Amigo
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,838
|
Post by Amigo on Apr 26, 2019 10:41:31 GMT 1
Liverpool have spent around 600 million in 5 years, of course they're trying to buy the title. Only Manchester United make more money commercially than Manchester City and only Bayern, Madrid and Barcelona make more in europe. Whilst they've done it quickly they've obviously built their brand pretty well to be hitting the numbers they are. You can have all the money you want but money still needs to be used correctly and the club run right and they are. The team that played United the other night cost around 10 million more than the United team, that's no money today yet the difference in quality was blatantly obvious. Anybody that thinks any of the top sides are different to one another are dreamers, it's not the same game. They all spend as much as they can to buy the best they can. Is Liverpool spending just over 100 million less than City over the last 5 years really making that much of a difference that you can say one is buying the title and the other isn't?! How are Liverpool not a corporate identity just because it's an American company that bought them and not an Arab? We would arguably not got to the Premier League without Dean Hoyle's money, Wolves wouldn't have got there without Chinese backing, Bournemouth would never have got near without Russian backing, the list goes on. Has Liverpool's identity gone because they suddenly bought 3 players in the last 15 months that all cost more than Manchester City's record transfer? Of course not, it's just the way the game is these days. Its a different thing IMO. Liverpool have also sold a huge amount of player assets. Whilst theyve sspent a lot, their NET spend over the past 5 years is less than a third of what Man City's Net spend is. www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasonsTheir american owner isn;t promoting himself. I couldn;t even tell you his name or what his business is. The owner of man City is. Thats why theyre a commercial 'tool' more than a football club to me. To be successful, anyone needs to 'buy it'. But theres a big difference between earning the money, and just being handed it. Dean Hoyle didn;t buy our way out of the championship. He heavily invested but we were still a poor club at that level. Its probably fair to say he bought our way out of L1 though. But he did it because hes a fan of the club, not to promote "dean Hoyle'. Theres a lot of dubious speculation about Man Citys commercial activity, such as the extraordinary amount they receive for their shirt sponsorship... from their owners in effect. An obvious way around FFP. Despite having arguably one of the best 2 or 3 teams in the world, they rarely sell their ground out even. Their world wide fanbase doesnl;t compare to either Utd or liverpool and is probably decades of success away from matching them. But unquestionably, they have spent their owners money FAR better than man utd have spent theirs. Come off it, you haven't heard of John Henry or FSG? What about the whole LeBron James promotion when they took over Liverpool? Giving one of the biggest players in basketball part ownership of the club wasn't self promoting or part of a commercial tool?!
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,230
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 26, 2019 11:09:51 GMT 1
I managed to watch a minute of that video before switching it off on the grounds that it was intolerably dull and the presenters very annoying. Did it get better later on?
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 26, 2019 11:20:44 GMT 1
Its a different thing IMO. Liverpool have also sold a huge amount of player assets. Whilst theyve sspent a lot, their NET spend over the past 5 years is less than a third of what Man City's Net spend is. www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasonsTheir american owner isn;t promoting himself. I couldn;t even tell you his name or what his business is. The owner of man City is. Thats why theyre a commercial 'tool' more than a football club to me. To be successful, anyone needs to 'buy it'. But theres a big difference between earning the money, and just being handed it. Dean Hoyle didn;t buy our way out of the championship. He heavily invested but we were still a poor club at that level. Its probably fair to say he bought our way out of L1 though. But he did it because hes a fan of the club, not to promote "dean Hoyle'. Theres a lot of dubious speculation about Man Citys commercial activity, such as the extraordinary amount they receive for their shirt sponsorship... from their owners in effect. An obvious way around FFP. Despite having arguably one of the best 2 or 3 teams in the world, they rarely sell their ground out even. Their world wide fanbase doesnl;t compare to either Utd or liverpool and is probably decades of success away from matching them. But unquestionably, they have spent their owners money FAR better than man utd have spent theirs. Come off it, you haven't heard of John Henry or FSG? What about the whole LeBron James promotion when they took over Liverpool? Giving one of the biggest players in basketball part ownership of the club wasn't self promoting or part of a commercial tool?! No sorry. The name John Henry rings a bell in relation to who owns Liverpool but no idea who or what FSG are. No idea about the LeBron james thing either. But that sort of link is to promote the club in a foreign market ( the USA ) , not the owner. Its just not the same thing as with Man City at all.
