• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

The Pep myth

Someone could win the Premier League with South Shields and some on here would find a way to play it down.

'It was only Football Manager'
 

Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool, Man Utd when they won their European Cups they all had spent excessive amounts to do it.

Man City are no different.

Congratulations to them.
 
chunkyshitehawk53 said:
They are different in the extent that

1) they generally generated their own wealth
2) they didn’t have 115 charges hanging over them for the way they manipulated the rules
Click to expand...
How did they generate their own wealth?

They could not possibly generate enough revenue through crowds, and shirt sales to pay the wages and massive transfer fees.

They had sponsers.

You could also say that Man City's owners are using their own wealth.
 
Ohnonotagain said:
How did they generate their own wealth?

They could not possibly generate enough revenue through crowds, and shirt sales to pay the wages and massive transfer fees.

They had sponsers.

You could also say that Man City's owners are using their own wealth.
Click to expand...
Yes. They had sponsors. That’s part of it. People paid to advertise at market rates. The amount was based on how well the team was doing, and thus commercial value

Man City’s owners pumped their private wealth into it. It wasn’t football generated

Man City’s owners also allegedly broke the rules. Hence the charges

So it’s different. It’s not the same as you said it is
 
chunkyshitehawk53 said:
Yes. They had sponsors. That’s part of it. People paid to advertise at market rates. The amount was based on how well the team was doing, and thus commercial value

Man City’s owners pumped their private wealth into it. It wasn’t football generated

Man City’s owners also allegedly broke the rules. Hence the charges

So it’s different. It’s not the same as you said it is
Click to expand...
Are you saying that owners of football clubs don't put their own wealth into the clubs?
 
could not disagree with this thread more, one of the best managers of all time who improves every player he coaches. loads teams spend loads, some spend even more than Man City.

Even in the opening post lists loads of players who were not getting chased by loads of clubs
chunkyshitehawk53 said:
They are different in the extent that

1) they generally generated their own wealth
2) they didn’t have 115 charges hanging over them for the way they manipulated the rules
Click to expand...

Its nonsense like, so basically want a closed shop for the teams who were historically good. May as well just get the super league and be done with it
 
Last edited:
chunkyshitehawk53 said:
They are different in the extent that

1) they generally generated their own wealth
2) they didn’t have 115 charges hanging over them for the way they manipulated the rules
Click to expand...
The 2nd part, isn’t that largely down to the fact that the other clubs wanted a close shop to stop smallers clubs like City being able to have a slice of their cake?

The rules were brought in to try and kill competition while the likes of Man Utd continued to get richer.
 
mart said:
The 2nd part, isn’t that largely down to the fact that the other clubs wanted a close shop to stop smallers clubs like City being able to have a slice of their cake?

The rules were brought in to try and kill competition while the likes of Man Utd continued to get richer.
Click to expand...

100%

I find it strange that Man Utd can spend a lot more money, yet Man City get called the cheats.
 
mart said:
The 2nd part, isn’t that largely down to the fact that the other clubs wanted a close shop to stop smallers clubs like City being able to have a slice of their cake?

The rules were brought in to try and kill competition while the likes of Man Utd continued to get richer.
Click to expand...
Partially yeah. I’ve always seen it has two aims

1) as you say, to protect the top clubs
2) to hopefully prevent clubs spending beyond their means and going bust

First one realistically was the driver

Im not sure what the answer is
 
mart said:
The 2nd part, isn’t that largely down to the fact that the other clubs wanted a close shop to stop smallers clubs like City being able to have a slice of their cake?

The rules were brought in to try and kill competition while the likes of Man Utd continued to get richer.
Click to expand...

This. Anyone who wants fairness should be arguing for a salary cap. But as with any walk of life, the rules are made to maintain the status quo.
 
MustardAndOnions said:
could not disagree with this thread more, one of the best managers of all time who improves every player he coaches. loads teams spend loads, some spend even more than Man City.

Even in the opening post lists loads of players who were not getting chased by loads of clubs


Its nonsense like, so basically want a closed shop for the teams who were historically good. May as well just get the super league and be done with it
Click to expand...
Aaaaah so THIS is the right room for an argument.
 
chunkyshitehawk53 said:
No.
Click to expand...
So what point are you trying to make?

As far as I can see Man City are just doing what every successful club has done. ( that includes us when we were known as the Bank of England club)
Hardyman's Yugo said:
There isn’t one single thing to solve the problem, however my hobby horse of a salary cap would imho help a lot.

Cue lots of posters saying players would leave, my answer to that would be where to.
Click to expand...
Salary caps don't work, there would just be underhand payments.
 
Last edited:
Ohnonotagain said:
So what point are you trying to make?

As far as I can see Man City are just doing what every successful club has done. ( that includes us when we were known as the Bank of England club)

Salary caps don't work, there would just be underhand payments.
Click to expand...
Broke the financial rules allegedly. So did we btw.
Ohnonotagain said:
Salary caps don't work, there would just be underhand payments.
Click to expand...
Underhand payments don’t work anymore, they don’t make envelopes big enough to fit them in. Haven’t City been charged with doing this with Mancini?
 
Last edited:
Ohnonotagain said:
As far as I can see Man City are just doing what every successful club has done. ( that includes us when we were known as the Bank of England club)
Click to expand...
We weren't owned by a front for a state with a highly questionable human rights record. It was local businessmen who breached payment regulations, as did many other clubs at the time. Three directors and a number of players were banned for life - the players had this rescinded, we had the highest ever fine up to that point and the manager was fined and resigned. There were genuine consequences. City, and others will wriggle out of any attempt to punish their multiple alleged breaches of regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top