noise of inequitable reporting on our club. It isnt everywhere, but it's ubiquitous enough to create a discernible nuisance at the very least. It is perfectly natural to react robustly when something you care about is denigrated unfairly. This thread is a manifestation of that urge.

Any blue who cannot see the utter disparity in how we are reported on, compared to united and Liverpool in particular, has got serious Uncle Tom syndrome issues imo. Whether that impacts upon the standing of the club in any meaningful way, and to what extent, is entirely another debate, however. I would say to a limited extent.

As long as there are disrespectful motherfuckers running our club down I (and others, I would expect) reserve the right to point their failings out, not only in terms of their reporting on City, but also more generally. The fact that their journalistic shortcomings make this a relatively easy task perhaps goes some way to explaining the volume of content in this thread.

yeah - wot 'e said

Thanks George, although I did wonder whether "discernible nuisance" was tautological after I'd posted :-/

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think I agree with you there SF.

However, do we as City fans ,have our own Agenda that seeks to criticise everything that is not 100% pro City ?.

All most of us want (I would say) is fair and balanced reporting on our club. No reasonable person supporting any club could expect that club to be immune from criticism. Furthermore, no City fan I know wants the levels of fawning the media display toward united and Liverpool to be replicated when reporting on City.

The reason that posters are so tetchy is because there is a constant, prevailing background noise of inequitable reporting on our club. It isnt everywhere, but it's ubiquitous enough to create a discernible nuisance at the very least. It is perfectly natural to react robustly when something you care about is denigrated unfairly. This thread is a manifestation of that urge.

Any blue who cannot see the utter disparity in how we are reported on, compared to united and Liverpool in particular, has got serious Uncle Tom syndrome issues imo. Whether that impacts upon the standing of the club in any meaningful way, and to what extent, is entirely another debate, however. I would say to a limited extent.

As long as there are disrespectful motherfuckers running our club down I (and others, I would expect) reserve the right to point their failings out, not only in terms of their reporting on City, but also more generally. The fact that their journalistic shortcomings make this a relatively easy task perhaps goes some way to explaining the volume of content in this thread.

A good post GDM, and one I agree with. The problem I have with this thread and debate though is twofold: firstly, most of the stuff debated on this thread is ridiculous: pundit comments, commentator accents, running orders, referees, league tables etc. and the second is the context that it is painted in: they all hate us, they want to stop us, they are all rags etc.

Most people seem unaware that he season-ticket holding, forum-contributing rabid fan represents about 5% of any football audience. Most of the rest are neutrals or neutrals with a casual allegience. And for them, in the tabloid world, the narrative is still that city are the club who spent a fortune. Because we are. And it's more interesting to the neutral if anyone spends a load of money and cocks it up. Liverpool and Man United create their own narrative. We are creating ours, and we are rapidly becoming the money club who pulled it off. The cock ups are largely behind us now and he press are catching up to that. That article sums it up.

It might be a trite comment but it's just the way it is. And as you do allude to, it's sent a load of people paranoid and a bit daft. All perspective has been lost.

I completely agree that some of the stuff posted in this thread is absurd, disproportionate and frequently misses the point. As you say, things like the running order of MOTD really don't matter, but that is only part of the picture.

The fact remains that various people in the media: journalists, ex-players, for various reasons already thoroughly explored in this thread, have manifestly felt since 1st September 2008 that we don't belong at the pinnacle of the English game. This has lead to them, in many instances, talking about our club in a way that is disrespectful, unfair and in many instances, wholly untrue. This state of affairs, although somewhat diminished in its frequency and force, prevails. It is also worth saying that it will further diminish as our place at the top table becomes cemented. In light of that well-established mood music from those in the media, it would be unreasonable of anyone to expect that not to pass without significant comment among the more, as you say, rabid element of our support.

Until we are reported upon similar lines to united and Liverpool expect the theme of this thread to be a recurring one. Its seeds were planted primarily by the reporting on the club from the point of takeover until our cup win in 2011 imo, when much that was said about our great club was completely disgraceful. People are products of their experiences and you cannot blame City fans for being perpetually suspicious of the Fourth Estate.

Disrespectful motherfuckers that many of them are.

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

All most of us want (I would say) is fair and balanced reporting on our club. No reasonable person supporting any club could expect that club to be immune from criticism. Furthermore, no City fan I know wants the levels of fawning the media display toward united and Liverpool to be replicated when reporting on City.

