A message of thanks to Norwich fans

[The Gruffalo 0]

Provide the info then Purple, or anyone else for that matter, for I do not know exactly how much any of our players have been paid this season. Anyone who wishes to share this information or evidence of exactly what other teams are paying their players, then please do feel free.

[The Gruffalo 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"]The author of Soccernomics,  Stefan Szymanski, talks out of his backside almost as much as you do

[/quote]

So what makes your take on it all stack up better than someone like Szymanski? To coin one of your favourite belittling comments....you really are an idiot Duffalo.

[/quote]It is not just my analysis of it though is it Plod? The link I have provided is a critique of Szymanski''s work. This critique comes to similar conclusions as I do. Syzmanski fails to provide sufficient evdience for his belief that Wages offer a better correlation to a teams success than transfer fees do because the evidence that he needs is not available to him or anyone else, just as accurate evidence for exactly how much each and every club has received/spent in transfer revenue is not available to any one person or organisation.As I have said all along the correlation between both is extremely close and no matter how much you want to pretend you know better, you have no evidence that you or anyone else is able to provide which shows otherwise.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"]

As I have said all along the correlation between both is extremely close and no matter how much you want to pretend you know better, you have no evidence that you or anyone else is able to provide which shows otherwise.
[/quote]

 

Well there''s certainly no evidence of anything in your original link Smudgallo. Your memory obviously only spans the last few posts. My headaches. As I said you''re too sharp form me. Mind the bug''s don''t bite[S]

 

[The Gruffalo 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Gruffalo"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

What I said Smudgallo was that the wages were more accurate. I didn''t discount anything. Your links make no sense at all to me. I''d rather trust the info on the link from Fellas, that you deny existence of, than I would fudge and bodge some kind of theory from incomplete information. It''s a fascinating subject to discuss but you discounting so much meaninful information as mumbo jumbo makes discussion difficult.

 

 

 

[/quote]But it is you who is discounting meaningful information and focusing on one side of this debate to suit your agenda.Once again there is no information available on players contracts and players wages, just the wages of any given club as a whole. Just as there is no 100% accurate evidence available on transfer fees.The author of Soccernomics,  Stefan Szymanski, talks out of his backside almost as much as you do in claiming that his set of data is any more reliable than the evidence provided between the correlation of transfer fee income/expenditure and league table finish.Yet again though debating with you is like debating with a corrupt politician.

[/quote]

Transfer fees only show half the picture. Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, David Beckham, Gary and Phil Neville and Nicky Butt cost nothing so how would you evaluate that Manchester United side?

 

[/quote]So Man Utd have not spent significant amounts on transfer fees that directly correlates with the success they have enjoyed over the last 18 years then? Ok whatever you would have the thickos believe!They still spent on transfer fees though, the youth players just allowed them to focus on spending more on other areas of the team. I suppose you believe that all the players you mention were all earning fortunes when they first broke in to the Utd team? I am damn sure that Giggs and Scholes will be far from their highest wage earners now.  6 players of varying talents through the youth ranks in 18 years, it''s a good job that Man Utd were not soley reliant upon youth players and free transfers is all I have to say (well I actually wish they had have been reliant upon youth and freebies).Goodnight, sweet dreams.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"]Provide the info then Purple, or anyone else for that matter, for I do not know exactly how much any of our players have been paid this season. Anyone who wishes to share this information or evidence of exactly what other teams are paying their players, then please do feel free.


[/quote]

 

Dear me, it really is there in the accounts. All you have to do is extrapolate it. But since you are a newcomer, and as such should be welcomed:

 

According to our accounts in 2010 we spent £6.68m on player wage costs, out of a total turnover of £16.7m. So 40 per cent. In 2011 we spent £10.8m out of £23m, so 47 per cent. We shall know the figures for the current season in November or December.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"] just as accurate evidence for exactly how much each and every club has received/spent in transfer revenue is not available to any one person or organisation.[/quote]

Earlier on you posted a link to a website and then started quoting chapter and verse from it with regard to NCFC,QPR and Swansea with regard to their transfer income and expenditure.You even went on about how such info was available going back 15 years and now you write this.!!!!!! Unbelievable.

