City's Owners

[Joker]

City's owners get a lot of stick from a lot of people. I think some of it is down to the fact that they're from the Middle East and there's a bit of latent racism there (not on this messageboard though), and there's also a lot of populism surrounding their takeover and the actions they have taken.

If you examine their record, they've actually been quite sensible in their ownership. They gave Mark Hughes a lot of time to get things right, and only after failing to convince that he was the right manager did they sack him. Moreover, they've retained Gary Cook as Chief Exec and Brian Marwood as Football Adminstration Officer, making use of their local knowledge having accepted that there are many things about English football that they don't understand yet.

Yes, they've spent a lot of money, and they've ruffled a few feathers with some of their transfer dealings (i.e. Lescott) but which club hasn't? Transfers don't always go through smoothly, and some of them go through after a lot of acrimony (you only need to look at Arsenal)

Furthermore, they are working hard to improve the local area around the stadium, building new schools and trying to regenerate a quite deprived area. You could say this is just a PR stunt, but all the information coming out suggests the owners have a real commitment to the club and the local area, understanding that the club is not just a business but a social institution that means a lot to people.

I think sometimes we're too quick to jump down the City owners' throats, thinking of them as some tinpot Arab Charlatan when their actions suggest they're anything but. Moreover, they actually seem to care about football and success on the pitch, rather than simply using City as a vehicle for a vanity project and to line their pockets with gold. Can you honestly say you get the same impression with our owners? Do you really think our owners put the welfare of the fans and sucess on the pitch ahead of seeing a good return on their investment?

[Letters]

It makes me LOL when people say City are showing ambition.
It's not 'ambitious' to spend half a billion to try and buy success. Doing things the hard way is ambitious (maybe even impossible in the modern football world).

[Tony Tuesdays]

'Latent racism'? Have a word pal.
They're getting the same amount of stick Chelsea got and Blackburn had before them. I don't see the msame 'latent racism' levelled at the Venkys, they're just called clueless.
Theyt have their way of doing things and others have theirs.

[Flavs]

City's owners get a lot of stick from a lot of people. I think some of it is down to the fact that they're from the Middle East and there's a bit of latent racism there (not on this messageboard though), and there's also a lot of populism surrounding their takeover and the actions they have taken.

If you examine their record, they've actually been quite sensible in their ownership. They gave Mark Hughes a lot of time to get things right, and only after failing to convince that he was the right manager did they sack him. Moreover, they've retained Gary Cook as Chief Exec and Brian Marwood as Football Adminstration Officer, making use of their local knowledge having accepted that there are many things about English football that they don't understand yet.

Yes, they've spent a lot of money, and they've ruffled a few feathers with some of their transfer dealings (i.e. Lescott) but which club hasn't? Transfers don't always go through smoothly, and some of them go through after a lot of acrimony (you only need to look at Arsenal)

Furthermore, they are working hard to improve the local area around the stadium, building new schools and trying to regenerate a quite deprived area. You could say this is just a PR stunt, but all the information coming out suggests the owners have a real commitment to the club and the local area, understanding that the club is not just a business but a social institution that means a lot to people.

I think sometimes we're too quick to jump down the City owners' throats, thinking of them as some tinpot Arab Charlatan when their actions suggest they're anything but. Moreover, they actually seem to care about football and success on the pitch, rather than simply using City as a vehicle for a vanity project and to line their pockets with gold. Can you honestly say you get the same impression with our owners? Do you really think our owners put the welfare of the fans and sucess on the pitch ahead of seeing a good return on their investment?

*note to self, look up the word "comparing" in the dictionary

[Kano]

ah the good old lazy racist accusation eh?

how very fucking boring

[Joker]

ah the good old lazy racist accusation eh?

how very fucking boring

I didn't mean this messageboard, I meant in general. And perhaps racism is the wrong word, xenophobia would be more appropriate. Mike Ashley's been a dreadful owner for Newcastle United, and while their supporters have vented their fury at his incompetence and lack of investment into the club, how many column inches have been devoted to him and the negative effect he's had at Newcastle?

