- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: No thread on Pep apparently leaving City after next season?
Posted on 5/27/24 at 8:46 pm to StraightCashHomey21
Posted on 5/27/24 at 8:46 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
If your business was started by illegal means but if later successful
The oil of their homeland started (and maintained) this.
quote:
The foundation of how your business was started still matters.
You have to make this association.
They're primarily accused of flubbing revenue numbers. In what was does doing that a decade ago matter today?
quote:
Regardless City still has a bunch of UAE related sponsors to generate fake organic revenue
Again, why does this matter outside of the irrational spending rules?
If you support a legacy club, I get why you want to maintain the artificial advantage. Other than that?
quote:
It’s no where near the best academy in the country
It's a good thing I never stated as much, then.
I said their model was cutting edge, not their academy. I just said you're about to see more fruits from the investments into younger players (as opposed to older players), which is what Real is doing so well these days as well.
1
Posted on 5/27/24 at 9:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you support a legacy club, I get why you want to maintain the artificial advantage. Other than that?
What exactly is the artificial adv?
Posted on 5/27/24 at 9:49 pm to djsdawg
quote:
What exactly is the artificial adv?
FFP-type rules.
Legacy clubs produce more revenue, so teams like City could never "catch up" even if their owner was willing to invest $100B. You could only catch up if you could somehow produce more revenue than the legacy clubs to spend the excess on the investment, which is a Catch-22, because being prohibited from spending big means you're never going to compete for the top consistently, so that increased revenue will never come.
And the fact that legacy clubs produce more revenue from shite that happened decades ago is why it's so important to include the term "legacy".
Posted on 5/28/24 at 7:29 am to SlowFlowPro
City could have caught up by doing things organically. Other clubs have done it so your legacy argument is nonsense.
By not cheating
It takes time and work to establish a successfully ran club.
City are owned by a country not a private person investing their own personal money. If you can’t see the stark difference between the two I really can’t help you.
Watching you go to bat for City but cheering on Barca at the stake its peak hypocrisy and some wild mental gymnastics.
By not cheating
It takes time and work to establish a successfully ran club.
City are owned by a country not a private person investing their own personal money. If you can’t see the stark difference between the two I really can’t help you.
Watching you go to bat for City but cheering on Barca at the stake its peak hypocrisy and some wild mental gymnastics.
This post was edited on 5/28/24 at 7:32 am
Posted on 5/28/24 at 12:57 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
City could have caught up by doing things organically.
This is literally not true.
Nobody can overtake Man U or Liverpool organically. Not even other legacy clubs with success like Arsenal can. Not even other "paid for" clubs like Chelsea can after almost 20 years of blood money.
quote:
Other clubs have done it s
No one has done it.
No one will do it in the EPL, Bundesliga, or La Liga, either. I assume the same with Serie A but Italian soccer is weird and poor.
quote:
It takes time and work to establish a successfully ran club.
And City did that. Now they're the best-run club in the EPL by far.
quote:
City are owned by a country not a private person investing their own personal money.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? We're talking about how well run they are. The source is irrelevant.
Look at things like net spend per point.
quote:
Watching you go to bat for City but cheering on Barca at the stake its peak hypocrisy
Man City is well run. Real is well run, too (they learned a lesson)
Barca has been run like shite, like Man U.
No hypocrisy detected.
Posted on 5/28/24 at 5:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is literally not true. Nobody can overtake Man U or Liverpool organically. Not even other legacy clubs with success like Arsenal can. Not even other "paid for" clubs like Chelsea can after almost 20 years of blood money.
Union Berlin went from struggling 2 Bundesliga club to the champions league
Villa have been largely irrelevant the last 30 years and were just in the championship and are back in the champions league. All while having to deal with 4 other decent sized clubs in their area.
Do some basic research if you’re going to make such outlandish claims, that clubs can’t rise organically.
quote:
No one has done it. No one will do it in the EPL, Bundesliga, or La Liga, either. I assume the same with Serie A but Italian soccer is weird and poor.
Atalanta. Do you even watch football……
quote:
And City did that. Now they're the best-run club in the EPL by far.
No one ever said they are not well run. It took billions, self sponsoring, spending money in other areas to allow them to spend more on players compared to the organic revenue they generate and then hiring away the best people from other clubs. (Which are starting to bail)
quote:
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? We're talking about how well run they are. The source is irrelevant. Look at things like net spend per point.
Do you not understand the insane advantages a country with a GDP has over a private citizen. Country’s owning clubs is a bad thing
quote:
Man City is well run. Real is well run, too (they learned a lesson) Barca has been run like shite, like Man U. No hypocrisy detected.
fricks sake you don’t even see how dumb you actually sound
This post was edited on 5/28/24 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 5/28/24 at 7:49 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Union Berlin went from struggling 2 Bundesliga club to the champions league
Villa have been largely irrelevant the last 30 years and were just in the championship and are back in the champions league. All while having to deal with 4 other decent sized clubs in their area.
