Sportswash! - Let’s oil stare at Manchester City!

[leviramsey]

Firstly, if I was you, I'd have a look at Spurs' transfer record and their business structure a few years ago before shouting about sugar daddies.

I'm not really arsed how you feel about City's success, I for one would be delighted with any trophy.

Besides, let's have a look at your managers record with his previous clubs, shall we?

Bournemouth - went bankrupt

West Ham - went bankrupt

Pompey - went bankrupt

Southampton - went bankrupt

Spurs - ?????

Ya know, if more City fans were like you (as opposed to some of the trolls (who admittedly probably aren't City fans) we've gotten), they'd be a much more likable club.

Does Glaston limit his Mancunian dealings to RedCafe or does he occasionally head over to BlueMoon?

[SimplySpurfect]

Firstly, if I was you, I'd have a look at Spurs' transfer record and their business structure a few years ago before shouting about sugar daddies.

I'm not really arsed how you feel about City's success, I for one would be delighted with any trophy.

Besides, let's have a look at your managers record with his previous clubs, shall we?

Bournemouth - went bankrupt

West Ham - went bankrupt

Pompey - went bankrupt

Southampton - went bankrupt

Spurs - ?????

What are you referring to there? Under Levy, Spurs have always operated on a "buy cheap, sell for profit" initiative. A lot of Spurs' profits were made during the brief Frank Arnesen era, where we saw a massive amount of players joining the club for a fairly small fee (£1-3m etc) and then sold on shortly after at varying profits.

It's only been the last two or three years or so that Spurs have been able to buy relatively big (£15m+ for Modric, Bentley, Bent etc) but that was only after many years of building profits from player sales and sound business in a lot of other aspects of the club.

And before ENIC and Levy took over, we had Alan Sugar. The guy who refused to sign the likes of Petit, Robinho, Zola and Bergkamp because he didn't believe they'd be value for money.

So I'm struggling to see how you can link Spurs to the term "sugar daddy" and City's current policies.

And for the umpteenth time, Redknapp is a manager. He's not the chairman, accountant, etc. It's his job to build the best team he can with the resources he's given. A job he's proven to be very successful at with most of his clubs. It's the chairman's fault for not controlling the finances better. Which is the reason Spurs aren't going to go bankrupt, because Levy's not an incompetent moron.

[SimplySpurfect]

Ya know, if more City fans were like you (as opposed to some of the trolls (who admittedly probably aren't City fans) we've gotten), they'd be a much more likable club.

Does Glaston limit his Mancunian dealings to RedCafe or does he occasionally head over to BlueMoon?

Bluemoon is possibly the worst fan forum I've ever browsed around. A large amount of the members on there are awful. The amount of poor grammar on there is astounding as well. It doesn't paint a particularly nice picture of City fans in general.

But I've only browsed around there since they became a rich club, so I assume a lot of those idiots are people who have recently decided to became City fans, and they're drowning out the real, intelligent fans. Because we all know that the dumbest voices shout loudest on internet forums.

City fans I've met in person though have always been good fun.

[BOF]

Firstly, I have to agree with Spurfect when he says that Spurs won't be going bankrupt with Levy in charge. I think what the above list of bankruptcies shows is that Harry, when let off the leash by over-trusting chairmen, will quite readily bring a club to it's knees. This is the chairman's fault. Levy won't allow that. But on the point of sugardaddies. Just because it a Man Citeh fan saying Spurs have a sugardaddy doesn't mean it's not true. Spurs have billionaire backers just like Citeh have. No point saying they don't.

[villa4europe]

I'll reiterate this, Toure is on £160k a week, after bonuses and before tax.

We need a smiley playing a violin, its still daft money

Dont you find it shit though that a player that i personally think will be only better than average at city is on 3 times that of our top earner? But no doubt he's fulfilling a life long ambition to play in sky blue...

[BOF]

[SimplySpurfect]

Firstly, I have to agree with Spurfect when he says that Spurs won't be going bankrupt with Levy in charge. I think what the above list of bankruptcies shows is that Harry, when let off the leash by over-trusting chairmen, will quite readily bring a club to it's knees. This is the chairman's fault. Levy won't allow that. But on the point of sugardaddies. Just because it a Man Citeh fan saying Spurs have a sugardaddy doesn't mean it's not true. Spurs have billionaire backers just like Citeh have. No point saying they don't.

