Money Talks

[Keith Scott 294]

The two big spenders of the last couple of seasons Wolves and Villa riding high at the top of the table. Those bloody rich foreign owners....

[SwindonCanary 457]

Shame, we don''t have any

[hogesar 10,767]

Whilst us, Burnley and plenty others have got promoted without these ''rich foreign owners''. Sometimes rich owners make a club, sometimes it destroys a club.

Non-topic.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Keith Scott"]The two big spenders of the last couple of seasons Wolves and Villa riding high at the top of the table. Those bloody rich foreign owners....[/quote]Odd how those rich foreign owners could not keep them on the PL in the first place, or even in the Championship (Blackburn)Still at least our impoverished neighbours have benefited from a rich owner, perhaps though if he was foreign he might be putting money... not taking it out

[JF 694]

Odd how those rich foreign owners could not keep them on the PL in the first place, or even in the Championship (Blackburn)

Still at least our impoverished neighbours have benefited from a rich owner, perhaps though if he was foreign he might be putting money... not taking it out

Blackburn are also one of a handful of teams to win the premier league thanks to a rich owner. They have merely returned to the level they were before Jack Walkers millions. A bit like Wigan really. There are good examples as well as bad

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="Keith Scott"]The two big spenders of the last couple of seasons Wolves and Villa riding high at the top of the table. Those bloody rich foreign owners....[/quote]Since it is a quiet Sunday, and two high-spending Championship clubs have been mentioned, I have a yes/no question. Should Norwich City - under any circumstances, present or future - break Financial Fair Play rules to try to get promoted to the Premier League? The question assumes the club would be in a position to break the rules if it wanted to. My answer is No.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="JF"]Odd how those rich foreign owners could not keep them on the PL in the first place, or even in the Championship (Blackburn)

Still at least our impoverished neighbours have benefited from a rich owner, perhaps though if he was foreign he might be putting money... not taking it out

Blackburn are also one of a handful of teams to win the premier league thanks to a rich owner. They have merely returned to the level they were before Jack Walkers millions. A bit like Wigan really. There are good examples as well as bad[/quote]Actually, noBlackburn had previously spent time in the top flight.Wigan had not, they were a club that spent the time they did get into the league (1978) grubbing around the bottom, only to rise two decades later.Without the fan base it was inevitable they they would eventually slide back from whence they came.

[JF 694]

Blackburn had spent 26 seasons outside the top flight until jack walkers millions bought them promotion and then the PL title

[Bill 1,788]

as opposed to Wigan not only not being out of the lower leagues, but NOT even in the leagueyou might just as well compare Bristol City with winning the title as Forest Green Rovers

[JF 694]

I’m failing to see any point to this. Like I’ve said they have returned to the level they were at before Jack Walkers millions gained them promotion and the PL title. In Walkers first season in charge they finished 19th in the second division. They are currently in a strong position for promotion back to the championship. Either way you look at it, money bought them success and a place in PL history

[Essjayess 307]

I to am failing to see the point of this topic. Money does not talk, money, if you have lots of it to fling around, can help some clubs and not others, and even those who in the last 10 to 20 years have acquired rich owners and had some degree of success by getting into the Prem, find it just a temporary measure as most, ultimately, will fall back into the Champs so are having not much more overall joy over a sensible amount of seasons than our own club, who have never had rich owners.You can imagine Wolves and Villa  being promoted this season yea, but replaced by whom? WBA maybe...and two others, with more money than City. In all honesty, outside the top 6 or 7 in the Prem, nearly all the other present Prem clubs will have tasted Champs seasons in the last 10-12 years.None of this matters to City, who since the turn of the century have been promoted 2 or 3 times without big riches, and are very much capable of doing so again, within the next season or two also, any so called City fan who is pessimistic enough to think otherwise really do understimate our great club.

[mastoola 204]

If we bought the entire Real Madrid team I gladly take the 12 month transfer ban and not being able to play in Europe(although the last one has never been implemented ?).

[Icecream Snow 777]

I wouldn''t mind swapping with Wolves, but I''d genuinely take our position over Villa''s.I think Villa have wasted millions in putting a squad together, yet most of their players can''t cut it in the Premiership.

[Keith Scott 294]

Just to add to this thread I fully expect Boro to go up via the playoffs, so that would be the three big spenders getting their rewards. Still who needs money when you''ve got an exciting ''project''......

