Manchester United

Status
Not open for further replies.
EverTheOptimist said:
If you are equating John Moores using his Littlewoods money to Everton and comparing it to your club who are owned by a OIL RICH STATE who have spent £2.5 billion on transfers in 13 years is like comparing a Mini to a Bugatti.

I can't recall or even read Everton breaking transfer records much in the 60's 70's 80's or 90's.

Did Everton break world transfer records (50-60 million )for fullbacks and CB's buying 8-9 times in a row until they got it right, did Moores have other companies pumping money into the club, like your owner does with Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar and the abu dhabi tourism vehicle that equate to 80% of your commercial revenues, how his own airline has the biggest debt of all airline carriers in the airline industry to the tune of billions (reported debt losses in 2015 were $1.5 billion) (operating losses in 2020 were $1.7 billion) but pays a football club £80 million a year as what was reported at the CAS trial.

Try again.
Click to expand...
Alan Ball, Bob Latchford and Tony Cottee. All British transfer records iirc
 
Last edited:
How you view spending is all relative. Man City and Chelsea both got big money owners and dominated the market. However United and Liverpool have always spent big. Maybe not the massive amounts in one go but they are both pretty much up there with record fees and wages. The prospect of clubs closing the gaps to the big teams can only really be done like this as otherwise the teams who are global most popular will be dominant.
 
catcherintherye said:
Hold on mate, let's go back to the definition provided.

Can you point to me where it lists what the background of the investor is in terms of financial doping? Or is it only investors from a certain part of the world that are subject to this?

Secondly, Everton did break transfer records in the 60's. We broke the record to sign Alan Ball if memory serves me correctly. Manchester City have never broken the record.

I'm also not sure what record they've broken on centre halves either. The record was broken first by Liverpool then matched by Manchester United for Maguire and Van Dijk. So if we are using the template of breaking transfer records is doping, then it's Liverpool and United that are doping, and not City, surely?

As the final point of where they get the sponsorship from, why does this matter? How is this any different from Aon or Nike sponsorship United or Liverpool? They both exist in the same country as the clubs owners? So again if thats a sign of doping, they are both doping aren't again aren't they?

I'm not trying to be an @rse here, but I have never seen an explanation of doping that is not highly contradictory and with all due respect yours is filled with contradictions. I'm not saying what City are doing issn't wrong either, but it's no different to lots of other teams, particularly those who seem to point the finger the most.
Click to expand...
Aon and NIke are not owned by FSG and Glazers so they are not owner linked lol, only link is that both companies are american, and it stops there.

Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar and ABu DhabiTourism are owned by Mansour as he's the crown prince of abu dhabi chairman of said companies, when City were making massive losses under Mancini and City were once again almost in breach of FFP after already being fined and found guilty, they were lucky Infantino was more dodgy than Platini that they got off on a 30 million fine, then read the next paragraph.

The chairman of City Khaldoon al Mubarak got in touch with Aabar (email were shown at CAS trial) after the fa cup final which they lost to wigan in may 2013, to pay City a £30 million pound bonus for winning the fa cup that they never won to cover losses for that season, which would have been the 5th season in a row their losses would have been over 100 million. If that is not one example of financial doping then i'm not sure what else i can say to you.

The Cas trial and Die Speigel articles are a great source for you, another titbit that came out from CAS, City told Uefa and the PL that the etihad deal was 10 years at £40 million a year, the CAS trial discovered that 3 years after it was inked the Etihad deal had gone to over a £80 million a year and by the CAS trial was £100 million a year, miraculously City's massive annual losses stopped after the 3rd year of the Etihad deal.
 
EverTheOptimist said:
Aon and NIke are not owned by FSG and Glazers so they are not owner linked lol, only link is that both companies are american, and it stops there.

Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar and ABu DhabiTourism are owned by Mansour as he's the crown prince of abu dhabi chairman of said companies, when City were making massive losses under Mancini and City were once again almost in breach of FFP after already being fined and found guilty, they were lucky Infantino was more dodgy than Platini that they got off on a 30 million fine, then read the next paragraph.

The chairman of City Khaldoon al Mubarak got in touch with Aabar (email were shown at CAS trial) after the fa cup final which they lost to wigan in may 2013, to pay City a £30 million pound bonus for winning the fa cup that they never won to cover losses for that season, which would have been the 5th season in a row their losses would have been over 100 million. If that is not one example of financial doping then i'm not sure what else i can say to you.

The Cas trial and Die Speigel articles are a great source for you, another titbit that came out from CAS, City told Uefa and the PL that the etihad deal was 10 years at £40 million a year, the CAS trial discovered that 3 years after it was inked the Etihad deal had gone to over a £80 million a year and by the CAS trial was £100 million a year, miraculously City's massive annual losses stopped after the 3rd year of the Etihad deal.
Click to expand...
An absolute load of utter drivel. Really.
All of the charges were overturned except for non cooperation.
However, we have had this discussion on here previously before
you arrived. I'll leave you to it.
 
EverTheOptimist said:
Aon and NIke are not owned by FSG and Glazers so they are not owner linked lol, only link is that both companies are american, and it stops there.

Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar and ABu DhabiTourism are owned by Mansour as he's the crown prince of abu dhabi chairman of said companies, when City were making massive losses under Mancini and City were once again almost in breach of FFP after already being fined and found guilty, they were lucky Infantino was more dodgy than Platini that they got off on a 30 million fine, then read the next paragraph.

