Re: Citeh v Foxes
Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 9:34 pm
Leicester held out 7 minutes longer.CombatClaret wrote:Expect this will play out much the same as our game did.
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=39058
Leicester held out 7 minutes longer.CombatClaret wrote:Expect this will play out much the same as our game did.
absolute gem of a bloke4:20 wrote:Real happy for Vincent Kompany, what a moment for him.
I'd rather Liverpool win it than a totally plastic club like Man City. They can be filed along with Rovers and Chelsea as three clubs who have only achieved success because of rich benefactors.BurnleyFC wrote:Just 90 more minutes until City do the rest of England a favour and shut the scousers up for another season.
We’ve had this before. City aren’t a plastic club.Spijed wrote:I'd rather Liverpool win it than a totally plastic club like Man City. They can be filed along with Rovers and Chelsea as three clubs who have only achieved success because of rich benefactors.
Well, what makes them different from the likes of Chelsea then?BurnleyFC wrote:We’ve had this before. City aren’t a plastic club.
Why not? They clearly wouldn't be anywhere near challenging the top 6 without their owners. They quickly bought success by spending over £2bn (and rising) to obtain the players/manager so, in that sense, they are unbelievably plastic.BurnleyFC wrote:We’ve had this before. City aren’t a plastic club.
I'm sure they will find something to moan about.tiger76 wrote:I'm sure the red half of Merseyside will feel Vincent should have been having an early bath,then again after their dubious free-kick the other night the Scousers can't really moan.
The difference between Utd and Liverpool compared to Chelsea and City is, that at some point in time, they will both be debt free as their loans are being repaid and managed by their natural income. Chelsea owe Ibramovich £1.2bn and City will owe the Sheikh's even more which will never be repaid via normal channels. The first two clubs have also been at the top, or pretty much towards the top, of the pyramid for many, many years due to the fact they have become worldwide names prior to the mass influx of money.Cleveleys_claret wrote:How are UTD any different or Liverpool to these so called plastic clubs. Company buy club by taking out massive loan, then just paying interest on loan. At least the City money isnt being leveraged against the club. Its all bought and paid for, unlike UTD
Because both Man U and Liverpool make their money from worldwide fan bases and all the interest that generates. Sponsorship etc. They are arguably the two biggest clubs when it comes to global appeal.Cleveleys_claret wrote:How are UTD any different or Liverpool to these so called plastic clubs. Company buy club by taking out massive loan, then just paying interest on loan. At least the City money isnt being leveraged against the club. Its all bought and paid for, unlike UTD
I don't like these digs at Blackburn. It's not the same as Chelsea and Man City.Darthlaw wrote:Had city not been bailed out by the Sheikh, they probably would have been on their way back down thanks to Trashcan Sinatra’s assets being seized.
I find it easy to dismiss their success, like Blackburn and Chelsea, as without their benefactors they would be nothing.
Hollow be medals that are bought rather than won.
Yeah, Liverpool broke the world transfer record for a goalkeeper AND a defender purely from the money they’ve rightfully earned (they didn’t and were nearly bust a few seasons ago, by the way)Spijed wrote:Because both Man U and Liverpool make their money from worldwide fan bases and all the interest that generates. Sponsorship etc. They are arguably the two biggest clubs when it comes to global appeal.
Meanwhile, Man city have been given their money by a Sheikh as they don't have the same pulling power. A bit like Jack Walker in that respect.
So we are plastic then? wasn't that long ago we were struggling in the Championship with attendances of around 9,000. Suddenly Flood dumps in cash, we get promoted and attendances double in size. Even our last promotion, we won the title with one of the largest wage bills and spent more on 1 player (Andre Gray) than half of the league combined that summer. Modern day football requires finance to be successful, nobody else can generate income like Man United, so they have to find other ways to match them financially.Spijed wrote:I'd rather Liverpool win it than a totally plastic club like Man City. They can be filed along with Rovers and Chelsea as three clubs who have only achieved success because of rich benefactors.