[Boss]

They love football, it's akin to one of us buying a football club and playing FM, they're probably not in it for the money and they're helping ruin a game that was already heading down the wrong path but can't see where the hate comes from as we'd all do the same if we had the chance.

[Flavs]

I didn't mean this messageboard, I meant in general. And perhaps racism is the wrong word, xenophobia would be more appropriate. Mike Ashley's been a dreadful owner for Newcastle United, and while their supporters have vented their fury at his incompetence and lack of investment into the club, how many column inches have been devoted to him and the negative effect he's had at Newcastle?

:wacko:

[Kano]

I didn't mean this messageboard, I meant in general. And perhaps racism is the wrong word, xenophobia would be more appropriate. Mike Ashley's been a dreadful owner for Newcastle United, and while their supporters have vented their fury at his incompetence and lack of investment into the club, how many column inches have been devoted to him and the negative effect he's had at Newcastle?

before they got relegated? absolutely loads. what is more sexy for the media, a 'big' club once again falling on its arse heading into the championship or a multi billionaire family, pissing off their manc neighbours and throwing money around like they print it themselves?

they've absolutely bloated the market and their 'team' is just a real life Football Manager project, i wont bother going into some boring comparison with our 'self sustaining model' but i would want nothing to do with a team spending like that. i would literally stop supporting arsenal if it turned out like city, completely artificial football.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

signing players then holding them ransom and not letting them leave

making a farce of the financial fair play

sacking mark hughes when he was on course to make top 4

yeah, model owners :lol:

[Master Splinter]

It makes me LOL when people say City are showing ambition.
It's not 'ambitious' to spend half a billion to try and buy success. Doing things the hard way is ambitious (maybe even impossible in the modern football world).

:gp:

As good as posts get tbh.

Every time someone calls big-spenders 'ambitious' it shows how wrong the world is.

[Grebbo]

City's owners are great for them.

Obviously terrible for everyone else but it must be amazing to be a City fan right now.

Their owners are putting billions of their own money into the club (if you can call it their own money).

Our English owners put fuck all of their own money in and instead have made hundreds of millions out of selling their AFC shares. Our new owner again puts no money of his own into the club and will inevitably start taking money out "well you're not going to spend it are you Arsene, it's pointless just sitting there".

Who are the better owners?

[Letters]

Obviously terrible for everyone else but it must be amazing to be a City fan right now.

Unless you have a modicum of intelligence.
So yeah, I guess most of their fans are enjoying it.

[Grebbo]

Unless you have a modicum of intelligence.
So yeah, I guess most of their fans are enjoying it.

Why would you have to be dumb to be enjoying it?

What is the worst that can happen?

Abu Dhabi go broke - not likely within the next 100 yrs.

City win everything every year and it becomes boring - Possibility but when has winning become boring? Manure fans aren't bored.

[Boss]

Why would you have to be dumb to be enjoying it?

What is the worst that can happen?

Abu Dhabi go broke - not likely within the next 100 yrs.

City win everything every year and it becomes boring - Possibility but when has winning become boring? Manure fans aren't bored.

Pretty much.

It's easy to say 'oh they're ruining football' and 'if the same happened to Arsenal I'd stop watching footy' but no one on here's ever had that choice.

Fans that haven't had a taste of success in 50 years experiencing what Citeh fans are won't look at how 'manufactured' their success is but bask in the glory of finally being able to compete with the big boys.

People said that Abromovich would fuck off at some point but that hasn't happened, Chelsea are also seen as a top club these guys by both players, the media and sponsorship companies.

Ironically I think the only thing that will solve this problem of more and more clubs being bought out and increasing their spending so that we'll have wages of 1M per week eventually is a well regulated European Super League, despite all the dislike it gets on here. We all know FFP won't change much.