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Apr 26, 2019 11:35:29 GMT 1
Come off it, you haven't heard of John Henry or FSG? What about the whole LeBron James promotion when they took over Liverpool? Giving one of the biggest players in basketball part ownership of the club wasn't self promoting or part of a commercial tool?! No sorry. The name John Henry rings a bell in relation to who owns Liverpool but no idea who or what FSG are. No idea about the LeBron james thing either. But that sort of link is to promote the club in a foreign market ( the USA ) , not the owner. Its just not the same thing as with Man City at all. But I couldn't tell you who the owner of City is or which arabian country they're from so the promotion isn't going that well
|
|
|
Post by jasrick on Apr 26, 2019 11:39:59 GMT 1
I managed to watch a minute of that video before switching it off on the grounds that it was intolerably dull and the presenters very annoying. Did it get better later on? That’s a shame. You’ll have missed the part where he had to google who our manager is and then failed to pronounce his name. So not only did he not know, he didn’t have an ‘oh yeah, him,’ moment when he looked it up suggesting he’s never known. You’d think if you were going to host a football discussion programme/thing you’d know about football? Embarrassing.
|
|
Amigo
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,838
|
Post by Amigo on Apr 26, 2019 11:40:03 GMT 1
Come off it, you haven't heard of John Henry or FSG? What about the whole LeBron James promotion when they took over Liverpool? Giving one of the biggest players in basketball part ownership of the club wasn't self promoting or part of a commercial tool?! No sorry. The name John Henry rings a bell in relation to who owns Liverpool but no idea who or what FSG are. No idea about the LeBron james thing either. But that sort of link is to promote the club in a foreign market ( the USA ) , not the owner. Its just not the same thing as with Man City at all. To be honest I don't believe you. There's no way you can notice the commercial side of City and not know anything about FSG or LeBron James. Of course it was to promote the club but also the owners, they even used LeBron James to try promote him and basketball in this country in the same way City promote themselves globally. It's exactly the same and I'm pretty sure you know it and are just playing daft for the sake of your argument.
|
|
|
Post by greyarea on Apr 26, 2019 11:51:28 GMT 1
I managed to watch a minute of that video before switching it off on the grounds that it was intolerably dull and the presenters very annoying. Did it get better later on? That’s a shame. You’ll have missed the part where he had to google who our manager is and then failed to pronounce his name. So not only did he not know, he didn’t have an ‘oh yeah, him,’ moment when he looked it up suggesting he’s never known. You’d think if you were going to host a football discussion programme/thing you’d know about football? Embarrassing. And that was why I posted this thread. I didn't expect them to know too much about us or even dress up what has been a terrible season. What I did expect for a football discussion programme is to know some basics such as the name of our manager for the past 3 months.
|
|
|
Post by greyarea on Apr 26, 2019 12:07:07 GMT 1
This is much better, a least a bit of research done.
|
|
|
Post by royrace on Apr 26, 2019 13:30:51 GMT 1
125/1 at Paddy Power on a Town 1-0 victory seems a good way to spice up watching this on TV tonight.... ....for the opening ten minutes at least anyway 🤣🤣 I wish I shared your optimism!