 

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"]Provide the info then Purple, or anyone else for that matter, for I do not know exactly how much any of our players have been paid this season. Anyone who wishes to share this information or evidence of exactly what other teams are paying their players, then please do feel free.


[/quote]

 

Dear me, it really is there in the accounts. All you have to do is extrapolate it. But since you are a newcomer, and as such should be welcomed:

 

According to our accounts in 2010 we spent £6.68m on player wage costs, out of a total turnover of £16.7m. So 40 per cent. In 2011 we spent £10.8m out of £23m, so 47 per cent. We shall know the figures for the current season in November or December.

[/quote]

He will be back shortly Purple asking you to provide a link to substantiate what you have said because if the past is anything to go by he will accuse you of lack of proof.[:''(]

[The Gruffalo 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"] just as accurate evidence for exactly how much each and every club has received/spent in transfer revenue is not available to any one person or organisation.[/quote]

Earlier on you posted a link to a website and then started quoting chapter and verse from it with regard to NCFC,QPR and Swansea with regard to their transfer income and expenditure.You even went on about how such info was available going back 15 years and now you write this.!!!!!! Unbelievable.

 

[/quote]It is as accurate as the evidence available on wages payed to players and football management staff at every football club though, maybe more accurate. Can you provide any evidence of how much players and football management were paid just at NCFC this season or last, let alone every club in the Prmier League and Championship?No I didn''t think so.Who would you like to win the league Plod?Did you enjoy your breakfast yesterday?Night, night, evening all!

[The Gruffalo 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"]Provide the info then Purple, or anyone else for that matter, for I do not know exactly how much any of our players have been paid this season. Anyone who wishes to share this information or evidence of exactly what other teams are paying their players, then please do feel free.

[/quote]

 

Dear me, it really is there in the accounts. All you have to do is extrapolate it. But since you are a newcomer, and as such should be welcomed:

 

According to our accounts in 2010 we spent £6.68m on player wage costs, out of a total turnover of £16.7m. So 40 per cent. In 2011 we spent £10.8m out of £23m, so 47 per cent. We shall know the figures for the current season in November or December.

[/quote]Thank you Purple, so we are a long way short of the 90% then?Here is what Syzmanski said "Its one weakness is that it is total payroll data, not just players- but players account for 90% plus of payroll normally."Any similar information for any other clubs to support that players wages correlate more with their position in the league table than transfer fee income/expenditure?Goodnight.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"]Provide the info then Purple, or anyone else for that matter, for I do not know exactly how much any of our players have been paid this season. Anyone who wishes to share this information or evidence of exactly what other teams are paying their players, then please do feel free.


[/quote]

 

Dear me, it really is there in the accounts. All you have to do is extrapolate it. But since you are a newcomer, and as such should be welcomed:

 

According to our accounts in 2010 we spent £6.68m on player wage costs, out of a total turnover of £16.7m. So 40 per cent. In 2011 we spent £10.8m out of £23m, so 47 per cent. We shall know the figures for the current season in November or December.

[/quote]

Thank you Purple, so we are a long way short of the 90% then?

Here is what Syzmanski said "Its one weakness is that it is total payroll data, not just players- but players account for 90% plus of payroll normally."

Any similar information for any other clubs to support that players wages correlate more with their position in the league table than transfer fee income/expenditure?

Goodnight.
[/quote]

 

We might be, but that would not be surprising. When this Syzmanski says "players account for 90% plus of payroll normally" he might be right, but I would prefer him  (if it is a him) to be quoting hard statistics rather than coming up with vague assertions. In any event that 90 per cent figure (even if one trusts it) refers to  the Premier League (where player wages tend to be a higher percentage of turnover) whereas those NCFC figures are for League One and the Championship.

