Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
every team buys it, some just make their own money to buy it with
|
Ben J
Member
Registered: 31st Jan 05
Location: Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
disagree
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
You would 
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
Who hasn't bought it
|
Jake
Member
Registered: 24th Jan 05
User status: Offline
|
3 pages 
|
p
Member
Registered: 20th Apr 04
Location: England
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by mwg
That will be the difference between Chelsea and Man City. City actually have a long term plan. Chelsea just got a sugar daddy but haven't done enough to increase revenue. And they won a few competitions but still not managed to dislodge United as the top dogs.
I obviously hope this will have the same outcome
You are having a laugh, right? We didn't have a long term plan? So City getting taken over, bidding 100 million for Kaka, breaking the transfer record, fucking up their youth system, where their good young players now can't get a game, constitutes as a long term vision and plan?
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
There was a time where man u broke the transfer record for every position on a nearly yearly basis and won everything in sight.
Good luck to them- man city are great to watch IMO... And there fans and manager are far less annoying than man us.... At least they still had massive support in the third tier of English football home and away.
Mancini is a good boss- you dont play the kind of football they are by luck.... He is getting the very best out of some difficult players to manage.... He's also doing well by England IMO Micah Richards has improved massively under Mancini ... Lescott has kept his place, Milner, Barry and Johnson are all getting loads of football, he backed hart from the start. I would also argue man city have far less cheats compared to the other top clubs in this country
They are gonna win a load of trophies in the coming years- best of luck to them. They still won't have as many glory hunters attached to them as Liverpool, arsenal and man u.... You only have to look on here to see that
[Edited on 28-10-2011 by Dr Pepper]
|
Ben J
Member
Registered: 31st Jan 05
Location: Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Russ
Who hasn't bought it
Us.
Our Invincibles team cost SFA.
[Edited on 28-10-2011 by Ben J]
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben J
quote:
Originally posted by Russ
Who hasn't bought it
Us.
Our Invincibles team cost SFA.
[Edited on 28-10-2011 by Ben J]
I bet you it didn't.
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben J
quote:
Originally posted by Russ
Who hasn't bought it
Us.
Our Invincibles team cost SFA.
[Edited on 28-10-2011 by Ben J]
Errrrrr 
|
Ben J
Member
Registered: 31st Jan 05
Location: Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
Errrrrr.
|
mwg
Member
Registered: 19th Feb 04
Location: South Lakes
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by corsadee
quote:
Originally posted by mwg
That will be the difference between Chelsea and Man City. City actually have a long term plan. Chelsea just got a sugar daddy but haven't done enough to increase revenue. And they won a few competitions but still not managed to dislodge United as the top dogs.
I obviously hope this will have the same outcome
You are having a laugh, right? We didn't have a long term plan? So City getting taken over, bidding 100 million for Kaka, breaking the transfer record, fucking up their youth system, where their good young players now can't get a game, constitutes as a long term vision and plan?
No, developing the land around their stadium to improve their facilities ten fold and their naming rights deals etc. constitutes as a long term vision and plan.
Maybe Chelsea have a long term plan to become self sufficient but it sure as hell hasn't started working yet has it? Maybe Man Citys wont work either, only time will tell as it's still early days for them. But Chelsea have had quite a few years under Abramovich now and are still not making money.
[Edited on 28-10-2011 by mwg]
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
lol
|
Ben J
Member
Registered: 31st Jan 05
Location: Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
To sum up.....within 6 years it will be Arse and Utd fighting for the PL every season like the good old days. Beyond the top 2, no-one will get close.
Yeah?
|
mwg
Member
Registered: 19th Feb 04
Location: South Lakes
User status: Offline
|
Yeah defo. Especially when Man United start developing all the land they own around their stadium to generate money. They have been buying up the surrounding land over the past few years... seems to have slipped under most peoples radars.
|
Ojc
Member
Registered: 14th Nov 00
Location: Reading: Drives : Clio 197
User status: Offline
|
stfu man city ftw
|
p
Member
Registered: 20th Apr 04
Location: England
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by mwg
quote:
Originally posted by corsadee
quote:
Originally posted by mwg
That will be the difference between Chelsea and Man City. City actually have a long term plan. Chelsea just got a sugar daddy but haven't done enough to increase revenue. And they won a few competitions but still not managed to dislodge United as the top dogs.