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 26, 2019 13:54:04 GMT 1
No sorry. The name John Henry rings a bell in relation to who owns Liverpool but no idea who or what FSG are. No idea about the LeBron james thing either. But that sort of link is to promote the club in a foreign market ( the USA ) , not the owner. Its just not the same thing as with Man City at all. To be honest I don't believe you. There's no way you can notice the commercial side of City and not know anything about FSG or LeBron James. Of course it was to promote the club but also the owners, they even used LeBron James to try promote him and basketball in this country in the same way City promote themselves globally. It's exactly the same and I'm pretty sure you know it and are just playing daft for the sake of your argument. Youre wrong. Ive noticed the commercial side of City because its been an enormous story in the world game that has massively impacted football in this country more than the pretty standard ownership of liverpool has. Liverpool have been a big spender for decades- money they generate themselves. City have gone from relatively nowhere to spending more than THREE times as much as them over the last 5 years due entirely to the vast input of a foreign state that uses them as a marketing tool for their nation. If you can;t see the difference then I suspect youre the one playing daft.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 14:11:02 GMT 1
Its a different thing IMO. Liverpool have also sold a huge amount of player assets. Whilst theyve sspent a lot, their NET spend over the past 5 years is less than a third of what Man City's Net spend is. www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasonsTheir american owner isn;t promoting himself. I couldn;t even tell you his name or what his business is. The owner of man City is. Thats why theyre a commercial 'tool' more than a football club to me. To be successful, anyone needs to 'buy it'. But theres a big difference between earning the money, and just being handed it. Dean Hoyle didn;t buy our way out of the championship. He heavily invested but we were still a poor club at that level. Its probably fair to say he bought our way out of L1 though. But he did it because hes a fan of the club, not to promote "dean Hoyle'. Theres a lot of dubious speculation about Man Citys commercial activity, such as the extraordinary amount they receive for their shirt sponsorship... from their owners in effect. An obvious way around FFP. Despite having arguably one of the best 2 or 3 teams in the world, they rarely sell their ground out even. Their world wide fanbase doesnl;t compare to either Utd or liverpool and is probably decades of success away from matching them. But unquestionably, they have spent their owners money FAR better than man utd have spent theirs. Come off it, you haven't heard of John Henry or FSG? What about the whole LeBron James promotion when they took over Liverpool? Giving one of the biggest players in basketball part ownership of the club wasn't self promoting or part of a commercial tool?! For what it’s worth, I just had to read Wiki to find out who FSG are and had definitely never heard of John Henry, and has no idea that Liverpool we’re owned by the same group that own the Red Sox. Furthermore, as a little bit of a Lakers fan (followed them a little as both kids into them, to the extent that we arranged a holiday to fit in with a Lakers game last year, and had no idea that LeBron has a minor holding in Liverpool FC). They’re obviously in it for money making / shifting / ego purposes, because if they’re in it for cross marketing of brands they’ve failed. By contrast, Etihad and Emirates are the only instant brands that come to mind in association with EPL clubs. and our own massive Uzbekistan link up obviously! 🤷♂️🤣)
|
|
|
Post by redblue on Apr 26, 2019 14:59:09 GMT 1
Does that Pajak lad still appear on Redmen TV?
He's an absolute weapon him.
|
|
Amigo
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,838
|
Post by Amigo on Apr 26, 2019 15:41:00 GMT 1
To be honest I don't believe you. There's no way you can notice the commercial side of City and not know anything about FSG or LeBron James. Of course it was to promote the club but also the owners, they even used LeBron James to try promote him and basketball in this country in the same way City promote themselves globally. It's exactly the same and I'm pretty sure you know it and are just playing daft for the sake of your argument. Youre wrong. Ive noticed the commercial side of City because its been an enormous story in the world game that has massively impacted football in this country more than the pretty standard ownership of liverpool has. Liverpool have been a big spender for decades- money they generate themselves. City have gone from relatively nowhere to spending more than THREE times as much as them over the last 5 years due entirely to the vast input of a foreign state that uses them as a marketing tool for their nation. If you can;t see the difference then I suspect youre the one playing daft. So City's owners had to spend some money to play catch up, should they have waited 20-30 years to get some history and a bigger fan base behind them? Would you if you could start building a huge club like that? Of course not. They've also done a lot for their community as well which hasn't been mentioned. They've invested over £1bn in to property and higher education in Manchester. They've got a 10 year deal with the local council to help build affordable homes. I really don't see the problem. Every team spends as much as they can to do as well as they can. Are Manchester City really being used as a corporate tool anyway? Most of the sponsorship seems to be around Etihad Airways which is struggling rather than ADUG?