The sport needs something like American sports have, a season where all teams have the same transfer budget and same wage budget, then we'll actually get to see who the best managers / players are. There was a point in the modern game where garbage like Wayne Bridge was picking up more per week than Fabregas and Van Persie which is silly.

[Niall_Quinn]

I think City's owners are rightly hated for two reasons, one moral and the other a football reason.

The moral angle is obvious. Oil, Middle East, USA - the dead bodies are piled sky high on the back of that association, once you do your reading beyond the BBC and BP's press office. But not many people look in that direction, especially the FA with the ludicrous "fit and proper" test.

In football terms I suppose the thing that I dislike most about them is their ignorance. Their ignorance of the game, its history and traditions but even more their ignorance of the damage they are doing to it. That's because when you drench a sand rat in cash he'll make a chav look cultured. Oh yes, they have their Oxford education, much like a whore dresses nice so the neighbours won't talk. Is that racist? If so, I don't really care. I know I'm not a racist and that's good enough for me. So even if I call a rat in a suit a rat in a suit and even if people take offence at that, don't bother to talk to me about it because my interest in the issue will have longed waned by the time you get the first word out.

City are the lottery winning gypos who have chosen your street to live in - caravans and all. The socially sterile city banker who has the biggest car in the street but lacks the manners not to park it in your space. We all have to live together in the football world or else the competition ceases to be all that it could be and the entertainment suffers as a result. If things go on then eventually Chelsea, City, Real Madrid and probably some obscure Russian team manned round the clock by scrubbers trying to get the blood off the changing room floors - that will be all there is. And the City fans can sit there and sing, "We are top of the fucked up league", but I think they'll probably look back instead and yearn for a cold English winter, pies on the terraces and a must win clash with the bitter rivals from up the road.

These "gentlemen" from the Middle East can't ever buy the history, that's safely locked away beyond their reach and it's still something we can tell our kids, "I was there before the arabs came, when Thierry Henry and Dennis Berkgamp and Tony Adams and the rest of the Invincibles were showing the world how the game should be played." Try buying that - you can't for any amount of money. You need class to produce that, a thing City will never, ever have.

[Grebbo]

I think City's owners are rightly hated for two reasons, one moral and the other a football reason.

The moral angle is obvious. Oil, Middle East, USA - the dead bodies are piled sky high on the back of that association, once you do your reading beyond the BBC and BP's press office. But not many people look in that direction, especially the FA with the ludicrous "fit and proper" test.

In football terms I suppose the thing that I dislike most about them is their ignorance. Their ignorance of the game, its history and traditions but even more their ignorance of the damage they are doing to it. That's because when you drench a sand rat in cash he'll make a chav look cultured. Oh yes, they have their Oxford education, much like a whore dresses nice so the neighbours won't talk. Is that racist? If so, I don't really care. I know I'm not a racist and that's good enough for me. So even if I call a rat in a suit a rat in a suit and even if people take offence at that, don't bother to talk to me about it because my interest in the issue will have longed waned by the time you get the first word out.

City are the lottery winning gypos who have chosen your street to live in - caravans and all. The socially sterile city banker who has the biggest car in the street but lacks the manners not to park it in your space. We all have to live together in the football world or else the competition ceases to be all that it could be and the entertainment suffers as a result. If things go on then eventually Chelsea, City, Real Madrid and probably some obscure Russian team manned round the clock by scrubbers trying to get the blood off the changing room floors - that will be all there is. And the City fans can sit there and sing, "We are top of the fucked up league", but I think they'll probably look back instead and yearn for a cold English winter, pies on the terraces and a must win clash with the bitter rivals from up the road.

These "gentlemen" from the Middle East can't ever buy the history, that's safely locked away beyond their reach and it's still something we can tell our kids, "I was there before the arabs came, when Thierry Henry and Dennis Berkgamp and Tony Adams and the rest of the Invincibles were showing the world how the game should be played." Try buying that - you can't for any amount of money. You need class to produce that, a thing City will never, ever have.