[i,coopius 0]

the problem i have with smudger/gruffalo''s argument (at its base level) is you seem to be taking 9/10 as the start of league 1, 10/11 as the start of the championship, 11/12 as the start of the premier league. as has already been stated we barely had a team when we were relegated to league 1; from memory i''m sure it was something like 14 contracted players (including youth team) because of our wonderful  loan policy. how many other teams in that league had to make such drastic transfer activity just to have a squad available, an amount of expenditure had to be expected, however this is the only season of the three that it could be said that we have done a man city (although to my mind, with the aforementioned 25k attendance, its more a man utd). yet having just looked up the transfer fees in and out it would seem quoting the aston villa total transfer spending model, that with the sales of marshall and clingan, that the outgoing figure almost certainly doesn''t hit 500k.when we get to the championship is when i have serious issues with smudgers points.from what i can see we spent about 3 million on transfers in 10/11 (this is with the legendary £1.2m for surman) , so approx 3.5m over 2 years, plus our previous squad of 14 or so ( minus at least 2 noticeable). how many of the other teams had spent that little over 2 seasons (3 if we''re just counting transfer fees, rather than loans).then you come to this season. we have spent more than all smudgers named teams THIS year. but wba over 3 years????you see our team didn''t come into being this year, or last neither did anyones. certainly not AV''s who had to pay 12m for young, and i believe the same for downing  (both sold in their transfer bonus you quote) as well as 24m on bent, 5m on dunne, 1.something on given (bargain), but as you can see, to pointt out one seasons expenditure for one club proves little. we have not spent (total outlay) what villa have over 3 years (have they set out a long term strategy to buy 15th place?).we have gradually built up our squad spending to try to keep up with the rest of the respective league''s whilst having laving lambert get an extra ?% out of them.MU have largely done the same, spending what they''ve earned through prize money, tickets and other revenue to buy expensive players yet at the same time pay off an immoral purchase debt. MC have owners who over 2-3 years have thrown money at the club, unearned. i don''t understand how anyone could confuse the 2. to put it in headline figures united have owners who have taken £800m out of the club, man city have owners who have put £800m in.no disrespect to the mc fans who have been there all along, cause who wouldn''t be happy, but that is where i place my classification.

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

[quote user="notreallyhere"]Just a final note from me on here; it saddens me when people use the money as a stick to beat us with; I can understand why, but the vast, vast majority of our fans are the same people who were there 10, 20 years ago and are just enjoying the ride. I understand a few will let it go to their heads, but most of us still have the same sense of humour we always had, just using it in a different way (see the ''we never win at home and we never win away'' song we sang for a long time yesterday). As I say, good luck for next season; hopefully I''ll be back at Carrow Road depending on the kick off time![/quote]

Actually nrh, we were the fortunate ones to be present at a match whenone of the finest teams in Europe with some of the world''s best footballers ht their best form ever. (Yes I''m talking about Man C) The fields of Norfolk witnessed a majestic spectacle and we ought to be proud to say we were there. And Norwich fans can at least consolethemselves that for 70 minutes we were still in with a shout and giving you guys a hard time.

It''s been a fantastic season for both set of teams and we look forward to two more thrilling games next season.

 

Good luck to all Man City fans

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"]I still guess that we spent more than most teams in our promotion season from League 1. We had quite a few free transfers and undisclosed ones that year. Leeds may have possibly spent less than us, but Southampton and Huddersfield may have spent more.What is for sure is that the majority of that league are unable to compete with our finances if they are spent correctly.QPR and Middlesborough spent more than us in our season in the Championship. We spent more than Swansea both this season and last season, although they spent more than us while they were in the Championship and we were in League 1. We also spent more than Leeds, Cardiff and Reading during our Championship season and every other team with the exception of Leicester and Hull who spent a similar amount to us.Along with Swansea, we have this season spent more than WBA, Wigan and Wolves. Aston Villa and Blackburn have spent slightly more than us on transfer fees this season, but I feel that they are also worth a mention as they have actually made a significant profit on their transfer dealings this year, so it could be considered that both teams are not as strong as last season.So from this it appears that transfer expenditure does have a significant impact upon the success of a team and it possibly is just as big an impact on the likelihood of a teams chances of success as players wages might be.Now Mister Chops and Nutty Nigel, where is your evidence to pick holes in my theory?[/quote]Could you please post the links/sources that you derived these figures from?