I obviously hope this will have the same outcome
You are having a laugh, right? We didn't have a long term plan? So City getting taken over, bidding 100 million for Kaka, breaking the transfer record, fucking up their youth system, where their good young players now can't get a game, constitutes as a long term vision and plan?
No, developing the land around their stadium to improve their facilities ten fold and their naming rights deals etc. constitutes as a long term vision and plan.
Maybe Chelsea have a long term plan to become self sufficient but it sure as hell hasn't started working yet has it? Maybe Man Citys wont work either, only time will tell as it's still early days for them. But Chelsea have had quite a few years under Abramovich now and are still not making money.
[Edited on 28-10-2011 by mwg]
But we moved from Harlington and built world class training and youth facilities in Cobham, that was for the long term, no? I wouldn't want naming rights, you mean like 'samsung stamford bridge arena' please
We 100 per cent had a long term plan, Roman has been here since 2003, how many people thought that would happen, honestly? Becoming self sufficient is always part of the plan, but clearly it's difficult. And you don't think Man City are gonna make money, surely? It doesn't even matter to them Being really truthful, our club 100 per cent did have a long term plan when Roman took charge, but City were like kids in a sweet shop. Day 1 = buy Kaka. We didn't do shit like that, and if you're honest, we did spend big early doors, but we bought relative unknowns, and made a team from them. Drogba, Carvalho, Cech, Robben, Tiago etc City literally splashed the cash and bought who ever. I don't particularly think they have a plan. They have a stupidly rich owner, bought the club, and just thought fuck it, I want the league, go and do it.
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
Man City are playing Championship Manager. Keep buying slightly better players than the ones you have in order to get more results/money to buy the big names.
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by corsadee
City were like kids in a sweet shop. Day 1 = buy Kaka. We didn't do shit like that, and if you're honest, we did spend big early doors, but we bought relative unknowns, and made a team from them.
Did you bollocks
What actually happened is Abrahmovich came in the day before you were goign to go bankrupt and gave Ranieri a bagful of cash and he bought every fuicking big name player he could find or just any going for big fees big names like Crespo, Veron, Mutu for huge fees and then the likes of Bridge, Duff, Joe Cole, Geremi, Parker for massive fees etc
Mourinho did things differently and took lesser known players for absurd fees; the likes of Cech, Drogba, Essien etc.
|
p
Member
Registered: 20th Apr 04
Location: England
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robbo
quote:
Originally posted by corsadee
City were like kids in a sweet shop. Day 1 = buy Kaka. We didn't do shit like that, and if you're honest, we did spend big early doors, but we bought relative unknowns, and made a team from them.
Did you bollocks
What actually happened is Abrahmovich came in the day before you were goign to go bankrupt and gave Ranieri a bagful of cash and he bought every fuicking big name player he could find or just any going for big fees big names like Crespo, Veron, Mutu for huge fees and then the likes of Bridge, Duff, Joe Cole, Geremi, Parker for massive fees etc
Mourinho did things differently and took lesser known players for absurd fees; the likes of Cech, Drogba, Essien etc.
I was trying to forget that season, until you brought it up
Mutu wasn't a huge name, but Crespo, Veron, yes. I still vouch City have done things a lot worse than us. Spend all that on Robinho, then loan him out bid 100 million for Kaka
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
City are worse than Chelski IMO.
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
City are worse than Chelski IMO.
And not as good!
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Marc
Man City are playing Championship Manager. Keep buying slightly better players than the ones you have in order to get more results/money to buy the big names.
That's exactly what man u did in the 90's when you had more moneythan anyone else by a mile. It's what the richest clubs have always done.
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
Oh of course city are worse, the whole robinho and kaka things are testament to that but tbf, hughes is a twat and ranieri was at leats a decent manager
Hughes -
Santa Cruz £18m
Kolo Toure £14m
Wayne Bridge £15m (?)
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
With sustainable money (maybe not anymore) The club was PLC and had earn't the money needed to buy players.
City have gone from propping up the table to CL football and challenging for the league!
|