Most nations have a very murky history.

England has fucked many people in it's history.

I don't see them being Middle Eastern being an issue. I see their wealth ruining the game being an issue but not the fact that it's oil money.

[Niall_Quinn]

Most nations have a very murky history.

England has fucked many people in it's history.

I don't see them being Middle Eastern being an issue. I see their wealth ruining the game being an issue but not the fact that it's oil money.

That's why I chucked in reason #1. We reap what we sow. But you have to go down many rabbit holes to get to the genuine culprits, if there's even an end to it. It's safe to say that whatever the nationality or culture, there's some thug in charge fucking over the majority. You can go all the way back into history to find the pattern repeating but it's probably more useful to deal with injustice in your own age than try to correct something from history that can't be corrected. Convenient I'm sure but practically impossible to avoid. I don't see them being Middle Eastern as a problem either. I see them as being thugs who exploit the Middle east as the real problem. And now they are here to exploit the game we grew up with. But by all means, if you can find their western bedfellows so you can stick two fingers up at them too then go for it. Just make sure you don't vote for them on election day though.

[Letters]

Why would you have to be dumb to be enjoying it?

Because any trophies they win are meaningless. We all know how they got there, any of their more discerning fans would know too.
Maybe it doesn't bother them, maybe they don't care how they achieve success. It would bother me.

As for Utd fans not getting bored of success, they've not swept the board every year and they have at least done it the 'right' way in that although they've spent big it is at least money they've earned through previous success. I've been told to retire my 'buying a degree off the internet' analogy so I will but I think most people can see the difference between achiving success through hard work and having it handed to you on a plate. The former is far more satisfying.

If you're a Simpsons fan think the Stonecutters episode where they keep letting Homer win at everything...

[Niall_Quinn]

Because any trophies they win are meaningless. We all know how they got there, any of their more discerning fans would know too.
Maybe it doesn't bother them, maybe they don't care how they achieve success. It would bother me.

As for Utd fans not getting bored of success, they've not swept the board every year and they have at least done it the 'right' way in that although they've spent big it is at least money they've earned through previous success. I've been told to retire my 'buying a degree off the internet' analogy so I will but I think most people can see the difference between achiving success through hard work and having it handed to you on a plate. The former is far more satisfying.

If you're a Simpsons fan think the Stonecutters episode where they keep letting Homer win at everything...

Didn't see that episode. Is Homer bright enough in the end to figure out the truth, or does he just act the ungracious pratt and lord it over the competition? If it's the latter then in Homer's mind he really did win and the trophies are very meaningful to him.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

City's owners get a lot of stick from a lot of people. I think some of it is down to the fact that they're from the Middle East and there's a bit of latent racism there (not on this messageboard though), and there's also a lot of populism surrounding their takeover and the actions they have taken.

If you examine their record, they've actually been quite sensible in their ownership. They gave Mark Hughes a lot of time to get things right, and only after failing to convince that he was the right manager did they sack him. Moreover, they've retained Gary Cook as Chief Exec and Brian Marwood as Football Adminstration Officer, making use of their local knowledge having accepted that there are many things about English football that they don't understand yet.

Yes, they've spent a lot of money, and they've ruffled a few feathers with some of their transfer dealings (i.e. Lescott) but which club hasn't? Transfers don't always go through smoothly, and some of them go through after a lot of acrimony (you only need to look at Arsenal)

Furthermore, they are working hard to improve the local area around the stadium, building new schools and trying to regenerate a quite deprived area. You could say this is just a PR stunt, but all the information coming out suggests the owners have a real commitment to the club and the local area, understanding that the club is not just a business but a social institution that means a lot to people.

