Man City fans, look away now

SectionF

Some home truths from Denmark... with a nice picture too.
The hardest part for City is that they are not a big football club'

(A couple of days old but not seen here yet. Apologies if duplicated).

Mitch Connor

I don't get why coaches and other people associated with a club come out with such inflamitory comments in the build up to games; surely it does nothing but get the opposition further pumped up for the game.

stovelid

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I don't get why coaches and other people associated with a club come out with such inflamitory comments in the build up to games; surely it does nothing but get the opposition further pumped up for the game.

It can do if you have a unified squad. Or if you are not in a major slump with question being asked about the manager.

Could also have the effect of putting more pressure on the team to perform.

SectionF

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I don't get why coaches and other people associated with a club come out with such inflamitory comments in the build up to games; surely it does nothing but get the opposition further pumped up for the game.

To get people on their side? Every neutral on the planet will want Copenhagen to go through.

therecklessone

SectionF wrote: »

To get people on their side? Every neutral on the planet will want Copenhagen to go through.

Speak for yourself.

SectionF

OK, I will. I hope Copenhagen go through, preferably by tanking the oil sheikh's plaything.

Loomis

Could be worse...

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1095155_kaka_fans_tattoo_quick?rss=yes

bigstar

i didnt hear many complain about real trying to buy ronaldo for whatever they were offering, or when united bought rooney at 18 or rio for £30m. its a nonsense argument, football has been 'ruined' well before now, you reap what you sow, c'mon city

stovelid

bigstar wrote: »

i didnt hear many complain about real trying to buy ronaldo for whatever they were offering, or when united bought rooney at 18 or rio for £30m. its a nonsense argument, football has been 'ruined' well before now, you reap what you sow, c'mon city

Money generated by on-field success and commercial sales != 3 squillion found the back of a sheikh's couch.

SectionF

bigstar wrote: »

i didnt hear many complain about real trying to buy ronaldo for whatever they were offering, or when united bought rooney at 18 or rio for £30m. its a nonsense argument, football has been 'ruined' well before now, you reap what you sow, c'mon city

True. But continuing to ruin it is not defensible on that basis.

The fact that having a mega budget doesn't make City a big club is actually an indication of some residual integrity in the system.

Where's my Viking hat? (No, not Dublin City!).

me-skywalker

SectionF wrote: »

To get people on their side? Every neutral on the planet will want Copenhagen to go through.

WELL SAID!!

GuanYin

Sorry, *who* is making these comments? :rolleyes:

eagle eye

I wonder what direction this thread is heading.......hmmmm

I want to see all the English win this evening.

jesus_thats_gre

SectionF wrote: »

To get people on their side? Every neutral on the planet will want Copenhagen to go through.

This doesn't really negate the point that Mitch Connor made.. The nuetrals that are going for Copenhagen mean absolutely nothing when it comes to what happens on the pitch. All I can see this achieving is improving the morale of a Man City team that are on a poor run. To be honest, Copenhagen probably had half a chance but not any longer.

iregk

stovelid wrote: »

Money generated by on-field success and commercial sales != 3 squillion found the back of a sheikh's couch.

Money earned from Real's on-field success? Real in debt to the tune of 150million at the time of the Zidane purchase != 3 squillion found the back of a sheikh's couch? :rolleyes:

bigstar

stovelid wrote: »

Money generated by on-field success and commercial sales != 3 squillion found the back of a sheikh's couch.

thats just naive

SectionF wrote: »

True. But continuing to ruin it is not defensible on that basis.

The fact that having a mega budget doesn't make City a big club is actually an indication of some residual integrity in the system.

Where's my Viking hat? (No, not Dublin City!).

you cant continue to ruin something already ruined, thats not a defence of anything.
its only been one year with this 'mega budget' get back to me in a few years to see if we are a big club. and integrity in the system, again naive.

its funny that people actually think city played any part in the inflation of the transfer market, all we have done is react to an already overpriced market. ten years ago a player could never have cost anything near a £100m but the fact a player could go for that now is not because of city, we just have to pay according to the market. i dont like the way things have gone, but they have gone this way and we must work within this world of overpriced and overpaid players, and again, none of which we are responsible for. but go ahead get your viking hat, and i assume youll be cheering on spurs and villa because they havent spent money at all.

stovelid

iregk wrote: »

Money earned from Real's on-field success? Real in debt to the tune of 150million at the time of the Zidane purchase :

Fair enough, I was being facetious, but I think that's about half of Madrid's annual turnover. Not bad considering the profligate business models of top football clubs. And considering their money-making potential.

Isn't City's turnover about a fifth of Madrid's? What are City's debts as a proportion of their actual commercial turnover?

And more to the point, what will the proportion be after this summer?

Mr Alan

bigstar wrote: »

its funny that people actually think city played any part in the inflation of the transfer market, all we have done is react to an already overpriced market. ten years ago a player could never have cost anything near a £100m but the fact a player could go for that now is not because of city, we just have to pay according to the market.

if £100m was the kind of money talked about for players before Citys new money, how come no one was ever bought or sold for that amount? are City the only club in the world ever to bid that much for a player?I think so.

How come the record transfer is £50m then? and has been for 9 years?

In two years how many players do you reckon City will have bid on, offering more than £50m?

so dont pretend that City just played along with the way things were when that is NOT the case. They changed everything in regards to the massive sums involved. Don't pretend otherwise.