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 26, 2019 15:52:43 GMT 1
Youre wrong. Ive noticed the commercial side of City because its been an enormous story in the world game that has massively impacted football in this country more than the pretty standard ownership of liverpool has. Liverpool have been a big spender for decades- money they generate themselves. City have gone from relatively nowhere to spending more than THREE times as much as them over the last 5 years due entirely to the vast input of a foreign state that uses them as a marketing tool for their nation. If you can;t see the difference then I suspect youre the one playing daft. So City's owners had to spend some money to play catch up, should they have waited 20-30 years to get some history and a bigger fan base behind them? Would you if you could start building a huge club like that? Of course not. They've also done a lot for their community as well which hasn't been mentioned. They've invested over £1bn in to property and higher education in Manchester. They've got a 10 year deal with the local council to help build affordable homes. I really don't see the problem. Every team spends as much as they can to do as well as they can. Are Manchester City really being used as a corporate tool anyway? Most of the sponsorship seems to be around Etihad Airways which is struggling rather than ADUG? Theyve definitely done a good job in the local area. No doubt about that. Money is seemingly no issue and that is great PR on a local level. Morally perhaps the club should after being provided with a stadium in such a way as they were. If i had a bottomless pit of money then sure, id probably want to do it the same way. But thats isn;t really what the discussion is about is it. More what Man City 'are' now. Their owners are buying them success and trophies with money the club has not generated itself for their own national identity purposes. I doubt your average City fan cares, but it DOES make them very different from the likes of liverpool and United IMO. To my mind anyway, theyre a marketing tool more than they are a football club anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Torquayterrier on Apr 26, 2019 16:28:18 GMT 1
Though I agree that the in your face corporate nature of the current Man city rankles with the traditionalist view of football achievement the uncomfortable truth is Town would be unlikely to generate the revenue itself to just become a mid table also ran in the prem and we'd probably have to 'buy' even that level of achievement.
|
|
Amigo
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,838
|
Post by Amigo on Apr 26, 2019 16:32:21 GMT 1
So City's owners had to spend some money to play catch up, should they have waited 20-30 years to get some history and a bigger fan base behind them? Would you if you could start building a huge club like that? Of course not. They've also done a lot for their community as well which hasn't been mentioned. They've invested over £1bn in to property and higher education in Manchester. They've got a 10 year deal with the local council to help build affordable homes. I really don't see the problem. Every team spends as much as they can to do as well as they can. Are Manchester City really being used as a corporate tool anyway? Most of the sponsorship seems to be around Etihad Airways which is struggling rather than ADUG? Theyve definitely done a good job in the local area. No doubt about that. Money is seemingly no issue and that is great PR on a local level. Morally perhaps the club should after being provided with a stadium in such a way as they were. If i had a bottomless pit of money then sure, id probably want to do it the same way. But thats isn;t really what the discussion is about is it. More what Man City 'are' now. Their owners are buying them success and trophies with money the club has not generated itself for their own national identity purposes. I doubt your average City fan cares, but it DOES make them very different from the likes of liverpool and United IMO. To my mind anyway, theyre a marketing tool more than they are a football club anymore. Marketing tool for who? In my eyes they want the best team, best manager, best facilities, best club. Same as everyone really. If it was all about using them as a marketing machine they wouldn't bother with all the background stuff a lot of which doesn't get reported. They all buy success. United might have had a few youngsters come through at one point in the 90's but they still spent a fortune each year. Where the money comes from is largely irrelevant they all get given a fortune. Liverpool fans act as if they have a right to the title and if you know any Liverpool fans I'd imagine you find the self entitlement and hypocrisy they come out with in their history equally annoying. City fans had possibly the best moment a club could have with the 2 incredibly late goals to steal the title from their biggest rivals so fair play to them after the crowds they were getting in League 1. People are very quick to shoot down successful teams and players in this country. Money doesn't buy success as United have shown, they've still had to use the money correctly which for the most part they have done.