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"]
The author of Soccernomics,  Stefan Szymanski, talks out of his backside almost as much as you do


[/quote]

So what makes your take on it all stack up better than someone like Szymanski? To coin one of your favourite belittling comments....you really are an idiot Duffalo.

[/quote]

It is not just my analysis of it though is it Plod? The link I have provided is a critique of Szymanski''s work. This critique comes to similar conclusions as I do. Syzmanski fails to provide sufficient evdience for his belief that Wages offer a better correlation to a teams success than transfer fees do because the evidence that he needs is not available to him or anyone else, just as accurate evidence for exactly how much each and every club has received/spent in transfer revenue is not available to any one person or organisation.

As I have said all along the correlation between both is extremely close and no matter how much you want to pretend you know better, you have no evidence that you or anyone else is able to provide which shows otherwise.
[/quote]

Can you please provide a peer reviewed paper on the critque then, Gruffalo.

FYI. The original paper by Szymanski: http://jse.sagepub.com/content/3/2/149.abstract, in the Journal of Sports Economics.

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]

[quote user="notreallyhere"]Just a final note from me on here; it saddens me when people use the money as a stick to beat us with; I can understand why, but the vast, vast majority of our fans are the same people who were there 10, 20 years ago and are just enjoying the ride. I understand a few will let it go to their heads, but most of us still have the same sense of humour we always had, just using it in a different way (see the ''we never win at home and we never win away'' song we sang for a long time yesterday). As I say, good luck for next season; hopefully I''ll be back at Carrow Road depending on the kick off time![/quote]

Actually nrh, we were the fortunate ones to be present at a match whenone of the finest teams in Europe with some of the world''s best footballers ht their best form ever. (Yes I''m talking about Man C) The fields of Norfolk witnessed a majestic spectacle and we ought to be proud to say we were there. And Norwich fans can at least consolethemselves that for 70 minutes we were still in with a shout and giving you guys a hard time.

It''s been a fantastic season for both set of teams and we look forward to two more thrilling games next season.

 

Good luck to all Man City fans

[/quote]

"Not Really Here". I have not actually got a problem with Man City''s spending at all. When people level the accusation at Man City that they are attempting to buy the title, consider this. David De Gea cost £20 million, Rio Ferdinand £33 million, Phil Jones £16 million, Michael Carrick £15 million, Wayne Rooney £26 million, Berbatov £32 million. The list goes on and on.

What''s the difference? It just seems because one of the teams is acknowledged to be one of the established big hitters that this type of spending is acceptable. And perhaps because the spending has happened in a more piecemeal fashion.

Of course United have also brought through some fantastic youngsters of their own. Beckham, Scholes etc. But to be fair to Man City they have brought Micah Richards through their own youth system and have snapped up Joe Hart from the lower leagues and have given him the platform to show what a fantastic keeper he is.

Getting thrashed really hurts of course. I love Norwich and I want them to do as well as they can. But sometimes you have to stand back and acknowledge the quality of what you have seen. It was sensational at times. And for 70 mins our players lived with it. As Rock the Boat says we can rightly proud of the players and what they have achieved this season.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"]Provide the info then Purple, or anyone else for that matter, for I do not know exactly how much any of our players have been paid this season. Anyone who wishes to share this information or evidence of exactly what other teams are paying their players, then please do feel free.