The chairman of City Khaldoon al Mubarak got in touch with Aabar (email were shown at CAS trial) after the fa cup final which they lost to wigan in may 2013, to pay City a £30 million pound bonus for winning the fa cup that they never won to cover losses for that season, which would have been the 5th season in a row their losses would have been over 100 million. If that is not one example of financial doping then i'm not sure what else i can say to you.

The Cas trial and Die Speigel articles are a great source for you, another titbit that came out from CAS, City told Uefa and the PL that the etihad deal was 10 years at £40 million a year, the CAS trial discovered that 3 years after it was inked the Etihad deal had gone to over a £80 million a year and by the CAS trial was £100 million a year, miraculously City's massive annual losses stopped after the 3rd year of the Etihad deal.
Click to expand...

Mansour doesn't owned all of those companies.

The CAS trial cleared Manchester of wrongdoing.

Is losing money now financial doping?

The Cas trial cleared City. Wasn't the source of the Spiegel article arrested for fraud or what not? If so, he's hardly a reliable and trustwprthy individual is he?

And surely a business like Etihad can sponsor another business Manchester City for whatever they like? Like Standard Chartered can for Liverpool? Whats the issue?

Again with all respect, you seem to be producing half truths as some sort of evidence for financial doping now? It just seems very unclear to me.
 
PaulPowersTash said:
An absolute load of utter drivel. Really.
All of the charges were overturned except for non cooperation.
However, we have had this discussion on here previously before
you arrived. I'll leave you to it.
Click to expand...

And I can't still can't work out what doping actually is? You just get some weird Q Anon conspiracy theories about Sheikh Mansour controlling the world.

I am open to the idea that maybe City are doing something wrong/different, but I'd just like someone to explain what they are doing that is fundamentally different to what United and Liverpool do. It's very odd that nobody can ever do it without relying on such wild claims and conjecture.
 
catcherintherye said:
Correct. Think we did for Jack Southworth as well. If breaking a transfer record is financial doping, loads of teams are guilty of it.
Click to expand...
Had this conversation on here so many times its boring now. My take is that all clubs that are at the top always have and always will spend money to stay there. In the 60s and 70s it was the pools and tv money that was in football and clubs spent accordingly. Liverpool had success in the 70s by spending money and breaking transfer records, they retained the European Cup in 77 by buying Dalglish and Souness for record fees. Utd won the CL in 99 by buying players, Japp Stam and Dwight Yorke for example, weren't cheap buys. The list goes on and on. In the 90s, tv money was more prevalent with sky money and the likes of Utd used this to continue their dominance. Abramowich came in and saw there was money to be made and he built Chelsea up. Citys owners did the same. Football has moved on and these owners have moved with the times and are having their success. It makes me laugh when you hear Utd and rs fans saying they have no history, both Chelsea and City won European trophies before the rs and at the same time as Utd, Spurs and West Ham before the two of them. Its funny, the two sets of fans, rs and Utd, would have been quite happy with City and Chelsea going with them into the ESL- why, because they are clubs with money. Said it before and still stand by it, the two 'biggest' clubs do not like others coming in and taking their slice of the cake. Rant over :dance:
 
catcherintherye said:
And I can't still can't work out what doping actually is? You just get some weird Q Anon conspiracy theories about Sheikh Mansour controlling the world.

I am open to the idea that maybe City are doing something wrong/different, but I'd just like someone to explain what they are doing that is fundamentally different to what United and Liverpool do. It's very odd that nobody can ever do it without relying on such wild claims and conjecture.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is odd, it is mainly fans from two sets of utterly arrogant and egotistical fans, who think they have a devine right to be better than everybody else, so if somebody who they believe is beneath them comes along they have to find ways to devalue the success, rather than admit they are currently lesser than them. When asked to back up the claims out comes the even bigger crazy.

No history, oil money, doping, aliens, lizard people, etc., etc.
 
EverTheOptimist said:
Aon and NIke are not owned by FSG and Glazers so they are not owner linked lol, only link is that both companies are american, and it stops there.

Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar and ABu DhabiTourism are owned by Mansour as he's the crown prince of abu dhabi chairman of said companies, when City were making massive losses under Mancini and City were once again almost in breach of FFP after already being fined and found guilty, they were lucky Infantino was more dodgy than Platini that they got off on a 30 million fine, then read the next paragraph.

The chairman of City Khaldoon al Mubarak got in touch with Aabar (email were shown at CAS trial) after the fa cup final which they lost to wigan in may 2013, to pay City a £30 million pound bonus for winning the fa cup that they never won to cover losses for that season, which would have been the 5th season in a row their losses would have been over 100 million. If that is not one example of financial doping then i'm not sure what else i can say to you.

The Cas trial and Die Speigel articles are a great source for you, another titbit that came out from CAS, City told Uefa and the PL that the etihad deal was 10 years at £40 million a year, the CAS trial discovered that 3 years after it was inked the Etihad deal had gone to over a £80 million a year and by the CAS trial was £100 million a year, miraculously City's massive annual losses stopped after the 3rd year of the Etihad deal.
Click to expand...
You seem to know a lot about City’s finances for an Everton fan. Do you have an actual job?
 
catcherintherye said:
So why is it doping is a shareholder wants to invest in their business and "spending" if it's deemed what the franchises money is being spent?

Am I also correct in saying that both Liverpool and Manchester United franchises owe their shareholders/owners hundreds of millions of pounds? So you can benefit from having the shareholder lending you money to allow you to grow your business and spend. But if the shareholder invests that money into players it becomes doping?

I appreciate the answer, but I can't seem to make any sense of this.
Click to expand...
I believe you got the answer right already. Spending is what the team you support do. Financial doping is what other teams do.

Unless you're an Everton fan, then it's called pissing money up the wall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top