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Apr 26, 2019 17:03:41 GMT 1
So City's owners had to spend some money to play catch up, should they have waited 20-30 years to get some history and a bigger fan base behind them? Would you if you could start building a huge club like that? Of course not. They've also done a lot for their community as well which hasn't been mentioned. They've invested over £1bn in to property and higher education in Manchester. They've got a 10 year deal with the local council to help build affordable homes. I really don't see the problem. Every team spends as much as they can to do as well as they can. Are Manchester City really being used as a corporate tool anyway? Most of the sponsorship seems to be around Etihad Airways which is struggling rather than ADUG? Theyve definitely done a good job in the local area. No doubt about that. Money is seemingly no issue and that is great PR on a local level. Morally perhaps the club should after being provided with a stadium in such a way as they were. If i had a bottomless pit of money then sure, id probably want to do it the same way. But thats isn;t really what the discussion is about is it. More what Man City 'are' now. Their owners are buying them success and trophies with money the club has not generated itself for their own national identity purposes. I doubt your average City fan cares, but it DOES make them very different from the likes of liverpool and United IMO. To my mind anyway, theyre a marketing tool more than they are a football club anymore. You keep on about generating money Slapps, I've got a mate who's supported the bin dippers all his life and goes over to watch them. He reckons they're over half a billion in debt really, so they're not spending money they've generated
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 26, 2019 17:37:10 GMT 1
Theyve definitely done a good job in the local area. No doubt about that. Money is seemingly no issue and that is great PR on a local level. Morally perhaps the club should after being provided with a stadium in such a way as they were. If i had a bottomless pit of money then sure, id probably want to do it the same way. But thats isn;t really what the discussion is about is it. More what Man City 'are' now. Their owners are buying them success and trophies with money the club has not generated itself for their own national identity purposes. I doubt your average City fan cares, but it DOES make them very different from the likes of liverpool and United IMO. To my mind anyway, theyre a marketing tool more than they are a football club anymore. You keep on about generating money Slapps, I've got a mate who's supported the bin dippers all his life and goes over to watch them. He reckons they're over half a billion in debt really, so they're not spending money they've generated Id say your mates wrong. This is a link to the 10 clubs with the biggest debt. Liverpool don;t even feature and the 10th biggest in the list ( Juventus ) is half what your mate thinks Liverpool have. sillyseason.com/football/top-10-football-clubs-with-the-most-debt-53396/Liverpool made pre tax profit 2017/18 of £142m!! The season before even without CL football they made pre tax profit of £40m. So Id say they are likely to be spending their own money.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 26, 2019 17:50:15 GMT 1
Theyve definitely done a good job in the local area. No doubt about that. Money is seemingly no issue and that is great PR on a local level. Morally perhaps the club should after being provided with a stadium in such a way as they were. If i had a bottomless pit of money then sure, id probably want to do it the same way. But thats isn;t really what the discussion is about is it. More what Man City 'are' now. Their owners are buying them success and trophies with money the club has not generated itself for their own national identity purposes. I doubt your average City fan cares, but it DOES make them very different from the likes of liverpool and United IMO. To my mind anyway, theyre a marketing tool more than they are a football club anymore. Marketing tool for who? In my eyes they want the best team, best manager, best facilities, best club. Same as everyone really. If it was all about using them as a marketing machine they wouldn't bother with all the background stuff a lot of which doesn't get reported. They all buy success. United might have had a few youngsters come through at one point in the 90's but they still spent a fortune each year. Where the money comes from is largely irrelevant they all get given a fortune. Liverpool fans act as if they have a right to the title and if you know any Liverpool fans I'd imagine you find the self entitlement and hypocrisy they come out with in their history equally annoying. City fans had possibly the best moment a