Time to mock the sensible owner nonsense?

[fbloke]

As we are often told by the press Sheikh Mansour has been throwing his money round and making it almost unfair to other clubs trying to compete.

Well it's time the world recognised the fuller truth I suppose.

Aston Villa are often paraded in the press for the sensible ownership but perhaps thats all window dressing? - £82.5m pumped in

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/astonvilla/7379245/Aston-Villa-Champions-League-challenge-has-cost-owner-Randy-Lerner-82.5m.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... 82.5m.html</a>

Sunderland arent immune now are they? - £48m written off

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/04/sunderland-make-a-loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... ake-a-loss</a>

Even Stoke will have had £41m by the end of the season.

<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8538890.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8538890.stm</a>

Considering the wider plans that MCFC's owners have for increasing revenue substantially then other clubs can certainly look forward to challenge us for the negative financial headlines sometime soon.

 

[blue John]

and the scum have had a lot taken out :-)

 

[bellwhaft]

All I can say is we are the luckiest supporters in the world.

After suffering for 40 odd years I suppose I could say we deserve a break, though others could make a case as well.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Listen, don't expect a fair hearing any time soon. It isn't the money that's getting to them it's the fact that we're right in the media darlings' backyard !

If it was the money, then why did the Mirror carry that picture of our ground when we were in the third division and played in front of only 3,000 fans at maine Road in the Auto Windscreen's Cup (was it Halifax ?) and put it next to united's when they played a European cup tie the previous night ?

The fact is that we are the opposite of everything United stand for and the money is just an excuse.

 

[Bill]

Listen, don't expect a fair hearing any time soon. It isn't the money that's getting to them it's the fact that we're right in the media darlings' backyard !

If it was the money, then why did the Mirror carry that picture of our ground when we were in the third division and played in front of only 3,000 fans at maine Road in the Auto Windscreen's Cup (was it Halifax ?) and put it next to united's when they played a European cup tie the previous night ?

The fact is that we are the opposite of everything United stand for and the money is just an excuse.

agreed.

 

[Dyed Petya]

As we are often told by the press Sheikh Mansour has been throwing his money round and making it almost unfair to other clubs trying to compete.

Well it's time the world recognised the fuller truth I suppose.

Aston Villa are often paraded in the press for the sensible ownership but perhaps thats all window dressing? - £82.5m pumped in

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/astonvilla/7379245/Aston-Villa-Champions-League-challenge-has-cost-owner-Randy-Lerner-82.5m.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... 82.5m.html</a>

Sunderland arent immune now are they? - £48m written off

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/04/sunderland-make-a-loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... ake-a-loss</a>

Even Stoke will have had £41m by the end of the season.

<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8538890.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8538890.stm</a>

Considering the wider plans that MCFC's owners have for increasing revenue substantially then other clubs can certainly look forward to challenge us for the negative financial headlines sometime soon.

It just shows that various different clubs are trying to buy enhanced status on the back of an external benefcator, and what you can hope for depends on how deep the benefactor's pockets are. Villa's £80 million should see them continue to challenge the top six and have decent Cup runs, but probably isn't enough for them to crack the top four on a regular basis. For Sunderland and Stoke, with £40-50 million, that should enable them to establish themselves as fixtures in the top flight. The money we have at our disposal should, if the club is properly managed, ensure we crack the top four at some point and then, having done so, stay there.

I have no problem with this, simply because it's gone on since time immemorial in English football. Our dear local rivals like to boast that their recent success, even if it has entailed some heavy transfer expenditure, has been funded by their own commercial and financial success, allowing them to spend money the club generates itself rather than funds gifted to it. They ignore, of course, the fact that if any English club was built on the injection of external finance, it's them. They were saved twice from going out of existence by benefactors, one of whom then spent £60K to build Old Trafford when the British transfer record was £1K) and one of whom rebuilt the club in the thirties by gifting £30K when the transfer record was just over £10K).

 

[MCFC87]

As we are often told by the press Sheikh Mansour has been throwing his money round and making it almost unfair to other clubs trying to compete.

Well it's time the world recognised the fuller truth I suppose.

Aston Villa are often paraded in the press for the sensible ownership but perhaps thats all window dressing? - £82.5m pumped in

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/astonvilla/7379245/Aston-Villa-Champions-League-challenge-has-cost-owner-Randy-Lerner-82.5m.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... 82.5m.html</a>

Sunderland arent immune now are they? - £48m written off

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/04/sunderland-make-a-loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... ake-a-loss</a>

Even Stoke will have had £41m by the end of the season.

<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8538890.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8538890.stm</a>

Considering the wider plans that MCFC's owners have for increasing revenue substantially then other clubs can certainly look forward to challenge us for the negative financial headlines sometime soon.

It just shows that various different clubs are trying to buy enhanced status on the back of an external benefcator, and what you can hope for depends on how deep the benefactor's pockets are. Villa's £80 million should see them continue to challenge the top six and have decent Cup runs, but probably isn't enough for them to crack the top four on a regular basis. For Sunderland and Stoke, with £40-50 million, that should enable them to establish themselves as fixtures in the top flight. The money we have at our disposal should, if the club is properly managed, ensure we crack the top four at some point and then, having done so, stay there.

I have no problem with this, simply because it's gone on since time immemorial in English football. Our dear local rivals like to boast that their recent success, even if it has entailed some heavy transfer expenditure, has been funded by their own commercial and financial success, allowing them to spend money the club generates itself rather than funds gifted to it. They ignore, of course, the fact that if any English club was built on the injection of external finance, it's them. They were saved twice from going out of existence by benefactors, one of whom then spent £60K to build Old Trafford when the British transfer record was £1K) and one of whom rebuilt the club in the thirties by gifting £30K when the transfer record was just over £10K).