I think sometimes we're too quick to jump down the City owners' throats, thinking of them as some tinpot Arab Charlatan when their actions suggest they're anything but. Moreover, they actually seem to care about football and success on the pitch, rather than simply using City as a vehicle for a vanity project and to line their pockets with gold. Can you honestly say you get the same impression with our owners? Do you really think our owners put the welfare of the fans and sucess on the pitch ahead of seeing a good return on their investment?

The way Citeh spend their money has an affect on football in general (most specifically transfers and wages), whereas Arsenal's actions really just affect Arsenal and its stakeholders. To me they are two seperate issues and don't have to be discussed in the way of saying criticising Citeh means people still can't admonish the way Arsenal run.

[Letters]

Didn't see that episode. Is Homer bright enough in the end to figure out the truth, or does he just act the ungracious pratt and lord it over the competition? If it's the latter then in Homer's mind he really did win and the trophies are very meaningful to him.

Even Homer's entheusiasm for winning dwindles as he realises that he's not having to work that hard to achieve 'success'.
Was trying to find the YouTube clip bug Fox are notoriously vigilent and it's quite hard to find Simpsons clips on there.

[Cripps_orig]

Rather have them than our board

[Niall_Quinn]

Rather have them than our board

I'd rather the whole of football collapses and we go back to amateur sport.

[Marc Overmars]

Don't care if it's sanctimonious but their success IS hollow, even more so than Chelsea who at least qualified for the CL before Abramovich turned up. I'm sure it's great for their success starved fans but if the same happened here I wouldn't brag about it personally.

[Niall_Quinn]

Even Homer's entheusiasm for winning dwindles as he realises that he's not having to work that hard to achieve 'success'.
Was trying to find the YouTube clip bug Fox are notoriously vigilent and it's quite hard to find Simpsons clips on there.

Ah well, I guess City fans don't have Homer's insight or instincts.

[Fist of Lehmann]

Ah well, I guess City fans don't have Homer's insight or instincts.In the episode the Stonecutters get so pissed off with Homer they decide to form a new society called the Society of No Homers.

Homer then replaces all former members with monkeys, gets them drunk and forces them to re-enact the American Civil War.

Although I'd love this to happen at City, I remain cautiously sceptical.

[Niall_Quinn]

In the episode the Stonecutters get so pissed off with Homer they decide to form a new society called the Society of No Homers.

Homer then replaces all former members with monkeys, gets them drunk and forces them to re-enact the American Civil War.

Although I'd love this to happen at City, I remain cautiously sceptical.

The civil war bit isn't such a long shot.

[AKBapologist]

Wouldn't mind if all footie clubs had billionaire owners, then we'd be on a level playing field again.

[Grebbo]

Wouldn't mind if all footie clubs had billionaire owners, then we'd be on a level playing field again.

We've got two of them and we're still shite.

[Young Guns 11]

By the by, how do people still feel about Chelsea's success?

[Letters]

Wouldn't mind if all footie clubs had billionaire owners, then we'd be on a level playing field again.

A level playing field of unlikeable mercenaries.

Woo hoo.

:(

[Niall_Quinn]

By the by, how do people still feel about Chelsea's success?

Don't think they got value for money. You'd expect a CL win to be thrown in as part of the deal.

[Joker]

By the by, how do people still feel about Chelsea's success?

I think most people accept they deserved their titles and don't make the argument so much anymore about the silverware being 'bought'

[Boss]

The outrage from other fans is only for the first few years, Chelsea have pretty much been accepted now and don't see any hate for PSG or Anzhi.

In 10 years Citeh will be seen as just another of the top four, not the one that wasted 400M~ to get there.

[Niall_Quinn]

I think most people accept they deserved their titles and don't make the argument so much anymore about the silverware being 'bought'

Not sure about that. They've actually been very, very ordinary given the levels of investment. Morinho had things working for a while but since then they're a bit of a joke outfit comparatively speaking.

[Cripps_orig]

We've got two of them and we're still shite.