That's not what a "sugar daddy" (God, I hate that term) means though, is it? Yeah, Spurs are owned by a billionaire, but Joe Lewis doesn't just pump money in to the club and say to Levy "There you go, go and buy £150m worth of players. And here's another £250m to cover their contracts." The money Spurs spend is predominantly earned by Levy.

At least, that's what I understood a "sugar daddy" (ugh..) to mean. Like, super rich old guy constantly ploughing his hot, young girlfriend with money to spend on whatever she wants without her having to do, err, anything to "earn" it.

[BOF]

That's not what a "sugar daddy" (God, I hate that term) means though, is it? Yeah, Spurs are owned by a billionaire, but Joe Lewis doesn't just pump money in to the club and say to Levy "There you go, go and buy £150m worth of players. And here's another £250m to cover their contracts." The money Spurs spend is predominantly earned by Levy.

At least, that's what I understood a "sugar daddy" (ugh..) to mean. Like, super rich old guy constantly ploughing his hot, young girlfriend with money to spend on whatever she wants without her having to do, err, anything to "earn" it.

I see your distinction and you do have a point. I suppose it's semantics. To me if a club is owned by a billionaire then he is a sugar daddy because he is there with his money if he is needed. He is a safety net.

[GlastonSpur]

Firstly, if I was you, I'd have a look at Spurs' transfer record and their business structure a few years ago before shouting about sugar daddies.

I'm not really arsed how you feel about City's success, I for one would be delighted with any trophy.

Besides, let's have a look at your managers record with his previous clubs, shall we?

Bournemouth - went bankrupt

West Ham - went bankrupt

Pompey - went bankrupt

Southampton - went bankrupt

Spurs - ?????

The subject of Harry as a manager has precisely nothing to do with the issue I raised, namely City having failed to make it under their own steam and now resorting to total reliance on a sugar daddy to try and buy success for them.

In any case, Harry did not control the purse strings at any previous club, just as he doesn't at Spurs. It's the club owners who decide what budget they give a manager - and if they spend more than they can afford then that's down to them alone.

You don't rate Harry as a manager? That's fine by me. I'm happy enough knowing that he'll be taking Spurs into our shot at the CL and that along the way to this point we blew City out of the water - twice, home and away.

Your post implies that you're wondering if Spurs will end up bankrupt. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you: Spurs are one of the best-run clubs in the Prem financially speaking. Moreover, we earn every penny we get, whilst City fans stamp their feet and scream for their sugar-daddy to give them yet another £100m cheque to buy the latest set of shiny new toys.

[C4rvillan]

But I also bet that at some point, Lewis and Levy have put money into the club hence you don't always live on your profits.

[Damocles]

Firstly, if I was you, I'd have a look at Spurs' transfer record and their business structure a few years ago before shouting about sugar daddies.

I'm not really arsed how you feel about City's success, I for one would be delighted with any trophy.

Besides, let's have a look at your managers record with his previous clubs, shall we?

Bournemouth - went bankrupt

West Ham - went bankrupt

Pompey - went bankrupt

Southampton - went bankrupt

Spurs - ?????

The subject of Harry as a manager has precisely nothing to do with the issue I raised, namely City having failed to make it under their own steam and now resorting to total reliance on a sugar daddy to try and buy success for them.

In any case, Harry did not control the purse strings at any previous club, just as he doesn't at Spurs. It's the club owners who decide what budget they give a manager - and if they spend more than they can afford then that's down to them alone.

You don't rate Harry as a manager? That's fine by me. I'm happy enough knowing that he'll be taking Spurs into our shot at the CL and that along the way to this point we blew City out of the water - twice, home and away.

Your post implies that you're wondering if Spurs will end up bankrupt. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you: Spurs are one of the best-run clubs in the Prem financially speaking. Moreover, we earn every penny we get, whilst City fans stamp their feet and scream for their sugar-daddy to give them yet another £100m cheque to buy the latest set of shiny new toys.