The reason that posters are so tetchy is because there is a constant, prevailing background noise of inequitable reporting on our club. It isnt everywhere, but it's ubiquitous enough to create a discernible nuisance at the very least. It is perfectly natural to react robustly when something you care about is denigrated unfairly. This thread is a manifestation of that urge.

Any blue who cannot see the utter disparity in how we are reported on, compared to united and Liverpool in particular, has got serious Uncle Tom syndrome issues imo. Whether that impacts upon the standing of the club in any meaningful way, and to what extent, is entirely another debate, however. I would say to a limited extent.

As long as there are disrespectful motherfuckers running our club down I (and others, I would expect) reserve the right to point their failings out, not only in terms of their reporting on City, but also more generally. The fact that their journalistic shortcomings make this a relatively easy task perhaps goes some way to explaining the volume of content in this thread.

A good post GDM, and one I agree with. The problem I have with this thread and debate though is twofold: firstly, most of the stuff debated on this thread is ridiculous: pundit comments, commentator accents, running orders, referees, league tables etc. and the second is the context that it is painted in: they all hate us, they want to stop us, they are all rags etc.

Most people seem unaware that he season-ticket holding, forum-contributing rabid fan represents about 5% of any football audience. Most of the rest are neutrals or neutrals with a casual allegience. And for them, in the tabloid world, the narrative is still that city are the club who spent a fortune. Because we are. And it's more interesting to the neutral if anyone spends a load of money and cocks it up. Liverpool and Man United create their own narrative. We are creating ours, and we are rapidly becoming the money club who pulled it off. The cock ups are largely behind us now and he press are catching up to that. That article sums it up.

It might be a trite comment but it's just the way it is. And as you do allude to, it's sent a load of people paranoid and a bit daft. All perspective has been lost.

I completely agree that some of the stuff posted in this thread is absurd, disproportionate and frequently misses the point. As you say, things like the running order of MOTD really don't matter, but that is only part of the picture.

The fact remains that various people in the media: journalists, ex-players, for various reasons already thoroughly explored in this thread, have manifestly felt since 1st September 2008 that we don't belong at the pinnacle of the English game. This has lead to them, in many instances, talking about our club in a way that is disrespectful, unfair and in many instances, wholly untrue. This state of affairs, although somewhat diminished in its frequency and force, prevails. It is also worth saying that it will further diminish as our place at the top table becomes cemented. In light of that well-established mood music from those in the media, it would be unreasonable of anyone to expect that not to pass without significant comment among the more, as you say, rabid element of our support.

Until we are reported upon similar lines to united and Liverpool expect the theme of this thread to be a recurring one. Its seeds were planted primarily by the reporting on the club from the point of takeover until our cup win in 2011 imo, when much that was said about our great club was completely disgraceful. People are products of their experiences and you cannot blame City fans for being perpetually suspicious of the Fourth Estate.

Disrespectful motherfuckers that many of them are.

Whilst i largely agree with you, there is a section of our support that needs to grow a thicker skin and it has little to do with how we are reported for that element. When you are successful a certain amount of jealousy creeps in, we arent everyone's favourite second club anymore, those plucky losers who are permanently in the shadow of the filth and some just cant deal with that, they want to win and be liked (its quite a British thing we sneer at successful people or organisations so its very hard to have one without the other). I got into a conversation with a Chelsea fan not long after the takeover and he said get a thicker skin, as you wont be a well received as you once were, how right he was. I have to admit it took me a season or two to get used to it, after all, for years it was one of the things that sustained us, we werent the rags and therefore werent hated as much as them, for years we pretended that was almost as important as success. When the success started to come, i soon realised its better to be hated and win than to be liked and underachieve at just about every turn. I'm not saying its the be all and end all, far from it, but at the end of the day we want to see City win and i am happy to sacrifice what some cockney hack or some illiterate rag has to say about us to have that. Some of our fans dont have the mentality to support a successful team, the hatred that comes with that, they need to be tougher and not worry what other people think so much, quite simply just enjoy where we are and what we are doing a bit more. I'm not saying we need to be rags, but we maybe do need to understand and adapt to life at the top table a little better, thus not worry so much about every little thing, after all the club have got most of the big things right so those little things dont matter as much anymore.

This thread remains one of the funniest on this forum, i do worry for some of the posters sanity sometimes, but its always one of the first i read. Bluemoon at its finest, humour, paranoia, arguments, madness with an element of intelligence thrown in.