Well done Man City

**NyseriA** · 14-05-12, 15:20

Originally Posted by the phantom pieman

Great game , great result
Have manyoo fans started to whine About buying the title?
Go have a look at the facts and figures :-)

The figures that show City spending 10x as much to win a premiership and an FA cup vs Uniteds 3 Premierships, 2 league cups and a Champions League? Not inlcuding wage bill?

I don't care, as a United fan, if City have bought the league because it's not like United are poor and that Chelsea haven't done the same previously. It was an enthralling finish to the season and City were the best team to win it (after a rather mediocre season (by their standards) by United).

Need to decide if it's more amusing to let Chelsea win the Champions League now, at the expense of turfing out Spurs to another season of mid table mediocrity

**NyseriA** · 14-05-12, 15:21

Originally Posted by Trumps

Even after a poor season, we got a nice trophy in the cabinet. What did your boys get?

Champions league football next season. Unlike Lollerfail

**NyseriA** · 14-05-12, 15:22

Originally Posted by Bonners

Running through the streets of South Manchester at 5pm, in a red top, was probably not the wisest choice of running clothing in retrospect.

By South Manchester, I assume you mean Stockport, the spiritual home of the City fan?

**Ed Safado** · 14-05-12, 15:24

Originally Posted by The Martian

Well the new rules coming in on financing should put paid to that from both Manc clubs, with one being billionaire owned and the other one hocked in to a couple of yank banks, the wheels will come off at your place with RVP leaving and Chelsea wont be able to replace their ageing squad due to the new money rules...

The only top end club unaffected will be Tottenham who will breeze the title in a couple of years being the only big club in the EPL built on a sustainable business model

I'm Chelsea. I was taking the piss out of Arsenal as RVP carries them and also mocking myself as a fan of a team with a billionaire owner buying the title.
I shit subtle.

**Ed Safado** · 14-05-12, 15:26

Originally Posted by NyseriA

The figures that show City spending 10x as much to win a premiership and an FA cup vs Uniteds 3 Premierships, 2 league cups and a Champions League? Not inlcuding wage bill?

I don't care, as a United fan, if City have bought the league because it's not like United are poor and that Chelsea haven't done the same previously. It was an enthralling finish to the season and City were the best team to win it (after a rather mediocre season (by their standards) by United).

Need to decide if it's more amusing to let Chelsea win the Champions League now, at the expense of turfing out Spurs to another season of mid table mediocrity

If that happens and it's a big if that would be the sweetest, juiciest cherry on top of the champions league cake for me.

**NyseriA** · 14-05-12, 15:26

Originally Posted by The Martian

Well the new rules coming in on financing should put paid to that from both Manc clubs, with one being billionaire owned and the other one hocked in to a couple of yank banks, the wheels will come off at your place with RVP leaving and Chelsea wont be able to replace their ageing squad due to the new money rules...

The only top end club unaffected will be Tottenham who will breeze the title in a couple of years being the only big club in the EPL built on a sustainable business model

Wishful thinking, United are nowhere near foul of the financial fairplay rulings

**The Martian** · 14-05-12, 15:27

Originally Posted by NyseriA

The figures that show City spending 10x as much to win a premiership and an FA cup vs Uniteds 3 Premierships, 2 league cups and a Champions League? Not inlcuding wage bill?

Need to decide if it's more amusing to let Chelsea win the Champions League now, at the expense of turfing out Spurs to another season of mid table mediocrity

Originally Posted by The Martian

The only top end club unaffected will be Tottenham who will breeze the title in a couple of years being the only big club in the EPL built on a sustainable business model

Three-quarters of Premier League must make cuts to meet new Uefa rules | Football | The Guardian

Suck the nuts to all of the big clubs owned by billionaires and banks who pay out more than they bring in

**The Martian** · 14-05-12, 15:35

Originally Posted by NyseriA

Wishful thinking, United are nowhere near foul of the financial fairplay rulings

Really? If that is true they must be living in a loophole or summat being in the pit of debt since the Glazers took over

I think you may want to check that*

*Im not spending my time proving myself wrong, if I am, you can sort out the proof yourself

**the phantom pieman** · 14-05-12, 15:47

Originally Posted by The Martian

Really? If that is true they must be living in a loophole or summat being in the pit of debt since the Glazers took over

I think you may want to check that*

*Im not spending my time proving myself wrong, if I am, you can sort out the proof yourself

I with you on this - I thought the Glaiser's had right royally fucked United ... because of the debt position

**Ed Safado** · 14-05-12, 15:58

Originally Posted by the phantom pieman

I with you on this - I thought the Glaiser's had right royally fucked United ... because of the debt position

IIRC correctly they spent less than Sunderland on new players last season. Pre-Glazers they were big spenders.
The low spend was the reason Rooney handed in his transfer request 2 (?) seasons ago but they got to the champs league final anyway and Rooney said it shows what he knows.
Was this seasons early exit from Champs League down to lack of spending power and not being able to make showpiece signings? Or are they alright as they are with the purple-faced one?

**Templar** · 14-05-12, 16:16

Originally Posted by NyseriA

Need to decide if it's more amusing to let Chelsea win the Champions League now, at the expense of turfing out Spurs to another season of mid table mediocrity

Don't think so, we have faith in our German colleagues to sort out the Chelski

COYS

**DefTrap** · 14-05-12, 16:21

Originally Posted by Ed Safado

IIRC correctly they spent less than Sunderland on new players last season. Pre-Glazers they were big spenders.
The low spend was the reason Rooney handed in his transfer request 2 (?) seasons ago but they got to the champs league final anyway and Rooney said it shows what he knows.
Was this seasons early exit from Champs League down to lack of spending power and not being able to make showpiece signings? Or are they alright as they are with the purple-faced one?

Clubs which are profitable (and I include ManU in this cos technically they are w/o the Glazers) are pretty rare, so it depends what you mean by spending power? Probably how deep the pockets of the sugar-daddy or how gullible the the bank is.
Given the number of clubs that are becoming owned by billionaire backers prices for the best players are going to go sky-high. The likes of ManU, Arsenal, Spurs can't really compete in this arena. I don't really know enough about the financial clout of the others to be able to comment but presumably the likes of QPR will start ramping up their investment?

**The Martian** · 14-05-12, 16:30

Originally Posted by DefTrap

Clubs which are profitable (and I include ManU in this cos technically they are w/o the Glazers) are pretty rare, so it depends what you mean by spending power? Probably how deep the pockets of the sugar-daddy or how gullible the the bank is.
Given the number of clubs that are becoming owned by billionaire backers prices for the best players are going to go sky-high. The likes of ManU, Arsenal, Spurs can't really compete in this arena. I don't really know enough about the financial clout of the others to be able to comment but presumably the likes of QPR will start ramping up their investment?

*cough*

Three-quarters of Premier League must make cuts to meet new Uefa rules | Football | The Guardian

Arsenal and ManU are both debt riddled so have limited spends and Chelsea and ManC wont be allowed to buy whoever.
Spurs could be in a bloody good position actually as they operate in profit, which is pretty rare for any club not owned by the filthy rich...

**GiantPygmy** · 14-05-12, 16:46

Debt can be moved off the radar (owners cancel debt and take income instead...) of the regs and income can be moved into it.
City can become the official distributor of ETIHAD airline tickets for example and cash can be pumped in that way....?

I heard on the radio today that United's team actually cost a few million more than City's - both north of 150 mill though...