I don't believe that Spurs will be going bankrupt any time soon.

To be absolutely fair, as I'm an admin on Bluemoon and spend an awful lot of time on there, I would think that I have a better grasp of our fan's opinions and attitudes than you. In my view, most City fans aren't stamping their feet and demanding anything, most of them are simply thankful that we are lucky enough to be run by a multi-billionaire.

I'll direct you to the thread discussing the news of David Silva officially signing. All over it, were posts declaring "Thank you Sheik Mansour" and the like. We're appreciative and realise that we've won the lottery in terms of owners. After Shinawatra, Wardle, Lee and Swales, we were due a good one.

Over at Bluemoon, we have pooled our money together and got us a banner, directly facing where Khaldoon, Cook and one day hopefully, Sheikh Mansour will sit.

This is hardly the behaviour of petulant fans who stamp their feet demanding players.

I agree that Spurs at WHL was embarrassing to watch, and this was a large part of Hughes' sacking. The results were not coming, he lost the dressing room, and that performance was infuriating. He was tactically outdone by Redknapp, and he really showed his lack of ideas that day.

Spurs at CoM was a different story, and we lost because of a really simple reason; our expensively assembled group of players had no team spirit or togetherness. This game was the one that showed the fans that were unaware that building a team takes time, and throwing money at something doesn't guarantee you anything.

Khaldoon Al-Mubarak (our Chairman) gave one of his bi-annual video interviews on the OS straight after this game, and I was more than happy with his responses. He's a knowledgeable guy, and he makes a fantastic impression on both the fans and players. He appealed for calm amongst the fans, and explained that in his opinion, we had a good season, despite finishing 5th.

Considering that we were in the race for fourth until the second to last game of the season, and we got to a Semi Final of the Carling Cup, after coming 10th the previous year, it was ok. Disappointing that we didn't do better, but we would have taken 5th if it was offered at the beginning of the season, just as we'd bite your hand off for 4th now despite the noises of challenging for the title.

You'll have to disregard anything I say about Redknapp's ability as biased talk, as I have an extreme hatred of the man.

Spurs are now in an interesting position. You have to decide whether to really go for it, spend big cash to secure CL for another year or take the cash from the CL and consolidate. I expect that you will be challenging the top four again this coming season, but think that you'll be much more of a threat now that your team is maturing together.

[PieFacE]

You'll have to disregard anything I say about Redknapp's ability as biased talk, as I have an extreme hatred of the man.

This is pretty much the opinion of everyone on here.

[SimplySpurfect]

You'll have to disregard anything I say about Redknapp's ability as biased talk, as I have an extreme hatred of the man.

This is pretty much the opinion of everyone on here.

That's almost exactly what I was gonna say.

Just without the "on here" part.

[GlastonSpur]

.... Spurs are now in an interesting position. You have to decide whether to really go for it, spend big cash to secure CL for another year or take the cash from the CL and consolidate. I expect that you will be challenging the top four again this coming season, but think that you'll be much more of a threat now that your team is maturing together.

First let me say that you come across as somone is who is prepared to make reasoned posts, which I appreciate. It doesn't change my view of City as the club they have now become, nor the damage to football which they are contributiing to, but there you go.

In response to your above comments, IMO Spurs will not seek to simply consolidate cash-wise, but will instead fully intend to push on, aiming this coming season to finish in the top 4 again and to at least make it out of the CL group stages.

Spurs could, if they sold several players that are not core to the squad and added this cash to what Levy may in any case sanction on top (20m?), have a total of maybe £50m to spend, perhaps even slightly more.

Buit on the other hand, IMO the vast majority of our current squad - considering factors like age, accumulating experience and team-gelling, and performances last season - will improve further again this coming season. And we already have the Brazilian U-21 captain - Sandro - joining us as a DM. So all in all we don't necessarily need to spend big.

The most key area for us is to find a quality player who can play well up front as a lone striker - to give us that formation-option for certain games. If the right player becomes available -and that's a big IF - then this is one area where I think Spurs might spend a fair whack of cash. Given the injury situation with King and Woodgate we could also probably do with another quality CB.

