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

[PussEKatt]

15 hours ago, Genie said:

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. 

I could be wrong ( I hope I am ) but IMHO I cant see how you can only have price rises in one division and not have it effect all the other divisions in that same country

[sne]

Couldn't the thread title even be "Sportswash! - Let’s oil state at Manchester City! 

[Phil Silvers]

If we do the double on this scum I'll volunteer to take out Pritti Patel.

[The_Steve]

1 hour ago, Tommo_b said:

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.

There isn’t a club I now actively dislike more - not just because of Grealish - it’s the untold arrogance, the childish baiting, the manner of their business. It makes me feel terrible to root for the other elite awful sides but here I am. 

[YouUnastanFren]

18 minutes ago, Genie said:

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

The point is that they can afford it because they have been artificially inflating their non football income for 12 years far beyond where it would be for a club with their following and stature at each stage.

This really isn't a controversial take, they've been caught red handed and just litigated their way out of it due to their extreme wealth and the fact it's not illegal to give your own businesses money through your other businesses.

[bannedfromHandV]

Pep talking openly about Kane in his press conference, what a tw@.

[villa4europe]

55 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. 

we are bound by the same rules but thats the magic of the rule

the rule is designed to favour the richer higher profile clubs because those clubs have a monopoly on revenue

do you accept that it is impossible for us to have a higher shirt sponsor than man city? kappa are not going to pay us more than puma pay city, neither will nike, macron, even adidas despite our owners ties to them, if aston villa's shirt deal magically becomes worth £100m per year man citys will stay at £60m per year? or will man city's shirt deal increase to reflect market value?

we can not generate as much revenue as man city or man utd or liverpool or chelsea and therefore we can not spend as much as those clubs either 

the important thing is that despite us being at a higher level now brentford or norwich or leeds or wolves or any other clubs from the championship can generate as much revenue as we can and catch us, wolves got a better shirt deal than our kappa one for example 

burnley can have a higher revenue than aston villa and for about the last 5 years they have, burnley however can not have a higher revenue than man city, the dispartiy is too big to ever overcome

its not the same, clubs can be what we are, we can not be what man city are 

86 of the professional football in England will never have an official Nigerian fruit juice partner 

[Phil Silvers]

6 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Pep talking openly about Kane in his press conference, what a tw@.

No class, cheque book manager, Tuetel to embarrass him again this year, kane or no kane.

[Jono62]

Any 'journalist' ask him how they they can afford Grealish when he said they couldn't.

[Zatman]

18 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Pep talking openly about Kane in his press conference, what a tw@.

Prick, just never been allowed back in football after his drug ban. Was only ever cleared on a technicality

[Genie]

12 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

we are bound by the same rules but thats the magic of the rule

the rule is designed to favour the richer higher profile clubs because those clubs have a monopoly on revenue

do you accept that it is impossible for us to have a higher shirt sponsor than man city? kappa are not going to pay us more than puma pay city, neither will nike, macron, even adidas despite our owners ties to them, if aston villa's shirt deal magically becomes worth £100m per year man citys will stay at £60m per year? or will man city's shirt deal increase to reflect market value?

we can not generate as much revenue as man city or man utd or liverpool or chelsea and therefore we can not spend as much as those clubs either 

the important thing is that despite us being at a higher level now brentford or norwich or leeds or wolves or any other clubs from the championship can generate as much revenue as we can and catch us, wolves got a better shirt deal than our kappa one for example 

burnley can have a higher revenue than aston villa and for about the last 5 years they have, burnley however can not have a higher revenue than man city, the dispartiy is too big to ever overcome

its not the same, clubs can be what we are, we can not be what man city are 

86 of the professional football in England will never have an official Nigerian fruit juice partner 

These are complaints about FFP. City didn’t make the rules and would probably want them scrapped as much as Villa. 
It’s another topic entirely. 

[Genie]

30 minutes ago, YouUnastanFren said:

The point is that they can afford it because they have been artificially inflating their non football income for 12 years far beyond where it would be for a club with their following and stature at each stage.

 

That’s an opinion, not a fact. The data says they bring in similar money to comparable teams, and less than some comparable teams.

30 minutes ago, YouUnastanFren said:

This really isn't a controversial take, they've been caught red handed and just litigated their way out of it due to their extreme wealth and the fact it's not illegal to give your own businesses money through your other businesses.

Why aren’t our owners and other rich owners doing it if it’s easy and legal? They were cleared by an independent court. 

[villalad21]

The modern day Galacticos if they sign Kane

[Zatman]

Just now, villalad21 said:

The modern day Galacticos if they sign Kane

Eh no, not a Ballon Dor and maybe 1 World Cup and 1 Euro trophy between the entire squad 

PSG are Galacticos 

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

The modern day Galacticos if they sign Kane

It’s a strange one given Pep’s dislike of number 9’s. Is it an owners signing? 

[YouUnastanFren]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

That’s an opinion, not a fact. The data says they bring in similar money to comparable teams, and less than some comparable teams.

It's a statement that is supported by an increasing amount of evidence.

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

Why aren’t our owners and other rich owners doing it if it’s easy and legal? They were cleared by an independent court. 

Another owner is doing it. Look at PSG. They are both willing to lose millions (and disguise how much they're losing) with the long term intention of sportwashing their State backers.

Our owners, like many others, actually want to make money long term so there is no point secretly faking sponsorships and losing millions.

[villalad21]

 

[Zatman]

An iconic shirt number. I give up now his crap that they can afford him 

When you spend 60 million you can afford 100 million

[The_Steve]

Pep tapping up Kane in his press conference and it’s tweeted from their Twitter page so nonchalantly 

[Rugeley Villa]

1 hour ago, The_Steve said:

There isn’t a club I now actively dislike more - not just because of Grealish - it’s the untold arrogance, the childish baiting, the manner of their business. It makes me feel terrible to root for the other elite awful sides but here I am. 

Can’t bring myself to hate City . They just haven’t got that thing about them. Now United on the other hand, that’s a different story . Growing up in the 90s I hated them with a passion where it became a bit unhealthy .