We must be the only club to be taken over by a billionaire and become even worse than we were

[Niall_Quinn]

We must be the only club to be taken over by a billionaire and become even worse than we were

A billionaire miser. Makes all the difference.

[Boss]

We must be the only club to be taken over by a billionaire and become even worse than we were

Pretty much. :rose:

[Cripps_orig]

Should have let Usmanov take over.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

We must be the only club to be taken over by a billionaire and become even worse than we were

The things is, he doesn't have full ownership in the same way the Abu Dhabi group and Abramovich do. Having said that I don't think we'd see anywhere near the amount of money spent at those two clubs but there would be some - whilst that issue is still up in the air, I don't think there is going to be any.

[Grebbo]

If there is one good thing about City it'll be watching Man Utd get knocked off their fucking perch - and they will.

I for one can't wait to see it.

[AKBapologist]

Fitting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/arsenal/7612961/Arsenal-do-not-get-the-respect-they-deserve-according-to-Samir-Nasri.html

[milla]

Should have let Usmanov take over.

Still not too late to invite Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Norges Bank Investment Management or Aramco to take over. They'll make Citeh owner looks poor lol. :coffee:

[hobson's choice]

It's just typical snobbery, that's all. I have no problem with the City owners. They aren't doing anything new. Teams with the most money have always won, simple as.

Football at times is so full of snobbery and elitism, if you don't have "History" you aren't allowed to try to win, should just know your place. The fact is in today's day and age, clubs are not gonna rise up up organically, the gap between the winners and non winners is too damn wide. For clubs like City pre Arabs unless they get some rich sugar daddy they will never be able to rise up to the levels of the so-called elites.

[Özim]

Ask Blackburn fans if winning the title in the 90's with Jack Walker's money was hollow. I think the answer you'll get is no, the guy is a God like figure for what he did for Blackburn.

Frankly to say successes for City are meaningless is not true, if they win 20 titles in the next 30 years they'll go down in history, noone will remember 4th placed losers though.

City fans are loving it and why wouldn't you, some of the best players in the world signing, trophies starting to come I'm sure they're pretty pleased.

Chelsea fans don't see their successes as meaningless either (and neither do most in football), in fact nowadays they are a very respected side that players want to sign for because they can achieve success there.

Frankly our situation is awful at the moment, losing all our players, signing kids and having the p*ss taken out of us by owner and manager alike...all whilst being charged sky high prices. What do we get for that, a nice stadium, but when it comes down to it, would you rather have a nice stadium and settle for 4th every year or see your team win trophies and play exciting football?

Right now I'd choose Highbury and the team we had over what we currently have every day of the week.

[fakeyank]

I was born and brought up in Al Ain- two hours from Abu Dhabi and I hate those C*nts! I hope their oil gets magically transported to Bangladesh and they go broke. I dont know about racism against them but those Arabs are bigger racist cocks than any other people I know. Anyone who has been to or lived in Dubai (other than awesome ppl like Teg and me) will know how badly the South Asian workers are treated!
I Hope City fail and their owners choke on their shit!

[Niall_Quinn]

Yeah, snobbery is shite. Like snobs who complain when their whole town's economy goes down the shitter when a big processed food pusher arrives and prices out the smaller stores. Business wise it's all fair game, provided you ignore the fact the few prosper whilst the many get screwed. All's fair on an unfair playing field. Let's have three of four more Citys and see how we go. How long will it take for the calls to come through that it;s a good thing the mom and pop clubs are going to the wall? Better "efficiency" with the big boys, brighter lights, more razzmatazz. Shame about the quality of the football or the fact you can't name your squad from one season to the next because the greedy fuckers are all on a money merry-go-round. Crimes up in the cities, let's all be criminals. Can't beat 'em then join them. Makes sense. Flush meaningless history down the shitter and embrace the brave new world. Gaddafi's out of a job, let's get him as owner. He's bound to have a few quid spread around his offshore accounts. Plus the guy has connections and I hear he doesn't take shit at the negotiating table. Let's see how low we can go.

