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

[DJ_Villain]

1 hour ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Basically gangsters of football. I just hope they use him well because he’s a class act. What they did with Delph was criminal . 

I prefer my analogy… I’d rather think of Man City, their owners, their players and their fans as sex offenders…

“Gangsters” could have some sort of street credibility attached to them…

 

[Tommo_b]

14 hours ago, villalad21 said:

Really been raiding us

Taking the piss making that graphic aren’t they. God im looking forward to the day we get one other on them. 

Dare I say it but I’m starting to prefer Liverpool more.

[Tommo_b]

13 hours ago, villa4europe said:

Its mainly because at barca he brought loads through, then they sold most of them... Bayern he did nothing I don't think (alaba for example you can say he made better as a young kid but he didn't bring him through) and then city its only been foden and zinchenko

City are spunking £20m+ every summer on 3 or 4 youngsters too and none of them are breaking through

Again you’d have to be a pretty crap manager to not do well with Barca youth players. 

[villa4europe]

1 minute ago, Tommo_b said:

Again you’d have to be a pretty crap manager to not do well with Barca youth players. 

not so much what he did with the barca young players but he does deserve credit for what he did at barca in general, the turnover in such a short space of time and with the names that he booted out took some doing and then the quality of the football they played, it was impressive 

[El Zen]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

@El Zen picking up here due to being off topic in off topic…

I don’t see a huge difference between Man City blowing a fortune on our best player to what we (and other clubs) do picking up the best players from from the next tier down.

I don’t agree it’s impossible to compete with them because Leicester have proved you can if you’re run well and recruit well. 
Their shirt sponsorship deal isn’t in the top 10 biggest.

Them spending £100m on Grealish is just what we’re doing but ratcheted up to their relatively bigger income (which is proportionate to their success)

This completely ignores the point about FFP being a system that allows Man City to spend unlimitted sums, while others literally are not allowed to. It also ignores the sense of entitlement in trying to set up a competition that would permanently cement their elevated status. 

I get that football is a business where size matters. But compare it to the capitalist economy, where while all big companies exploit their workers and pick consumers’ pocket, not all companies are monopolising or cartelising. 

We, Villa included, are part of a sick football economy that needs fundamental change. Absolutely. But don’t pretend Villa are the same as Man City. We can’t be. FFP doesn’t allow us to. 

[Tommo_b]

Something needs to be done about Manchester City, it’s becoming farcical. 

They are under investigation for FFP…. Yet just spunked £100 million on ONE player, and possibly £150 million for Harry Kane.

At a time when even the greatest clubs in Europe are struggling to make ends meet, cmon, surely someone has got to clamp down on them, some serious financial fiddling going on (IMO)

How many championship clubs could you theoretically buy for £250 million?! 
 

[Genie]

35 minutes ago, El Zen said:

This completely ignores the point about FFP being a system that allows Man City to spend unlimitted sums, while others literally are not allowed to

That’s not true at all is it.

35 minutes ago, El Zen said:

It also ignores the sense of entitlement in trying to set up a competition that would permanently cement their elevated status

Nothing to do with the Jack transfer.

38 minutes ago, El Zen said:

But don’t pretend Villa are the same as Man City. We can’t be. FFP doesn’t allow us to. 

Villa and Man City are bound by the same rules. Yes, City were fortunate to be bought pre the rules (and probably a big part of why the rules exist) but they’ve had to operate within them for a long time. They bring in a lot of money, and they spend a lot of money. Same as United, Chelsea and Liverpool.

Villa have also spent large amounts of money poaching players from lower tier clubs by paying them more and offering a higher level of football. 
Villa have also had to massage the books by dodgy stadium sales and sponsorship of the training ground to avoid penalties for breaking FFP rules.

The 2 clubs are not so different but your claret and blue glasses won’t let you see it. 

[imavillan]

Even Paddy Power are on to em !!!!

 

 

[The_Steve]

£100m for alarm clock font on the back of the shirt. 

[PussEKatt]

15 hours ago, Tommo_b said:

Something needs to be done about Manchester City, it’s becoming farcical. 

just spunked £100 million on ONE player, and possibly £150 million for Harry Kane.
 

You could probably buy a small island in the Pacific for that.

[Genie]

55 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

Something needs to be done about Manchester City, it’s becoming farcical. 

