PaddyJames
Player Valuation: £25m
Yankist
Isn't Utd american football anyway? Hot Dog drinking scumbags all of em
Guardiola to be found out in the premier league
- Thread starter johnjoeefc
- Start date
- Status
Isn't Utd american football anyway? Hot Dog drinking scumbags all of em
PaddyJames
Player Valuation: £25m
If you were really trying to find something that isn't there you could twist it as racist I guess. As we've seen. I couldn't give a flying crap about any of them but when City got rich they pushed us down another place and I hate them for it. Chelsea went from nearly going bankrupt to winning back to back leagues. Money talks. Calling that out isn't racist it's just a fact. The argument about Pep at City isn't that he isn't a great manager, he's probably still the best in the world but look at the resources he's got, he hasn't won a champions league and they bottled it in the final last season, he had no answer to Tuchel that night. If PSG don't win it this year with that squad are we ok to call them failures for not winning it given the money being spent?
That's the point in all of this really. It's hard to ignore the Islamophobia that exists in wider society that it rests upon.
I think the commenters have outlined exactly how it can be intepreted as racist, but I can also see why you wouldn't feel that way. It's a forum, and different opinions are what drives it.
I said it was racist because I feel it was racist and if I see racism or other prejudices I try to challenge them. I don't need to score points on a football forum mate. I don't mind the poster, he seems a bright bloke on different things, but thought the comments were out of line.
Usmanov got convicted of fraud yes. I personally wouldn't waste my time protesting against every person who has committed fraud. People may want to and good luck to them, but it's not my thing. Most billionaires you meet won't have a perfect past. Be it Usmanov, John Henry, the Glaziers, Mansour or anyone else. It's sort of the point though, that if you only hold one set of owners to account, as if they are all that is wrong with football in the modern world, you (and that's the plural you) would be missing what is now a pretty grubby, soulless game. Sheikh Mansour is a product of that environment not a cause. Football sold it's soul 20 odd years ago. We now see the consequences.
But anyway, the two lads in question expressed the points I was trying to make better than me, which was sort of my point.
I think the point is though, nobody calls United bottlers do they? Last night on MNF Carragher rightly pointed out to Neville United have spent more than Chelsea/City and yet if they come 3rd it's declared they've had a great season. It's like there's an expectation that they don't get held to the same standards, or that their spending is wholly different to City's spending or even Chelsea's spending. Like it's never called doping. I don't really understand it.
OGS has had 4 years there and won nothing and is it's being reported he's doing a great job, whole Pep has won about 10 trophies in that time and he's apparently a fraud, who works for Qatar. I can't work out the logic at all.
EverTheOptimist
Player Valuation: £8m
If HRH Shiekh Mansour (sic) decided to sell up at City and take his state owned companies of Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar and ABuDhabiTourism with him on which he is a board member of, City's turnover would be reduced by over 50-60% and their turnover would be around £200 million a year with a wage bill of £350 million plus a year.
What would ensure would be a fire sale of epic proportions that would make the Ridsdale led Leeds United one look insignificantly tiny as City would not be able to pay the players wages or recruit more top tier players with the loss of those massive revenues, Guardiola and the players would want out ASAP knowing what a bleak future it looked. Man City are tied to the hip to the petro dollar state of Abu Dhabi and HRH sheikh mansour (sic) deputy prime minister of Abu Dhabi, their whole existence at the top tier of European football is on thin ice at the whim of state.
Same would happen with PSG who are state owned by Qatari leader HRH Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa bin Hamad bin Abdullah bin Jassim bin Mohammed Al Thani (sic), PSG's commercial revenues are £380 million a year, their £480 million turnover with a wage bill now of £450 million after adding messi, Al Thani's sell up and take with them Qatari state commercial deals, would leave them like City in a insane catastrophic predictament.
Both petro dollar clubs even after over 10 years of ownership are still not self sufficient. lol
Chelsea although under a different ownership model, if Abramovich left would be seen to be in a perilous state , Chelsea FC owe Abramovich £1.5 billion plus pounds in no interest loans to cover losses and player acquisitions, Abramovich has used that debt owned to him and turned into equity, but if anyone wanted to buy Chelsea from him would be a insane price of £4 billion plus which Ineos owner Jim Radcliffe was quoted a few years ago when Abramovich lost his UK residency, Radcliffe then decided to buy Ligue 1 club Nice for peanuts instead.
Malaga were owned by a Qatari prince another Al Thani, he added state owned companies, then for some reason 3 seasons later decided he got fed up of football and withdrew his financial backing, Malaga had a fire sale selling Isco and other players, pellegrini jumped ship to City, recently we are seeing the same with Inter Milan and Chinese state company Suning, they have decided to cut support to Inter from the Chinese government who are splitting up the suning corporation, Wolves are in the same boat as Inter, owned by a chinese conglomerate with Chinese government influence and control.