[Fist of Lehmann]

It's just typical snobbery, that's all. I have no problem with the City owners. They aren't doing anything new. Teams with the most money have always won, simple as.

Football at times is so full of snobbery and elitism, if you don't have "History" you aren't allowed to try to win, should just know your place. The fact is in today's day and age, clubs are not gonna rise up up organically, the gap between the winners and non winners is too damn wide. For clubs like City pre Arabs unless they get some rich sugar daddy they will never be able to rise up to the levels of the so-called elites.

Snobbery? That depends on your definition.

The vast majority of Citys squad is bought with money garnered outside of the club. But outside investment has always happened. In 95/96 Fiszman put £50m of his own money in, money made of pure diamonds.

Implicit in the criticism of City is that the sheer scale of their investment is tantamount to cheating, which runs against the whole ideal of sport. It's a matter of degree.

As McNamara says, the ability to bring unlimited cash to the table affects everybody.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Fitting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/arsenal/7612961/Arsenal-do-not-get-the-respect-they-deserve-according-to-Samir-Nasri.html

Meh Shows what Money can do tbh.

[Ernesto]

I think City were a great club, with a checkered history but a fantastic fan base way before Sheikh Mansour took over.

Manchester United themselves have blown other clubs out of the water financially. If the only way City can compete is to out-buy and out-bid the likes of United, Chelsea and Real Madrid, then so be it. Stick it to 'em, I say.

[Master Splinter]

I've been told to retire my 'buying a degree off the internet' analogy so I will

Great advice tbh.

[Master Splinter]

Who makes Steve Guttenb......Gareth Barry a star?

We do!

[McNamara That Ghost...]

I think City were a great club, with a checkered history but a fantastic fan base way before Sheikh Mansour took over.

Manchester United themselves have blown other clubs out of the water financially. If the only way City can compete is to out-buy and out-bid the likes of United, Chelsea and Real Madrid, then so be it. Stick it to 'em, I say.

I really don't think it is the only way it can happen and I can see why the suggesting of it being 'ambition' is disregarded. The fact that most of us just want(ed) Wenger to be a bit more flexible in his approach (if he can!) suggests that for all the money that they spend you can still compete on some level. It doesn't have to be spending gazillions every transfer window and nor, in fairness does it just have to be getting players bought for more (relatively) conservative figures and youth players. It could be that supporting a club which has always been in the Champions League skews my perception a bit but really, the league we're in is a cash cow too.

I concede however that having owners that want to invest money in to their club, taking a long term approach is nigh-on impossible. I'm just pointing out, how they are doing it (with effectively unlimited sums) doesn't have to be governed by a feeling of it being necessary.

[Ernesto]

I really don't think it is the only way it can happen and I can see why the suggesting of it being 'ambition' is disregarded. The fact that most of us just want(ed) Wenger to be a bit more flexible in his approach (if he can!) suggests that for all the money that they spend you can still compete on some level. It doesn't have to be spending gazillions every transfer window and nor, in fairness does it just have to be getting players bought for more (relatively) conservative figures and youth players. It could be that supporting a club which has always been in the Champions League skews my perception a bit but really, the league we're in is a cash cow too.

I concede however that having owners that want to invest money in to their club, taking a long term approach is nigh-on impossible. I'm just pointing out, how they are doing it (with effectively unlimited sums) doesn't have to be governed by a feeling of it being necessary.

Yup, I agree with your points Maccy, 100%. We often laugh on GW that Arsenal are "2% away from domination" but, as you've suggested, you can see where GWers are coming from. We have to fine-tune our style of play, improve the mentality of the players at our disposal and add to the current personnel at the club (not necessarily big-money, marquis signings, either). It sounds really simple when I put it like that but, if Wenger's frustration is anything to go by, it's not quite so straightforward.