Beyond that I think we'll see one or two additions if the chance arises for a quality player. Joe Cole is a good example here - I could be wrong, but I'd guess this deal will happen very soon.

City's main challenge, as you've acknowledged, will be getting all of the 'big names' to actually gel together as a team and to have the necessary team/fighting spirit.

[fran_villa]

Spurs will not seek to simply consolidate cash-wise, but will instead fully intend to push on, aiming this coming season to finish in the top 4 again and to at least make it out of the CL group stages.

do yous not have to get to the group stage first,that sounds a little bit cocky to me..

[Oaks]

Jesus a Spurs fan having a debate with a Man City fan on a Villa message board.

[GlastonSpur]

do yous not have to get to the group stage first,that sounds a little bit cocky to me..

To aim to at least get out of the CL group stages we'd obviously need to aim to get into the group stages in the first place. Doesn't that follow without needing to say it?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

To aim to at least get out of the CL group stages

At least?

[OutByEaster?]

I think Spurs might prove the strength in depth of the Premiership this season by making the last eight of the Champions league and finishing outside the top four - they're a well run club.

City are lucky, but then they've been unlucky for a long time - I find it hard to begrudge them their good fortune. I'm trying...

[Damocles]

[This is actually a reply to a post in the Milner thread, but I didn't want to write all of this and it get pulled for being off topic]

If you look at United's record pre-Ferguson, ON TROPHIES ALONE I wouldn't call them one of the world's biggest clubs. Fanbase, perhaps as they were ably helped out by the sympathy afforded to them after the Munich Air Disaster. Ground; definitely not, OT used to be a complete dump whereas Maine Road was called the Wembley of the North (when that was something to be impressed by).

Anyway, again I'm confused with what a 'big club' is. We've historically had a large and loyal fanbase though not one that is particularly international with the exception of ex-pat countries. Stadium wise, hopefully you would agree that the City of Manchester Stadium is really nice, and work is still being done on it (here's a picture taken today of our new pitch and details of current building work ) to make it bigger and better. The owner is very much into his properties and his fancy looking stuff, and we've just put a BILLION into the local area around the stadium. This is the side that people don't seem to see with the new owners, it isn't just about spunking money on players. That billion quid we've just put into East Manchester will create more than a few thousand jobs too, in one of the poorest areas of the city. As a comparison, Manchester United was sold for £800m a few years ago.

This is what many don't seem to grasp. Sheikh Mansour and his family aren't idiot playboys with nothing better to do than buy some daft (and enigmatic!) club and use it as a plaything. They are serious businessmen, who have a business plan. It's the same business plan as everywhere else in Abu Dhabi. They have oil now. Due to this they have money now. They won't have oil in a few decades. Due to that, they won't have money in a few decades. Spend money now, buy businesses so that they will support you in later years. Whereas Dubai threw money at stupid buildings and hoped that tourism would drive from the "wow factor", the Sheikh's thing is sport. He (and especially our Chairman, Khaldoon, who owns 5% of Ferrari) was instrumental to bringing in the Abu Dhabi GP. Same with the yacht race, the World Club Cup, and the horse race that's meant to be big over there. They are using sports branding to make money and raise the profile of their Emirate, and it seems to work somewhat, as I knew nothing about the place before they took over.

So, as far as 'big club' status goes, I don't really know. I don't think we will be a bigger club than United in the short or medium term certainly, but as well all know, football is cyclic in this country. 20 years ago, it was unthinkable that Leeds could be in the third tier, United could be beaten to the title by Chelsea and Liverpool could be nearly bankrupt. Every empire falls, and just as Liverpool did, United will eventually.

The thing that winds me up is the whole "City will NEVER be bigger than United". These people don't seem to grasp what forever means, or have access to the next 1000 years of football results ala Back To The Future. Or think the world will end in 2012.

Actually, I'm pretty convinced that the world will end in 2012 now. We'll have just signed Torres and Messi, beaten United in the Cup Semi Final to go on and face Scunny in the Finals, and be three points away from winning the title mathematically. Then the world will end. It's written in the stars, I can bloody see it coming.