[Punctured Bicycle on a hillside desolate 0]

If you don''t have money then you must have competent owners

We have neither. Delia out stinking rich Chinese owner in

[Badger 2,745]

[quote user="Keith Scott"]The two big spenders of the last couple of seasons Wolves and Villa riding high at the top of the table. Those bloody rich foreign owners....[/quote]Never sure if these rather specious exchanges of "killer facts" ever achieve anything but thought a few corrections might help objective fans''''''1. Cardiff are above Villa - a point higher with a game in hand. Cardiff''s net spend this summer was about £3 million, with five of the eight players coming in being free transfers.2. Rather than being free spenders this year, Aston Villa''s net spend this summer was negative - MINUS £9.75 million. 3. Derby in fourth also have a negative spend - MINUS £9 million. 4. A look at the Championship table

shows two of the bottom three being Birmingham and Sunderland - both

with "rich foreign owners" as you describe them.5. There are obvious exceptions - e.g. Sunderland, S. Weds - but I would suggest that the correlation with average attendances is probably stronger than the nature of the ownership. Might be an interesting thesis for some of our student fans?http://www.transferleague.co.uk/

[Herman 11,136]

Just to add, Boro, who are 7th,had a net spend of just about £3 million, basically replacing like for like. And they''re owned by a Brit.

[Indy 3,471]

It doesn’t matter how you get there, rich foreign or hard earned through good manager and group of players, it’s just football, 90 minutes each game, the rest of the political board room ramblings isn’t under our control and we can do nothing about, so just enjoy the game on the day, the players we have and don’t worry about our owners, it’ll change when it changes.

[Guest]

Trouble is Indy, some people would sell their soul to get to the Prem to see their team stuffed week in week out.

I have a feeling, Keith would be happy for Trump to own us.

(After typing that I had a vision of NCFC players being armed!)

[Indy 3,471]

To be honest I’ve got two really good friends who have been Man City fans for donkeys years, both love where they are now, you could say they’ve sold their souls but winning cups, champions league football is far better to them than being Man Us poor relations.

I don’t rate our current owners I’d be happy for a change after 21 seasons of pretty much Delia & Co.

Our best times were under Bowkett heavy involvement, pre and post Bowkett were pretty much not very good. Would love to know exactly why he left two weeks after being voted in.

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

[quote user="Indy"]To be honest I’ve got two really good friends who have been Man City fans for donkeys years, both love where they are now, you could say they’ve sold their souls but winning cups, champions league football is far better to them than being Man Us poor relations.

I don’t rate our current owners I’d be happy for a change after 21 seasons of pretty much Delia & Co.

Our best times were under Bowkett heavy involvement, pre and post Bowkett were pretty much not very good. Would love to know exactly why he left two weeks after being voted in.[/quote]And during the Bowkett times we suffered relegation after he told us that we''d be ''enjoying mid table mediocrity''.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]Trouble is Indy, some people would sell their soul to get to the Prem to see their team stuffed week in week out.

I have a feeling, Keith would be happy for Trump to own us.

(After typing that I had a vision of NCFC players being armed!)[/quote]I would be more concerned with players all looking like Ralph Coates, comb overs flying as they bomb down the wing.But we would have the bonus of having 35,000 recorded as attending U23 games, a wall built along the suffolk border with the binners paying and plenty of money c/o some dodgy ruskies (allengedly)We could even solve the Barclay end, Barclay ''stand off'' by renaming it Trumpington.

[Guest]

Trumpington.

Surely Trumpton?

[Guest]

To be honest I’ve got two really good friends who have been Man City fans for donkeys years, both love where they are now, you could say they’ve sold their souls but winning cups, champions league football is far better to them than being Man Us poor relations.

I don’t rate our current owners I’d be happy for a change after 21 seasons of pretty much Delia & Co.

Our best times were under Bowkett heavy involvement, pre and post Bowkett were pretty much not very good. Would love to know exactly why he left two weeks after being voted in.

Man City hand out stuffings to some of the best in the Prem (I am watching the final at the moment) of course so they can point to years of continued success. There is only so much success in life and 20 oil wealthy owners would still find three relegated.

I don''t have anything against the current owners but agree that maybe 21 years at the helm is enough. But ownership is not a democracy and if there is no-one willing to buy us then we carry on in the same fashion.

The current owners are probably unwise to say that they are the ones who will decide who to sell to as they have the club at heart. That is just their opinion and not based on finance, although they appear to have been right about Cullum.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]Trumpington.

Surely Trumpton?[/quote]oh dear.......err, yesbigly oops

otherwise we are the right side, we are the right side over herewe are the far right side, we are the far right side over here

[Guest]

Yes, well Barmy Army does apply to Mr T.