They are under investigation for FFP…. Yet just spunked £100 million on ONE player, and possibly £150 million for Harry Kane.

At a time when even the greatest clubs in Europe are struggling to make ends meet, cmon, surely someone has got to clamp down on them, some serious financial fiddling going on (IMO)

How many championship clubs could you theoretically buy for £250 million?! 
 

Man City income for the last year, £478m

Villa income for the last year, £113m

So far both clubs have spent a similar amount of money on transfers this window ~£100m

 

[PussEKatt]

With Man $ity spending 100m on Jack and maybe 120/150m on Kane,is this going to be the first step to rouning football ?

What I mean is,what about the trickle down effect ? how will this effect clubs in league 1 and 2 ?Could we see clubs starting to dissapear from lge 2 and later lge 1

[DJ_Villain]

22 minutes ago, Genie said:

That’s not true at all is it.

Nothing to do with the Jack transfer.

Villa and Man City are bound by the same rules. Yes, City were fortunate to be bought pre the rules (and probably a big part of why the rules exist) but they’ve had to operate within them for a long time. They bring in a lot of money, and they spend a lot of money. Same as United, Chelsea and Liverpool.

Villa have also spent large amounts of money poaching players from lower tier clubs by paying them more and offering a higher level of football. 
Villa have also had to massage the books by dodgy stadium sales and sponsorship of the training ground to avoid penalties for breaking FFP rules.

The 2 clubs are not so different but your claret and blue glasses won’t let you see it. 

Yeah… but ours is good dodgy business…

“Diet Dodgy business”

“I can’t believe it’s not Dodgy Business”

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

With Man $ity spending 100m on Jack and maybe 120/150m on Kane,is this going to be the first step to rouning football ?

What I mean is,what about the trickle down effect ? how will this effect clubs in league 1 and 2 ?Could we see clubs starting to dissapear from lge 2 and later lge 1

It’s still only half of their annual income, and they could sell some players if they wanted.

There’s currently £378m between their income and what they’ve spent this summer. If they sign Kane it’ll be about £250m.

Pre-Grealish sale Villa had pretty much spent all of their income for the last year on transfers, rising to a £100-£120m margin after the huge income from selling Jack.
What is it about City that is ruining football? I don’t remember people saying United were ruining football for spending £125m on Sancho and Verane.

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, Genie said:

Villa income for the last year, £113m

It was more than that, but the point you make remains valid. TV money last year was > £122 million, then there's all the other stuff - sponsorships etc. Probably around £140m+ in total income.

[YouUnastanFren]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

It’s still only half of their annual income, and they could sell some players if they wanted.

There’s currently £378m between their income and what they’ve spent this summer. If they sign Kane it’ll be about £250m.

Aside from the obvious false income inflation that they've been caught doing, what about wages? Seems a weird way to calculate what they've got left to spend if you don't include their massive wage bill (which I think they also suppress with creative sponsorship arrangements)

[PussEKatt]

15 hours ago, Genie said:

What is it about City that is ruining football? I don’t remember people saying United were ruining football for spending £125m on Sancho and Verane.

Thats spending 125m on 2 players.Here we are talking about spending over 200m on 2 players.The more players cost in the PL the more players will cost in the lower divisions,so at this rate we could see teams in league 2 going out of buisness.

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, YouUnastanFren said:

Aside from the obvious false income inflation that they've been caught doing, what about wages? Seems a weird way to calculate what they've got left to spend if you don't include their massive wage bill (which I think they also suppress with creative sponsorship arrangements)

The point is they can afford it, because of their income. Yes there’s wages on top, same as all other clubs.

 

[Genie]

4 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

Thats spending 125m on 2 players.Here we are talking about spending over 200m on 2 players.The more players cost in the PL the more players will cost in the lower divisions,so at this rate we could see teams in league 2 going out of buisness.

I’m not sure there’s a direct link because these are top, top players buying from the same division.

You might argue buying players from the Championship for £25-£30m is doing more harm to transfer fee inflation. 

[Genie]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

It was more than that, but the point you make remains valid. TV money last year was > £122 million, then there's all the other stuff - sponsorships etc. Probably around £140m+ in total income.

I thought it seemed slightly low but the documents I found both had the same number.