As for a club like, say, Stoke City making a real fight of winning the league in the next couple of seasons WITHOUT a huge cash injection into the club...well, I fail to see how it can happen, in all honesty. Pulis can probably make a couple of shrewd signings, get rid of the deadwood, change the style of play at the Britannia OR the club could change Pulis for another manager altogether (but this raises the argument, again, of how Stoke could attract a high-profile, proven manager). However, would this be enough to maintain a title challenge? There may be enough for a couple of game-raising performances, winning at Old Trafford and Stamford Bridge, maybe, but WITHOUT a big squad with proven quality, for every Hollywood result, there's a back-down-to-earth defeat at the Molineux.

The romantic in me would really like to see a club come up from the Championship and make a sustained challenge for the EPL title but with Ipswich the last team to threaten only to falter dramatically towards the end in 2001, I fail to see how that could happen without huge investment in the club.

[Gubby Allen]

I didn't mean this messageboard, I meant in general. And perhaps racism is the wrong word, xenophobia would be more appropriate. Mike Ashley's been a dreadful owner for Newcastle United, and while their supporters have vented their fury at his incompetence and lack of investment into the club, how many column inches have been devoted to him and the negative effect he's had at Newcastle?

I tend to agree with the sentiments. I try to, but I just don't have any dislike for Man City.

That's not to say the criticisms of them are not valid, some you cannot argue with.

But to me City are no worse or different to a dozen other clubs who have been bought out by a tycoon, armed with funds to plough into the club - whether it's 40 million or 400 million, the principle is the same, it's just an extra '0' on the end that City cop the stick for.

It's laughable that Chelsea can criticise them for it, Blackburn won the league doing it, but Jack Walker wasn't Jonny Foreigner.

But less so, what about Tottenham? They've spent ridiculously over their means for well over a decade now, for the year up to & since Redknapp they were bringing in 8-10 big name players a season, for huge money & wages. Where has all that come from? Tiny little ground, no trophies, on C.L run in 15 years.

Liverpool, Villa, Newcastle have had big investors - 40 million + on 2 Englands fringe players in Bent & Henderson. QPR, Leicester are at it. These sides aren't winning anything, have no 60,000+ fans coming in, to bring the money in.

Just because the fundd are 20%-40% of Man City's, is neither here nor there to me. If you dislike it, then you dislike the principle surely?

[Joker]

Some of our fans need to stop worrying about City and concentrate on our own football club. On Twitter, there are Arsenal supporters criticising them putting on their website an image from the latest FIFA game showing Nasri scoring against United. This is just an example of an official partner (EA Sports) trying to create some more publicity for their new game, and yet some of our fans see it as indicative of a lack of "class".

E.G.
@Arseblog
Jesus fucking Christ - http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/August/Samir-Nasri-scores-first-City-goal - all that money and they can't buy some 'Not look like cunts' powder?!
15 hours ago

LGbayb Lou Gilmour
@arseblog That's a tad unrealistic. Etihad Stadium is sold out.

@Arseblog
@WestStandTone @lilangelicrose imagine thé nouveau riche having no class. Who'd have thunk it?

I really don't get this "noveau riche" dig either. It's not as if we're run as a supporter owned cooperative are we? We are also a private business where the primary concern of our primary shareholder is to make money. People laugh at the City owners for splashing the cash, but at least they seem to have an interest in the sport, which is more than can be said for Silent Stan.

Moreover, the "noveau riche" comment is a perfect example of the established order (the top 4) getting annoyed at a new upstart trying to upset their hegemony. Remember that the landowners were opposed to the industrial capitalists at the start of the industrial revolution. The capitalists were cruel and exploitative, but that's not the say the landowners were any better when they were at the top of the social ladder.

[AKBapologist]

Some of our fans need to stop bitching about fans tbh.

[Kano]

Some of our fans need to stop worrying about City and concentrate on our own football club.

you're the one starting threads about em

[Master Splinter]

you're the one starting threads about em

:haha: