Football 17/18

[eFestivals]

15 hours ago, zahidf said:

tbf to southampton pottechino and koeman left. i dont think sotton wanted them to go

What I was saying wasn't only about the manager. It's also the club taking a bigger view about their future, rather than desperation 'today' about every result.

So, for Burnley, they got relegated but it wasn't a 'failure' where everything about the club had to be turned upside down in order to try and stay up in the first place, or after they'd gone down.

With Soton, they abandoned their 'plan' at around the same time they binned Adkins and the old chairman died and his daughter took over. It became much more about 'success today' than a longer term view.

[thetime]

53 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

With Soton, they abandoned their 'plan' at around the same time they binned Adkins and the old chairman died and his daughter took over. It became much more about 'success today' than a longer term view.

Don’t agree with you much on football, this is spot on though.

 

[pink_triangle]

I agree about Burnley, but don't agree about Southampton. To me the latter are a club with a long term plan. They may change managers, but it's not a case of waiting untill things hit rock bottom and bring in the usual firefighters. To me they seem a club built on the philosophy that the manager is not the most important person at the club.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I agree about Burnley, but don't agree about Southampton. To me the latter are a club with a long term plan.

you only have to read some of the stuff the daughter said to know the plan was abandoned.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

you only have to read some of the stuff the daughter said to know the plan was abandoned.

Well the appointments they have made were not the short term types, they aren't overhauling the backroom staff every time they change manager and I don't think managers are in control of transfers.

[zahidf]

Well done Woy at palace. It looks like a good choice by them.

[Hugh Jass]

I wonder if Stoke are considering bringing Pulis home...

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

I wonder if Stoke are considering bringing Pulis home...

They may as well....they played his tactics today anyway...everything a hoof to Crouch, absolutely zero craft. We could have had six...and we're shit. 

[TheGayTent]

Poor Tottenham 

 

[The Nal]

3 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Poor Tottenham 

 

Lots of "top team" chat 5 or 6 weeks ago.

Nah.

[zahidf]

Man City have now faced all of England's other Champions League teams - and outplayed them all. Aggregate score: 12-2.

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Man City have now faced all of England's other Champions League teams - and outplayed them all. Aggregate score: 12-2.

Wow.

Man City are different school.

[zahidf]

oh, and as well as Woy at Palace, Moyes seems to be doing well at West Ham thus far. Fair play to them

[zahidf]

what a twat

 

[pink_triangle]

15 hours ago, The Nal said:

Lots of "top team" chat 5 or 6 weeks ago.

Nah.

I was surprised many were predicting spurs would end the run of wins. Their record away at the big teams is awful.

[eastynh]

On 15/12/2017 at 1:06 PM, Wooderson said:

A financially doped to the gills Man City side run away with it. The rest are either the same (Utd) or slightly worse (Chelsea/Spurs). More than half the league are bottom feeders. Im not interested in the Champions League. Past decade English sides have been bang average in that.

Manchester City are self sustainable :-D

[Wooderson]

How much was the stadium Easty? 20 million? 

[eastynh]

5 hours ago, Wooderson said:

How much was the stadium Easty? 20 million? 

Well City had to give Manchester City Council, Maine Rd in exchange for the Etihad. The council then sold Maine Rd to property developers for quite a tidy fee. The land was used to build affordable housing for the local people in the area.

On top of that City had to pay 20 million to have the stadium renovated into one fit for purpose for football.

Now City pay the council for the lease of the stadium. It is estimated at over 5 million pounds a year. In 2014/15 it was 4.3 million as you can see clearly from the link I have posted below. The link is from MCC who gave out the figures under the freedom of information act. The increased revenue now comes from the increase of stadium capacity. Initially the lease was for 2-3 million a year. City have been in the stadium now for over 10 years. A conservative estimate would be that City have paid the council 35 million in rent over the last 13 years.

If you say City valued Maine Rd at 20 million  (a reasonable figure considering the housing developer sold 450 houses at an average of 125000 ), the over the last 13 years it has cost City at least 75 million (it will be a lot more than that due to stipulations into the council receiving money for the naming rights deal). City are also responsible for every other cost associated with the stadium.

The stadium cost 110 million and City have a 250 year lease on it. It is an absolutely fantastic deal for the council and the local people. Let's be honest here, City could afford to buy the stadium outright quite easily. They choose not to do so because it would not be beneficial to the local community in comparison to the current agreement. This is because Sport England would receive 2 thirds of any sale fee as they initially invested 77 million into the build. The council keep all the lease money on the agreement all the money is then invested back into the local community. City also own all the land surrounding the stadium. The training complex which was built on contaminated land cost just as much as the stadium. City have totally transformed what was a shit hole of a local area (I know this as I live 1.2 mile away from the ground.

The deal for the stadium is nothing short of a resounding success. It is a great deal for the council, the local people and Manchester City.

As for your snide financial doping comment, it just reeks of bitterness. Yes City got lucky, there is no hiding away from that but they have fully capitalised on their bit of luck. The value of the club and assets far exceeds the investment that has been put in. The club now run at a profit, they do not pay the highest wages and our record transfer is KDB at 55 million. They also play beautiful and enertaining football. 

That is absolutely no basis in 2017 for your financial doping jibe. 8 years ago the club had no other choice than to invest heavily. You don't go from also rans to consistently challenging without a lot of investment. Yet them days are long gone. The established elite have had their noses put out and they do not like it one bit. Fuck them.

Also Gary Neville tweeted that united have spent 660 million on transfers since Taggart left the club. Why is that alright but not OK for City?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/commercial_terms_of_etihad_stadi

[thetime]

3 hours ago, eastynh said:

 

That is absolutely no basis in 2017 for your financial doping jibe. 8 years ago the club had no other choice than to invest heavily. You don't go from also rans to consistently challenging without a lot of investment. Yet them days are long gone. 

City have spent 700m in transfers in the last 3 seasons. 

Nothing wrong with that in my eyes, but let’s not make out City are not making a lot of investment.

[TheGayTent]

I thought a revised deal was agreed years ago that saw the council not getting a penny from naming rights in return for increased rent? 

[Hugh Jass]

This is a nice riposte to the "financial doping" bores;

http://www.football365.com/news/dont-let-the-fog-of-money-obscure-man-citys-majesty

[Wooderson]

8 hours ago, eastynh said:

Well City had to give Manchester City Council, Maine Rd in exchange for the Etihad. The council then sold Maine Rd to property developers for quite a tidy fee. The land was used to build affordable housing for the local people in the area.

On top of that City had to pay 20 million to have the stadium renovated into one fit for purpose for football.

Now City pay the council for the lease of the stadium. It is estimated at over 5 million pounds a year. In 2014/15 it was 4.3 million as you can see clearly from the link I have posted below. The link is from MCC who gave out the figures under the freedom of information act. The increased revenue now comes from the increase of stadium capacity. Initially the lease was for 2-3 million a year. City have been in the stadium now for over 10 years. A conservative estimate would be that City have paid the council 35 million in rent over the last 13 years.

If you say City valued Maine Rd at 20 million  (a reasonable figure considering the housing developer sold 450 houses at an average of 125000 ), the over the last 13 years it has cost City at least 75 million (it will be a lot more than that due to stipulations into the council receiving money for the naming rights deal). City are also responsible for every other cost associated with the stadium.

The stadium cost 110 million and City have a 250 year lease on it. It is an absolutely fantastic deal for the council and the local people. Let's be honest here, City could afford to buy the stadium outright quite easily. They choose not to do so because it would not be beneficial to the local community in comparison to the current agreement. This is because Sport England would receive 2 thirds of any sale fee as they initially invested 77 million into the build. The council keep all the lease money on the agreement all the money is then invested back into the local community. City also own all the land surrounding the stadium. The training complex which was built on contaminated land cost just as much as the stadium. City have totally transformed what was a shit hole of a local area (I know this as I live 1.2 mile away from the ground.

The deal for the stadium is nothing short of a resounding success. It is a great deal for the council, the local people and Manchester City.

As for your snide financial doping comment, it just reeks of bitterness. Yes City got lucky, there is no hiding away from that but they have fully capitalised on their bit of luck. The value of the club and assets far exceeds the investment that has been put in. The club now run at a profit, they do not pay the highest wages and our record transfer is KDB at 55 million. They also play beautiful and enertaining football. 

That is absolutely no basis in 2017 for your financial doping jibe. 8 years ago the club had no other choice than to invest heavily. You don't go from also rans to consistently challenging without a lot of investment. Yet them days are long gone. The established elite have had their noses put out and they do not like it one bit. Fuck them.

Also Gary Neville tweeted that united have spent 660 million on transfers since Taggart left the club. Why is that alright but not OK for City?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/commercial_terms_of_etihad_stadi

You could take over Pete Kay’s cancelled tour with this schtick. Good attempt tho.

Enjoy your well earned success. Hard graft has paid off handsomely.

[lost]

Its a bit like driving. Anyone who drives faster than you do on public roads is a "nutter". Any club who spends more money than the one you support is "buying the league"

[Wooderson]

City will never in a million years match Utd in my eyes. A nothing club.

Enjoy your financially doped success tho Citeh fans. Shitty league making it easier for you to dominate.

[TheGayTent]

Article on the people running Man City...

https://medium.com/@NcGeehan/the-men-behind-man-city-a-documentary-not-coming-soon-to-a-cinema-near-you-14bc8e393e06