[/quote]

 

Dear me, it really is there in the accounts. All you have to do is extrapolate it. But since you are a newcomer, and as such should be welcomed:

 

According to our accounts in 2010 we spent £6.68m on player wage costs, out of a total turnover of £16.7m. So 40 per cent. In 2011 we spent £10.8m out of £23m, so 47 per cent. We shall know the figures for the current season in November or December.

[/quote]

Thank you Purple, so we are a long way short of the 90% then?

Here is what Syzmanski said "Its one weakness is that it is total payroll data, not just players- but players account for 90% plus of payroll normally."

[/quote]

 

We are a long way short of this mythical 90 per cent figure, but then that, as this Syzmanski says, is for all staff costs as a percentage of turnover, as opposed to the Norwich City figures I provided, which are for player wage costs only as a percentage of turnover.

 

The Norwich City figures that are comparable to the Syzmanski figures are 71.1 per cent for our League One season and 79 per cent for our season in the Championship. That latter figure does seem to be getting quite close to this apparently significant 90 per cent mark.

[The Gruffalo 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

We are a long way short of this mythical 90 per cent figure, but then that, as this Syzmanski says, is for all staff costs as a percentage of turnover, as opposed to the Norwich City figures I provided, which are for player wage costs only as a percentage of turnover.

 

The Norwich City figures that are comparable to the Syzmanski figures are 71.1 per cent for our League One season and 79 per cent for our season in the Championship. That latter figure does seem to be getting quite close to this apparently significant 90 per cent mark.

[/quote]No, Syzmanski says that "players normally account for 90% plus of a clubs payroll normally." It is unbelieveable how some of you lot re-write what someone actually says to fit your agenda.

[militantcanary 0]

I am not sure what planet the Gruffulo thinks he is on when he calls us hypocrites for pointing towards Man City''s spending. They have spent 1B in 4 years on infrastructure, wages and transfer fees. We have spent less than 5% of that sum. We have not outspent all rivals from about 8th place downwards as money spent by any club is a combination of wages and fees. That is why the Club has a total budget which equates to both sums and agents fees etc, its called basic maths. Our overall budget is the 2nd in the league behind Swansea and not by much.

And to the OP who says he is "saddened" when people talk about money I am saddened by the new shape of your club which is a plaything for someone with absolutely no connection with football let alone Manchester. If you sell your soul to the Devil, you can''t complain then accuse people of envy.

In conclusion please don''t patronise us Man City I found some of your fans to be most unpleasant, and you Gruffulo are either an agent provocateur or a prize dick.

And to end the argument, the Club

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Good luck Mili, your patience is about to be tested....

 

 

[militantcanary 0]

That should have said 2nd least obviously!

[The Gruffalo 0]

Blub, blub, blub...I suppose you are one of our fans who sings "what''s it like to see a crowd" to the likes of Brentford, Exeter and Wycombe, or even Wigan''s  supporters as we have outspent and outperformed them in recent years, yet has mass envy of Manchester City?Exactly the kind of arrogant behaviour that you accuse MCFC fans of you hypocrite!

[7rew 0]

Gruff, as far as I can tell, you are arguing that the Transfer price index approach is the most accurate indicator of performance. However, you seem to have entirely failed to grasp that approach, which is based on attempting to measure the transfer cost of a squad, as it was assembled, rather than what the team paid that particular summer.

Also PC - allowing him to conflate the total wages to turnover ratio with the player wages to total wages ratio? I am ashamed of you.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="The Gruffalo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

We are a long way short of this mythical 90 per cent figure, but then that, as this Syzmanski says, is for all staff costs as a percentage of turnover, as opposed to the Norwich City figures I provided, which are for player wage costs only as a percentage of turnover.

 

The Norwich City figures that are comparable to the Syzmanski figures are 71.1 per cent for our League One season and 79 per cent for our season in the Championship. That latter figure does seem to be getting quite close to this apparently significant 90 per cent mark.