Why do you not see the difference between us and Man City? Yes, Flood and Kilby and Co. provided short term financing to try and keep us competing at Championship level. I think, between them all, they may have LOANED us around £9m off memory. As soon as we were promoted to the PL we repaid those loans and have been debt free ever since. City will owe the Sheikhs £bn's. City = plastic, Burnley = gained financial assistance for short term gain then lives within it's means which is non-plastic.KRBFC wrote:So we are plastic then? wasn't that long ago we were struggling in the Championship with attendances of around 9,000. Suddenly Flood dumps in cash, we get promoted and attendances double in size. Even our last promotion, we won the title with one of the largest wage bills and spent more on 1 player (Andre Gray) than half of the league combined that summer. Modern day football requires finance to be successful, nobody else can generate income like Man United, so they have to find other ways to match them financially.
Of course there's a difference between us and City, but you have to understand, finance is required to compete at the very top, it's just the way modern day football is. Man United and Liverpool are such huge clubs, why do they have the world wide support which provide significant income? because they were once successful, foreign fans cling onto success. To gain success, you need finance, then in the future, you become a worldwide massive club with the fanbase bringing in the income.Goodclaret wrote:Why do you not see the difference between us and Man City? Yes, Flood and Kilby and Co. provided short term financing to try and keep us competing at Championship level. I think, between them all, they may have LOANED us around £9m off memory. As soon as we were promoted to the PL we repaid those loans and have been debt free ever since. City will owe the Sheikhs £bn's. City = plastic, Burnley = gained financial assistance for short term gain then lives within it's means which is non-plastic.
I agree to an extent but Utd and Liverpool have got there over many, many years. City bought it within 4 or 5 years and will never be able to repay their loans to the Sheikhs. The wages they currently pay won't be covered by normal income for a long, long time, hence the stadium being sponsored for ridiculous amounts to get away with FFP rules.KRBFC wrote:Of course there's a difference between us and City, but you have to understand, finance is required to compete at the very top, it's just the way modern day football is. Man United and Liverpool are such huge clubs, why do they have the world wide support which provide significant income? because they were once successful, foreign fans cling onto success. To gain success, you need finance, then in the future, you become a worldwide massive club with the fanbase bringing in the income.
In 20-30 years time (if things continue as they are), the next generation of football fans (foreign mainly) will mostly be buying Man City merchandise and claim to be Man City fans, in order for City to bridge the gap between themselves and Man United, they simply HAD to invest millions now. It's really like you say we did ''gained financial assistance for short term gain then lives within it's means'' now City have a side built, we saw in the summer, little investment, the investment in transfer fees will slow down, and with every passing day they're growing bigger and bigger at a rapid rate due to success on field. Foreign plastic fans LOVE to ''support'' winners, bandwaggon fans but they bring in the monies.
Are you sending me to my room without any supper too?Billy Balfour wrote:Citeh have always been a well supported club. Of course they are going to gain support with their success. Are we plastic too given that our attendances have increased by 35% or whatever in the EPL? No we're not and neither are Citeh.
Anyway, 'plastic fans' is a vacuous term usually used by those who think they are in some way an uber-fan and above all others. I can understand kids in the playground using it, but adults? Grow up.
Manchester City don't have any debt to the Sheikhs.Goodclaret wrote:I agree to an extent but Utd and Liverpool have got there over many, many years. City bought it within 4 or 5 years and will never be able to repay their loans to the Sheikhs. The wages they currently pay won't be covered by normal income for a long, long time, hence the stadium being sponsored for ridiculous amounts to get away with FFP rules.
Clubs like Derby, Forest, Leeds, Wolves, both Sheffield teams, Villa etc. have support to match and Man City can't even fill the Etihad on a regular basis.Billy Balfour wrote:Citeh have always been a well supported club.
Yes. And I'm talking the telly away too. No Champions League football for you, my son.Goodclaret wrote:Are you sending me to my room without any supper too?
You were saying.......BurnleyFC wrote:Just 90 more minutes until City do the rest of England a favour and shut the scousers up for another season.
Barca, it’s over to you to do the same.