Do some basic research if you’re going to make such outlandish claims, that clubs can’t rise organically.
What does any of this have to do with revenue?
We were discussing generating revenue.
Random, non-sustained success in outlier scenarios has nothing to do with this discussion.
quote:
Atalanta. Do you even watch football…
Nowhere near top 3 in revenue behind Juve, Inter, and AC
quote:
Do you not understand the insane advantages a country with a GDP has over a private citizen.
They aren't spending as much as clubs like Man U. Again, look at their net spend the past 5 years. Whatever excess wealth that COULD be used isn't, so this theoretical boogeyman has no place in the discussion. This isn't 10 years ago. Look at the net spend per point. That's NET spend, mind you.
quote:
fricks sake you don’t even see how dumb you actually sound
Says the guy trying to change the argument and ignore what is actually being discussed. Then you try to peacock while looking like your mental ability is an average poli board poster
Here is a refresher of what you replied to. I'll add bold, since you have comprehension issues.
quote:
Legacy clubs produce more revenue, so teams like City could never "catch up" even if their owner was willing to invest $100B. You could only catch up if you could somehow produce more revenue than the legacy clubs to spend the excess on the investment, which is a Catch-22, because being prohibited from spending big means you're never going to compete for the top consistently, so that increased revenue will never come.
And the fact that legacy clubs produce more revenue from shite that happened decades ago is why it's so important to include the term "legacy".
This post was edited on 5/28/24 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 5/28/24 at 8:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
Fun fact about City’s net spend
They been able to offload youngsters at insane prices which is nuts because none other than Palmer have panned out so good on them for that
orrrr sell players who don’t pan out of the first couple years
Guess who can’t afford to do that selling off players on the cheap in mass who don’t pan out ? Everyone else
Also City have the ability to let players just sit on the bench and eat their wages. No one else can do that either. Perfect example the last two seasons are Kalvin Phillips and Jack. You have seen clubs like United and and Arsenal just ride out these contracts and not be able to bring anyone else in because they spend what they generate.
When other clubs have over payed players they can’t just sit them on the bench and bring in someone new on high wages. The rest of us have to eat those wages. Well because we are self sustaining football clubs.
City is still tin pot and no one cares. The parade over the weekend was embarrassing. They won the treble and no body cares not even the British media. United winning the FA cup has generated more coverage than City’s four in a row.
We are supposed to believe a club that can’t fill its stadium generates more revenue organically than United, Liverpool, Arsenal and all the giants on the continent
They been able to offload youngsters at insane prices which is nuts because none other than Palmer have panned out so good on them for that
orrrr sell players who don’t pan out of the first couple years
Guess who can’t afford to do that selling off players on the cheap in mass who don’t pan out ? Everyone else
Also City have the ability to let players just sit on the bench and eat their wages. No one else can do that either. Perfect example the last two seasons are Kalvin Phillips and Jack. You have seen clubs like United and and Arsenal just ride out these contracts and not be able to bring anyone else in because they spend what they generate.
When other clubs have over payed players they can’t just sit them on the bench and bring in someone new on high wages. The rest of us have to eat those wages. Well because we are self sustaining football clubs.
City is still tin pot and no one cares. The parade over the weekend was embarrassing. They won the treble and no body cares not even the British media. United winning the FA cup has generated more coverage than City’s four in a row.
We are supposed to believe a club that can’t fill its stadium generates more revenue organically than United, Liverpool, Arsenal and all the giants on the continent
Posted on 5/28/24 at 11:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
Claiming what city did years ago has no impact on them now is like saying.
Those millions i invested years ago plays no impact on my portfolio now. I have not touched it in years.
Those millions i invested years ago plays no impact on my portfolio now. I have not touched it in years.
Posted on 5/29/24 at 6:06 am to lsugorilla
On a side note... I imagine this deal is on the up and up..
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Posted on 5/29/24 at 7:11 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
orrrr sell players who don’t pan out of the first couple years
Guess who can’t afford to do that selling off players on the cheap in mass who don’t pan out ? Everyone else
This is literally accounted for in net spend.
If your comments were true, those haircuts City took would destroy their net spend.
quote:
Also City have the ability to let players just sit on the bench and eat their wages.
Like Antony?
quote:
You have seen clubs like United and and Arsenal just ride out these contracts and not be able to bring anyone else
When has Man U been unable to bring anyone else in? They have been net negative over 100M# 4 of the last 5 years
LINK
Their 10-year net spend is 20% higher (in terms of negative spending) than Man City's.
Oh, and about wages, Man U had the highest wage bill this year, too
Posted on 5/29/24 at 7:12 am to lsugorilla
quote:
Those millions i invested years ago plays no impact on my portfolio now. I have not touched it in years.
This argument assumes the ownership of City needed City to build wealth/status, when it doesn't fit, for obvious reasons (oil money)
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News