[/quote]

No, Syzmanski says that "players normally account for 90% plus of a clubs payroll normally."

It is unbelieveable how some of you lot re-write what someone actually says to fit your agenda.
[/quote]

 

You are quite right. In this case. In a moment of sobriety I misread your original sentence about Syzmanski and his figures. The fault was mine. And I can see how you, as a nervous newcomer, unsure of your place on this message-board, might be offended. But I can assure you any mistakes I make are not to further some kind of agenda; I don''t have one.

 

 But you youself seem to have got rather confused in turn. I provided the figure of 47 per cent for NCFC player wages as a percentage of turnover and you replied:

 

Thank you Purple, so we are a long way short of the 90% then?

 

Which is totally nonsensical. That benchmark of 90 per cent you are quoting is, as you have pointed out, this Syzmanski figure for player wages as a percentage not of turnover but only of overall wages. As you put had Syzmanski express it: "players account for 90% plus of payroll normally."

 

You are trying to compare that player wages as a percentage of payroll figure with a figure for player wages as a percentage of turnover. Something entirely different. The figure for turnover is by definition greater - and normally considerably so - than the figure for payroll. For NCFC in 2011, for example, the figure for payroll was £18.4m, but the figure for turnover was £23.3m.

 

Perhaps we should call this evens?

[The Gruffalo 0]

[quote user="7rew"]Gruff, as far as I can tell, you are arguing that the Transfer price index approach is the most accurate indicator of performance. However, you seem to have entirely failed to grasp that approach, which is based on attempting to measure the transfer cost of a squad, as it was assembled, rather than what the team paid that particular summer.

Also PC - allowing him to conflate the total wages to turnover ratio with the player wages to total wages ratio? I am ashamed of you.[/quote]No I am not trying to say that the transfer price index approach is any more accurate, just that it is as accurate as the approach on players/management wages. In my opinion both approaches have their pros and cons and neither approach is any closer to being 100% accurate than the other.It is not just my opinion, as Szymanski''s approach has been critically analysed by others and even the Stefan Szymanski himself admits that his approach is far from being 100% accurate.Ps. I thought I had provided evidence of how much we had spent during the past 3 seasons. Some teams have to re-build totally (ie: after promotion/relegation) others need to add just a little more quality to their squad. What is apparent is that we have spent money in order to achieve our success, not quite as much as some clubs have, but we have spent more than others. The examples I gave of Hull City and Leicester CIty during our season in the Championship, both of these teams spent a similar amount to ourselves. HCFC had been relegated from the Prmier League the season before and so would have had parachute money but also players on Premier League wages. LCFC had a similar path to ourselves, with a season in League 1 only a year before we found ourselves there. We spent a similar amount to both of those teams during our season in the Championship. We also spent a more than/or at least a similar amount as Swansea City did to win promotion to the Premier League and have spent more than them this season in order to make sure that we stayed here.  Apart from QPR, Middlesborough and maybe one or two others, we spent more than most in ensuring we had a good attempt at being prmoted last season and we invested enough in the playing squad this season to ensure that we kept McNally and Lambert happy that they would have more than a good chance of keeping us in the Premier League.If we stop investing in the playing squad then the ambitious Lambert will look elsewhere and NCFC will do well to survive at this level, especially if we are unable to find another very good manager that our board feels they can back with their money.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="7rew"]Gruff, as far as I can tell, you are arguing that the Transfer price index approach is the most accurate indicator of performance. However, you seem to have entirely failed to grasp that approach, which is based on attempting to measure the transfer cost of a squad, as it was assembled, rather than what the team paid that particular summer. Also PC - allowing him to conflate the total wages to turnover ratio with the player wages to total wages ratio? I am ashamed of you.[/quote]

 

Not as ashamed as I am of myself...[:$]

[Kippax 0]

[quote user="militantcanary"]

And to the OP who says he is "saddened" when people talk about money I am saddened by the new shape of your club which is a plaything for someone with absolutely no connection with football let alone Manchester. If you sell your soul to the Devil, you can''t complain then accuse people of envy.