You get instant success and gratification from state and corporation ownership, but your club is then tied to the hip dangerously, no longer a football club but an asset, they sell up and your club is picked at like a Piranhas feeding frenzy
Glazers, Kroenke, FSG, Ashley, Levy get loads of stick from fans a like and media, but any of those owners sold the club, they would still be in the same financial setting, nothing at all would change, same turnover, no debt growth, no losses, no fire sale, those owners have their clubs self sufficient.
Last edited:
But pretty every club, if they lost their commercial partners would go into pretty dire straits wouldn't they?
I won't keep repeating it, but the companies are separate entities to Manchester City, but we have covered this. Just because they are brown, doesn't automatically make them conspiratorial/dodgy.
Every football club is an asset now mate. Unfortunately we have lost control of them. I wish we had fan ownership. Would love that. Doubt it will happen though.
EverTheOptimist
Player Valuation: £8m
City & PSG commercial deals make up 80% of their commercial revenues, those City deals are linked to their owners , Etihad Etisalat Aabar and AbuDhabi Tourism are all owner linked to Mansour who sits on the board of all those companies, they are not private enterprises but state owned abu dhabi royal family enterprises.
Why would commercial partners say just pull out of United and clubs of that stature, figment of your imagination, never happening and no record of it with those clubs. lol
The emails of the the finance director Simon pearce of asking the abu dhabi royal family to wire man city £13 million bonus for a winning fa cup final right after they lost to Wigan in the fa cup final and would using Aabar to cover it instead of Etihad because of financial losses that season, and Ferran Soriano asking again someone representing the royal family for Etihad to increase Etihad sponsorship from £80 million a year to £120 million a year, but yeah not state owned and are independent as you say.lol
I can just see a club with a Nike kit ringing up Nike HQ in Oregon asking "hey can we up the contract next season by £40 million"
PSG having a £200 million a year Qatar Tourism commercial deal, a club in farmers league with hardly any fans outside paris with 1 championship to their name and no European cups signed a commercial deal that absurd, but yeah not owner linked as you keep saying.lol
But Manchester City is no normal club. Costs and debt? None of that matters. And should a shortfall emerge, sponsors from the owner's home country simply send more money over. Penalties are only for those who get caught. To dodge UEFA sanctions, Man City management came up with a few creative proposals. "We could do a backdated deal for the next two years (...) paid up front," suggested club executive Simon Pearce. CEO Ferran Soriano, meanwhile, suggested having sponsors pay the team the contractually obligated bonus for winning the FA cup -- even though Man City hadn't won.
The club and its sponsors were manipulating their contracts. When Chumillas asked his colleague Simon Pearce if they could change the date of payment for the sponsors from Abu Dhabi, Pearce answered in the spirit of Manchester City's executives: "Of course, we can do what we want."
City and PSG lose their state owned commercial deals, they will go the same way as Malaga CF who had Qatar commercial deals pulled out as soon as their owner lost interest, over 10 years and PSG and City are light years away from being self sufficient, they are so reliant on state owned financial help it's quite laughable, their business model is on thin ice at the whim of the say so from a lavish Palace in one of those petro dollar countries.
Last edited:
Lloydystark
Player Valuation: £35m
Pep seems like a great coach, but he's not done it at a small penny less club, he's had it on a plate everywhere he's been. I no longer like mourinho and his style but he won everything at Porto
Porto was 2004. He’s been a brilliant coach. He can be proud of his record in management but he’s had a poor 7/8 years. Pep is a better coach.
duncs pigeon
Player Valuation: £40m
What you saying here- Peps a poor coach?City & PSG commercial deals make up 80% of their commercial revenues, those City deals are linked to their owners , Etihad Etisalat Aabar and AbuDhabi Tourism are all owner linked to Mansour who sits on the board of all those companies, they are not private enterprises but state owned abu dhabi royal family enterprises.