Well you learn something new everyday.

 

[fbloke]

It just shows that various different clubs are trying to buy enhanced status on the back of an external benefcator, and what you can hope for depends on how deep the benefactor's pockets are. Villa's £80 million should see them continue to challenge the top six and have decent Cup runs, but probably isn't enough for them to crack the top four on a regular basis. For Sunderland and Stoke, with £40-50 million, that should enable them to establish themselves as fixtures in the top flight. The money we have at our disposal should, if the club is properly managed, ensure we crack the top four at some point and then, having done so, stay there.

I have no problem with this, simply because it's gone on since time immemorial in English football. Our dear local rivals like to boast that their recent success, even if it has entailed some heavy transfer expenditure, has been funded by their own commercial and financial success, allowing them to spend money the club generates itself rather than funds gifted to it. They ignore, of course, the fact that if any English club was built on the injection of external finance, it's them. They were saved twice from going out of existence by benefactors, one of whom then spent £60K to build Old Trafford when the British transfer record was £1K) and one of whom rebuilt the club in the thirties by gifting £30K when the transfer record was just over £10K).

Well you learn something new everyday.

Which bit? ;-)

 

[masterwig]

If it was the money, then why did the Mirror carry that picture of our ground when we were in the third division and played in front of only 3,000 fans at maine Road in the Auto Windscreen's Cup (was it Halifax ?) .

Mansfield. I can't believe looking back that we dropped so far so quickly. Then came bouncing back up again.

Stability is for boring clubs. Bollocks to that, we might get frustrated by City but deep down we love the mad insanity that seems to go with everything City. Let's have our time in the sun for a bit though.

 

[Balti]

As we are often told by the press Sheikh Mansour has been throwing his money round and making it almost unfair to other clubs trying to compete.

Well it's time the world recognised the fuller truth I suppose.

Aston Villa are often paraded in the press for the sensible ownership but perhaps thats all window dressing? - £82.5m pumped in

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/astonvilla/7379245/Aston-Villa-Champions-League-challenge-has-cost-owner-Randy-Lerner-82.5m.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... 82.5m.html</a>

Sunderland arent immune now are they? - £48m written off

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/04/sunderland-make-a-loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... ake-a-loss</a>

Even Stoke will have had £41m by the end of the season.

<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8538890.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8538890.stm</a>

Considering the wider plans that MCFC's owners have for increasing revenue substantially then other clubs can certainly look forward to challenge us for the negative financial headlines sometime soon.

It just shows that various different clubs are trying to buy enhanced status on the back of an external benefcator, and what you can hope for depends on how deep the benefactor's pockets are. Villa's £80 million should see them continue to challenge the top six and have decent Cup runs, but probably isn't enough for them to crack the top four on a regular basis. For Sunderland and Stoke, with £40-50 million, that should enable them to establish themselves as fixtures in the top flight. The money we have at our disposal should, if the club is properly managed, ensure we crack the top four at some point and then, having done so, stay there.

I have no problem with this, simply because it's gone on since time immemorial in English football. Our dear local rivals like to boast that their recent success, even if it has entailed some heavy transfer expenditure, has been funded by their own commercial and financial success, allowing them to spend money the club generates itself rather than funds gifted to it. They ignore, of course, the fact that if any English club was built on the injection of external finance, it's them. They were saved twice from going out of existence by benefactors, one of whom then spent £60K to build Old Trafford when the British transfer record was £1K) and one of whom rebuilt the club in the thirties by gifting £30K when the transfer record was just over £10K).

How very dare you mock the mighty corinthian norfolk spirit that is manure.
They were generous in the extreme when they forced small shareholders out.
When they floated on the stock market that too was money that had really been taken at the turnstiles and in the shop and was merely being reinvested by the loyal army of cockney tv fan shareholders.
The 7/800 million debt is really only there because of their generous community initiatives in Manchester.
They are truly olympian in their home style family club ethic. Always have been.
[cough]

 

[fbloke]

It just shows that various different clubs are trying to buy enhanced status on the back of an external benefcator, and what you can hope for depends on how deep the benefactor's pockets are. Villa's £80 million should see them continue to challenge the top six and have decent Cup runs, but probably isn't enough for them to crack the top four on a regular basis. For Sunderland and Stoke, with £40-50 million, that should enable them to establish themselves as fixtures in the top flight. The money we have at our disposal should, if the club is properly managed, ensure we crack the top four at some point and then, having done so, stay there.

I have no problem with this, simply because it's gone on since time immemorial in English football. Our dear local rivals like to boast that their recent success, even if it has entailed some heavy transfer expenditure, has been funded by their own commercial and financial success, allowing them to spend money the club generates itself rather than funds gifted to it. They ignore, of course, the fact that if any English club was built on the injection of external finance, it's them. They were saved twice from going out of existence by benefactors, one of whom then spent £60K to build Old Trafford when the British transfer record was £1K) and one of whom rebuilt the club in the thirties by gifting £30K when the transfer record was just over £10K).

How very dare you mock the mighty corinthian norfolk spirit that is manure.
They were generous in the extreme when they forced small shareholders out.
When they floated on the stock market that too was money that had really been taken at the turnstiles and in the shop and was merely being reinvested by the loyal army of cockney tv fan shareholders.
The 7/800 million debt is really only there because of their generous community initiatives in Manchester.
They are truly olympian in their home style family club ethic. Always have been.
[cough]

NURSE! Ive got another one for you to deal with here!