In conclusion please don''t patronise us Man City I found some of your fans to be most unpleasant, and you Gruffulo are either an agent provocateur or a prize dick.

And to end the argument, the Club[/quote]You really haven''t cottoned onto this have you?The majority of football fans are the same the world over, they love their football team. At Manchester City we are no different. We are not in it for the glory, we have spent the last 35 years chasing THAT LOT but our loyalty has never wavered. Even in the dark days in the third tier we maintained a very healthy attendance as did yourselfs when you were there (something that I found very impressive). I would have wanted nothing more than to see John Wardle continue his dream and carry us through to Premiership glory, but as he admitted to me just prior to a Friendly match in Charleroi a few years ago, his pockets were no longer deep enough.We then had the debacle of Frank Sinatra, a move that very nearly led us into administration and would have if the former chairman John Wardle had not used some of the money from the sale to Frank to bail us out of the *hit. So then the new owners step in with their Petro Pounds, and plenty of them. Within six hours a 32 million pound Robinho is sitting, at Mark Hughes desk. Being of working class this didn''t sit comfortably with me, suddenly having all this money flying about, but soon you realise that there is absolutely nothing that you as a fan can do about it. I didn''t want, or ask for it, but what do I do? stop supporting the club that I have followed for fifty years? No, of course not.Pretty soon the snide comments about the money start wearing a bit thin, so you just start throwing the comments back at those making them, which often gives the impression of arrogance, but is, in fact, a defence mechanism. You are quite wrong to suggest that the owners are using the club as a plaything. Abramovich uses Chelski as a plaything. Our owners are using us as a business vehicle, which may be no better than Abramovich. Their aim is to make us a global brand so they have to have an interest in all things City. You only have to go on the website to see some of the investment that the owners have made behind the scenes. The website itself is pretty impressive and was the first to have totally free media content for all, the fanzone that we have at the ground is unrivalled in the UK, the investments that we have made in Ghetto areas in various countries, and the future investment to be made in The academy and training facilities show vision for the future.But these are all things that THAT LOT and Chelski have done..............Errr! Hang on a minute, no they haven,t they just spend there money on player investment and servicing their debt without any thought of the future. So whether we like it or not the mega millions are here to stay and now that I am used to it, I am not going to knock it, if someone came to Delia tomorrow and offered a billion pouds worth of investment would she turn it down, if she did she would probably be lynched and you would be at the front of the queue. It was bad enough when that chap backed out of investing about 40 million a couple of years ago, until his offer was found not to be all it was made out to be.So before you look all the way down your nose at us, just have a quick glane in the mirror and tell me what you see. This is not an attempt to be patronising by the way.I would also be interested to know, what it was about our fans that you found most unpleasant, do we reek of money perhaps?Kippax..

[nutty nigel 7,531]

You are right Kippax. Despite all the pressure groups and fans associations fans have no real say in their clubs destiny. I have always believed we are lucky in our owners. But that could change for the better or worse and there''s nothing I can do. Us fans are wed to our club for life. For better for worse For richer for poorer. It''s a life time of ups and downs.

 

The people who run  the game are the only ones who can make it a fair competition again. Every club should operate with the iuncome they generate. You and your neighbours would still be two of the big boys. You always were and always will be.

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,338]

Really good post, Kippax, enjoyed reading an intelligent reflection on what''s happened at Citeh.

If you win the league next year, though, won''t you feel slightly empty at the thought that it has nothing to do with you as a fan? At Norwich, most of us are grateful for Delia''s generosity in keeping us afloat, but the connection between fans and club has not been lost. Any success we have is in part down to the tickets, shirts and gourmet pies that we buy. Any success that you now have is down to the fact that someone with no connection to Moss Side or the club decided to buy it in the hope of making some money out of it. It''s not your club any more. For me, that''s too big a price to pay for success.