Why would commercial partners say just pull out of United and clubs of that stature, figment of your imagination, never happening and no record of it with those clubs. lol
The emails of the the finance director Simon pearce of asking the abu dhabi royal family to wire man city £13 million bonus for a winning fa cup final right after they lost to Wigan in the fa cup final and would using Aabar to cover it instead of Etihad because of financial losses that season, and Ferran Soriano asking again someone representing the royal family for Etihad to increase Etihad sponsorship from £80 million a year to £120 million a year, but yeah not state owned and are independent as you say.lol
I can just see a club with a Nike kit ringing up Nike HQ in Oregon asking "hey can we up the contract next season by £40 million"
PSG having a £200 million a year Qatar Tourism commercial deal, a club in farmers league with hardly any fans outside paris with 1 championship to their name and no European cups signed a commercial deal that absurd, but yeah not owner linked as you keep saying.lol
But Manchester City is no normal club. Costs and debt? None of that matters. And should a shortfall emerge, sponsors from the owner's home country simply send more money over. Penalties are only for those who get caught. To dodge UEFA sanctions, Man City management came up with a few creative proposals. "We could do a backdated deal for the next two years (...) paid up front," suggested club executive Simon Pearce. CEO Ferran Soriano, meanwhile, suggested having sponsors pay the team the contractually obligated bonus for winning the FA cup -- even though Man City hadn't won.
The club and its sponsors were manipulating their contracts. When Chumillas asked his colleague Simon Pearce if they could change the date of payment for the sponsors from Abu Dhabi, Pearce answered in the spirit of Manchester City's executives: "Of course, we can do what we want."
City and PSG lose their state owned commercial deals, they will go the same way as Malaga CF who had Qatar commercial deals pulled out as soon as their owner lost interest, over 10 years and PSG and City are light years away from being self sufficient, they are so reliant on state owned financial help it's quite laughable, their business model is on thin ice at the whim of the say so from a lavish Palace in one of those petro dollar countries.
What you saying here- Peps a poor coach?
It seems so. Mind boggling really.
City & PSG commercial deals make up 80% of their commercial revenues, those City deals are linked to their owners , Etihad Etisalat Aabar and AbuDhabi Tourism are all owner linked to Mansour who sits on the board of all those companies, they are not private enterprises but state owned abu dhabi royal family enterprises.
Why would commercial partners say just pull out of United and clubs of that stature, figment of your imagination, never happening and no record of it with those clubs. lol
The emails of the the finance director Simon pearce of asking the abu dhabi royal family to wire man city £13 million bonus for a winning fa cup final right after they lost to Wigan in the fa cup final and would using Aabar to cover it instead of Etihad because of financial losses that season, and Ferran Soriano asking again someone representing the royal family for Etihad to increase Etihad sponsorship from £80 million a year to £120 million a year, but yeah not state owned and are independent as you say.lol
I can just see a club with a Nike kit ringing up Nike HQ in Oregon asking "hey can we up the contract next season by £40 million"
PSG having a £200 million a year Qatar Tourism commercial deal, a club in farmers league with hardly any fans outside paris with 1 championship to their name and no European cups signed a commercial deal that absurd, but yeah not owner linked as you keep saying.lol
But Manchester City is no normal club. Costs and debt? None of that matters. And should a shortfall emerge, sponsors from the owner's home country simply send more money over. Penalties are only for those who get caught. To dodge UEFA sanctions, Man City management came up with a few creative proposals. "We could do a backdated deal for the next two years (...) paid up front," suggested club executive Simon Pearce. CEO Ferran Soriano, meanwhile, suggested having sponsors pay the team the contractually obligated bonus for winning the FA cup -- even though Man City hadn't won.
The club and its sponsors were manipulating their contracts. When Chumillas asked his colleague Simon Pearce if they could change the date of payment for the sponsors from Abu Dhabi, Pearce answered in the spirit of Manchester City's executives: "Of course, we can do what we want."
City and PSG lose their state owned commercial deals, they will go the same way as Malaga CF who had Qatar commercial deals pulled out as soon as their owner lost interest, over 10 years and PSG and City are light years away from being self sufficient, they are so reliant on state owned financial help it's quite laughable, their business model is on thin ice at the whim of the say so from a lavish Palace in one of those petro dollar countries.
1) It would be appreciated if you could avoid using culturally insensitive/racist terms such as "petroleum dollar country". Its not amusing, it just makes you look a bit childish.
2) Why are Manchester Citys commercial deals not 100% of their commercial revenue? This doesnt make sense.
3) The companies listed are separate companies. We have been over this multiple times. People can and do sit on multiple boards, this does not make the company the same. A court has established they are different companies. Your position that they are the same company because they may share a common shareholder or board member in an incorrect assertion and a wild conspiracy theory.
4) Nobody is saying that Manchester Uniteds sponsors will pull out, but merely stating if they did they would be in financial difficulty. It is a hypothetical scenario. In the same way it's a hypothetical scenario if Manchester Citys sponsors pull out. Basically if any clubs commercial partners pull out, those clubs will be in deep financial difficulties. This is not a singular problem to Manchester City, as you seem to suggest.
duncs pigeon
Player Valuation: £40m
Typical RS, hates anybody having success in life. Leads a sad life really.
- Status