club could have with the 2 incredibly late goals to steal the title from their biggest rivals so fair play to them after the crowds they were getting in League 1. People are very quick to shoot down successful teams and players in this country. Money doesn't buy success as United have shown, they've still had to use the money correctly which for the most part they have done. For UAE, Abu Dhabi. The country, its business, its reputation. Being the best and successful is the aim as thats the image the country wants by association. Like i say, City certainly spend their money better than Man utd have, but its money given to them not generated by the club. Id agree about liverpool fans sense of entitlement. The 'specialness' they see in themselves is extremely irritating and the media play along with it at every turn. Even the way they bang on about 'the Kop' gets under my skin, like its a person with a voice " What will the Kop make of this?.." Its just a flaming stand behind a goal like everyone's got! The media love to blow smoke up their arse. But in my experience man City fans also have that sense of entitlement now. Thats been bought for them too.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,230
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 26, 2019 18:20:16 GMT 1
Does that Pajak lad still appear on Redmen TV? He's an absolute weapon him. The fact you can name any of them suggests either that you have much more patience than I have or that it's usually a lot better than the first minute of the episode on this thread. No idea who Pajak is, but the guy who was talking at the start of that video was an absolute weapon so it might be him.
|
|
Amigo
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,838
|
Post by Amigo on Apr 26, 2019 19:29:11 GMT 1
Marketing tool for who? In my eyes they want the best team, best manager, best facilities, best club. Same as everyone really. If it was all about using them as a marketing machine they wouldn't bother with all the background stuff a lot of which doesn't get reported. They all buy success. United might have had a few youngsters come through at one point in the 90's but they still spent a fortune each year. Where the money comes from is largely irrelevant they all get given a fortune. Liverpool fans act as if they have a right to the title and if you know any Liverpool fans I'd imagine you find the self entitlement and hypocrisy they come out with in their history equally annoying. City fans had possibly the best moment a club could have with the 2 incredibly late goals to steal the title from their biggest rivals so fair play to them after the crowds they were getting in League 1. People are very quick to shoot down successful teams and players in this country. Money doesn't buy success as United have shown, they've still had to use the money correctly which for the most part they have done. For UAE, Abu Dhabi. The country, its business, its reputation. Being the best and successful is the aim as thats the image the country wants by association. Like i say, City certainly spend their money better than Man utd have, but its money given to them not generated by the club. Id agree about liverpool fans sense of entitlement. The 'specialness' they see in themselves is extremely irritating and the media play along with it at every turn. Even the way they bang on about 'the Kop' gets under my skin, like its a person with a voice " What will the Kop make of this?.." Its just a flaming stand behind a goal like everyone's got! The media love to blow smoke up their arse. But in my experience man City fans also have that sense of entitlement now. Thats been bought for them too. I'm not sure I agree they've bought a football team to basically promote a country, to be honest it's mainly the media that go on about the Abu Dhabi owners I don't really come across anything much from them themselves, no more than other owners anyway. The atmosphere thing at Anfield thing does my head in like it's better than anywhere else in the world. You put a massive game on under the lights in any stadium and the atmosphere is going to brilliant it's nothing unusual, I've been twice (once for town another was a random cup game years and years ago against Fulham, don't ask) and the atmosphere was crap both times, they've the same fans as the majority of clubs. Get up for a big game, don't really bother when it's not. The City fans I know aren't like that but then they've always followed City, I'd imagine that similar to ourselves they've collected a lot of "fans" on the way through their successes that paint most of them in a bad light.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 20:55:40 GMT 1
125/1 at Paddy Power on a Town 1-0 victory seems a good way to spice up watching this on TV tonight.... ....for the opening ten minutes seconds at least anyway 🤣🤣
|
|