Personally, I''d like to think that if NCFC sold its soul in that way that I would walk away, but I agree that it is fantastically hard to do when a football club is such a big part of your life.

[notreallyhere 0]

Kippax, you explained that better than I ever could, thanks. Seems my words were twisted beyond recognition.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Kippax"][quote user="militantcanary"] And to the OP who says he is "saddened" when people talk about money I am saddened by the new shape of your club which is a plaything for someone with absolutely no connection with football let alone Manchester. If you sell your soul to the Devil, you can''t complain then accuse people of envy. In conclusion please don''t patronise us Man City I found some of your fans to be most unpleasant, and you Gruffulo are either an agent provocateur or a prize dick. And to end the argument, the Club[/quote]

You really haven''t cottoned onto this have you?

The majority of football fans are the same the world over, they love their football team. At Manchester City we are no different. We are not in it for the glory, we have spent the last 35 years chasing THAT LOT but our loyalty has never wavered. Even in the dark days in the third tier we maintained a very healthy attendance as did yourselfs when you were there (something that I found very impressive). I would have wanted nothing more than to see John Wardle continue his dream and carry us through to Premiership glory, but as he admitted to me just prior to a Friendly match in Charleroi a few years ago, his pockets were no longer deep enough.

We then had the debacle of Frank Sinatra, a move that very nearly led us into administration and would have if the former chairman John Wardle had not used some of the money from the sale to Frank to bail us out of the *hit. So then the new owners step in with their Petro Pounds, and plenty of them. Within six hours a 32 million pound Robinho is sitting, at Mark Hughes desk. Being of working class this didn''t sit comfortably with me, suddenly having all this money flying about, but soon you realise that there is absolutely nothing that you as a fan can do about it. I didn''t want, or ask for it, but what do I do? stop supporting the club that I have followed for fifty years? No, of course not.

Pretty soon the snide comments about the money start wearing a bit thin, so you just start throwing the comments back at those making them, which often gives the impression of arrogance, but is, in fact, a defence mechanism. You are quite wrong to suggest that the owners are using the club as a plaything. Abramovich uses Chelski as a plaything. Our owners are using us as a business vehicle, which may be no better than Abramovich. Their aim is to make us a global brand so they have to have an interest in all things City. You only have to go on the website to see some of the investment that the owners have made behind the scenes. The website itself is pretty impressive and was the first to have totally free media content for all, the fanzone that we have at the ground is unrivalled in the UK, the investments that we have made in Ghetto areas in various countries, and the future investment to be made in The academy and training facilities show vision for the future.

But these are all things that THAT LOT and Chelski have done..............Errr! Hang on a minute, no they haven,t they just spend there money on player investment and servicing their debt without any thought of the future.

So whether we like it or not the mega millions are here to stay and now that I am used to it, I am not going to knock it, if someone came to Delia tomorrow and offered a billion pouds worth of investment would she turn it down, if she did she would probably be lynched and you would be at the front of the queue. It was bad enough when that chap backed out of investing about 40 million a couple of years ago, until his offer was found not to be all it was made out to be.

So before you look all the way down your nose at us, just have a quick glane in the mirror and tell me what you see. This is not an attempt to be patronising by the way.

I would also be interested to know, what it was about our fans that you found most unpleasant, do we reek of money perhaps?

Kippax.

.
[/quote]

 

What a fantastic post. I personally think that your fans are the best I''ve come across this season, both up there and down here. Unlike the plastic fans at Chelski and United there''s been none of the Billy Bigbollox rubbish. Before the game at the Etihad we found ourselves in a rather dodgy looking pub (the Bradford Arms from memory) full of City fans. Not only were we made to feel very welcome, but we were amazed by how much your fans knew about our club and the respect that they had for us.They are proper football fans who''ve been through the mill; the sort who turn up week after week instead of lurking behind keyboards and sniping at their fellow fans.

I wish you all the luck in the world.