SectionF

bigstar wrote: »

thats just naive



you cant continue to ruin something already ruined, thats not a defence of anything.

Angels and pins. I think we all know what he's saying.

bigstar

Mr Alan wrote: »

if £100m was the kind of money talked about for players before Citys new money, how come no one was ever bought or sold for that amount? are City the only club in the world ever to bid that much for a player?I think so.

How come the record transfer is £50m then? and has been for 9 years?

In two years how many players do you reckon City will have bid on, offering more than £50m?

so dont pretend that City just played along with the way things were when that is NOT the case. They changed everything in regards to the massive sums involved. Don't pretend otherwise.

i honestly dont know what your talking about, i said no player could go for that before, i said in the last ten years its not city pushing up the price of players. how much were real bidding for ronaldo last summer, more than £50m anyway and reports were more than £75m. get off your high horse nobody complained when the top clubs were outspending each other, we're just better at it

bigstar

SectionF wrote: »

Angels and pins. I think we all know what he's saying.

what?

Mr Alan

bigstar wrote: »

i honestly dont know what your talking about, i said no player could go for that before

i'm talking about this quote;

bigstar wrote: »

its funny that people actually think city played any part in the inflation of the transfer market, all we have done is react to an already overpriced market.

City have played a massive part. People were paying inflated prices for players, no doubt about it, but City have made this 10 times worse.

bigstar wrote: »

i said in the last ten years its not city pushing up the price of players. how much were real bidding for ronaldo last summer, more than £50m anyway and reports were more than £75m. get off your high horse nobody complained when the top clubs were outspending each other, we're just better at it

True, it wasnt City pushing up the price of players in the past, but i dont think the top players price were going up much at all really, it was average-good players whose price became inflated.

Not now though-its going to be everyone. If Kaka is worth 100m, what are Messi & Ronaldo worth? £150m each? £200m each?

Real never bid for Ronaldo this summer, they did what they always do, they attempted to unsettle the player "unofficially" & if reports were believed would have been willing to part with 60m for him...maybe not even that much. They would probably have broken the current world record by a bit.....for the best player in the world (vomits in mouth a little).this is the normal course of events.

Wat do City do? Come in with a bid for £100m for an considerably inferior player (on the last couple of years form).....how you cant see that City have changed things far more than anyone else (and in such a short time, scary what they will do in time) is beyond me.

bigstar wrote: »

get off your high horse nobody complained when the top clubs were outspending each other, we're just better at it

Really? League position, performances and £14m for Craig Bellamy would suggest otherwise.

bigstar

City have played a massive part. People were paying inflated prices for players, no doubt about it, but City have made this 10 times worse.

seriously, in one half of a season, weve not just played a massive part in inflating transfer fees, but weve made it 10 times worse. thats ridiculous, and ignores everyone season before.

True, it wasnt City pushing up the price of players in the past, but i dont think the top players price were going up much at all really, it was average-good players whose price became inflated.

the reason no top players have gone for crazy prices since zidane is no one could afford a messi, kaka, ronaldo at their peak.

Not now though-its going to be everyone. If Kaka is worth 100m, what are Messi & Ronaldo worth? £150m each? £200m each?

well if keane is worth £20m how much are those players worth. or if torres, when he was unproven at the top level, was worth £20m how much is he worth now

Real never bid for Ronaldo this summer, they did what they always do, they attempted to unsettle the player "unofficially" & if reports were believed would have been willing to part with 60m for him...maybe not even that much. They would probably have broken the current world record by a bit.....for the best player in the world (vomits in mouth a little).this is the normal course of events.

Wat do City do? Come in with a bid for £100m for an considerably inferior player (on the last couple of years form).....how you cant see that City have changed things far more than anyone else (and in such a short time, scary what they will do in time) is beyond me.

neither of us know for sure how much ronaldo or kaka were bid for, its mostly speculation, but ill say kaka was around £100m, now if real failed with £60-£75m last season they may up it again in the summer to who knows how much and they are the last two player's of the year so you cant call him considerably inferior. and again we havent changed anything because prices are fairly crazy anyway and we didnt sign anyone for £100m, the most we spent is on de jong for £18m.

Really? League position, performances and £14m for Craig Bellamy would suggest otherwise.

i said better at outspending, not spending wisely, or a better team, were still rubbish.

look im not defending players fees or wages, they are ridiculous. but we havent caused them to be that way and you cant expect us to compete for good players while offering low wages and fees because its the 'right thing to do', its what we have to do and we have to do it because of others. our best player is probably our lowest paid and cost us zero, stephen ireland. we a have a great academy and its given us richards, wright-phillips, onuoha, ireland, johnson and sturridge who looks quality, add to that dunne and hart who we bought for very little and its obvious weve done what most teams never do and thats bring through our own and given them a chance, so rather than ruining football id say we are contributing positively, but if you just want to look at one side of the story, thats up to you.

Mr Alan

bigstar wrote: »

but we havent caused them to be that way

i aint having a go mate-you certainly havent caused it, but you are virtually the sole cause of it reaching new levels of ridiculousness (sp?)

again, i didnt want it to sound like i was having a dig, was just when i read your post i thought you were almost trying to make City sound like innocent bystanders in the ridiculous market.

i think we actually might kind of agree so i dont wanna argue anymore

Aidric

They brought in Wayne Bridge even though he is only marginally better than what they had already

I wouldn't go along with that. He is marginally worse, if anything.

Xavi6

City getting criticised. Well I never. :rolleyes: