Mancheater City: 115

[El Granit-Coq]

awwwww diddums, keep sucking them lemons, not City's fault your owners don't spend much, keep promising you the earth, keep ripping you off and not giving a lot back.

You really are twisted up inside, aren't you? ta-ra.

Did you just blank the slavery part?

 

[pacstud]

awwwww diddums, keep sucking them lemons, not City's fault your owners don't spend much, keep promising you the earth, keep ripping you off and not giving a lot back.

You really are twisted up inside, aren't you? ta-ra.

Wait, you think I'd title you something other than troll if you were from another squad's fanboy base?

Nah, I've never been a fan in any sport, on any MB of trolls who yap on other team's sites. I honestly can't fathom the psychological makeup and dissonance required to need this sort of attention. Though I'm to blame for feeding said troll in this particular instance.

Off you go pup

 

[pacstud]

It’s one thing remonstrating about the amount of money City have spent on players since the ADUG takeover in 2008 - hell, I’ll readily admit it’s a huge amount and we’ve undoubtedly bought success in a way - but for an Arsenal fan to talk about funding through “slavery” when you consider who your main sponsor is and their links to City’s owner and his family smacks of a rather considerable lack of self awareness.

In all things equal?

Seems like a fairly intentional false equivalency.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It’s one thing remonstrating about the amount of money City have spent on players since the ADUG takeover in 2008 - hell, I’ll readily admit it’s a huge amount and we’ve undoubtedly bought success in a way - but for an Arsenal fan to talk about funding through “slavery” when you consider who your main sponsor is and their links to City’s owner and his family smacks of a rather considerable lack of self awareness.

Few corporate sponsors are benevolent entities. Most of the big ones have done awful things to be able to afford such sponsorships. I pretty much detest them all. But there's a big difference between a shirt sponsor and outright club ownership. Arsenal gets £30 million a year, combined, for shirt and stadium naming rights. City spent that plus £20 million more on John Stones alone. So there really is no comparison here. Now if you want to talk about Kroenke's ties to Walmart, then alright. We can talk. But as much as I despise Walmart (haven't set foot in one in almost 18 years), it still doesn't compare.

 

[M18CTID]

Few corporate sponsors are benevolent entities. Most of the big ones have done awful things to be able to afford such sponsorships. I pretty much detest them all. But there's a big difference between a shirt sponsor and outright club ownership. Arsenal gets £30 million a year, combined, for shirt and stadium naming rights. City spent that plus £20 million more on John Stones alone. So there really is no comparison here. Now if you want to talk about Kroenke's ties to Walmart, then alright. We can talk. But as much as I despise Walmart (haven't set foot in one in almost 18 years), it still doesn't compare.

You’ve missed my point and I’m not sure why Walmart and Kroenke are being brought into the discussion as what I was saying has absolutely nothing to do with them. I also thought I’d made it clear that I wasn’t comparing sums of money invested. Only an idiot would claim Emirates have put as much in to Arsenal as Mansour has into City. The point is that the poster I was quoting was criticising the origin of City’s money that the owner has pumped in - calling it “slave money” - yet failing to acknowledge that the origin of Arsenal’s Emirates sponsorship money is from the same part of the world and indeed from the same family as City’s owner. Either both constitute “slave money” or none do. To their credit, an Arsenal poster a few pages back was critical of both and even said they hate having Emirates on their shirt as a result.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You’ve missed my point and I’m not sure why Walmart and Kroenke are being brought into the discussion as what I was saying has absolutely nothing to do with them. I also thought I’d made it clear that I wasn’t comparing sums of money invested. Only an idiot would claim Emirates have put as much in to Arsenal as Mansour has into City. The point is that the poster I was quoting was criticising the origin of City’s money that the owner has pumped in - calling it “slave money” - yet failing to acknowledge that the origin of Arsenal’s Emirates sponsorship money is from the same part of the world and indeed from the same family as City’s owner. Either both constitute “slave money” or none do. To their credit, an Arsenal poster a few pages back was critical of both and even said they hate having Emirates on their shirt as a result.

You seem to have missed my point. Virtually all of the shirt sponsors are corrupt corporations. I hate having any of them on their shirts or stadiums. Chevrolet, Yokohama, the gambling outfits, etc., etc., etc. I'd like to see them all have UNICEF or something like that, as Barcelona once did before they did the deal with Rakuten. But it's a shirt sponsor. It's temporary. It's a limited amount of money. So regardless of the level of corruption, it's not the same as ownership, which is permanent (as long as they want it to be) and funds every penny. That's where Kroenke and Walmart come into play (although not quite since he actually made his fortune in real estate). That's the like-for-like comparison. Every move City makes comes from the "slave money."

 

[M18CTID]

You seem to have missed my point. Virtually all of the shirt sponsors are corrupt corporations. I hate having any of them on their shirts or stadiums. Chevrolet, Yokohama, the gambling outfits, etc., etc., etc. I'd like to see them all have UNICEF or something like that, as Barcelona once did before they did the deal with Rakuten. But it's a shirt sponsor. It's temporary. It's a limited amount of money. So regardless of the level of corruption, it's not the same as ownership, which is permanent (as long as they want it to be) and funds every penny. That's where Kroenke and Walmart come into play (although not quite since he actually made his fortune in real estate). That's the like-for-like comparison. Every move City makes comes from the "slave money."

Well as you say sponsorship isn't permanent but neither is ownership. Incidentally, Arsenal's current deal with Emirates runs until 2028 so that amounts to a 22 year association since the original deal came online in 2006. If it were to end in 2028, City's owner would have to be in situ until at least 2031 to have a longer association with the club than Emirates have had with Arsenal.

Anyway, I'm not on here to discuss the perceived rights and wrongs of football club ownership and to change people's minds - that's a fruitless exercise - but if I feel a post has a whiff of double standards (regardless of subject matter) then I'll point it out.

 

[dashsnow17]

Well as you say sponsorship isn't permanent but neither is ownership. Incidentally, Arsenal's current deal with Emirates runs until 2028 so that amounts to a 22 year association since the original deal came online in 2006. If it were to end in 2028, City's owner would have to be in situ until at least 2031 to have a longer association with the club than Emirates have had with Arsenal.

Anyway, I'm not on here to discuss the perceived rights and wrongs of football club ownership and to change people's minds - that's a fruitless exercise - but if I feel a post has a whiff of double standards (regardless of subject matter) then I'll point it out.

You sound like a very reasonable chap. Myself and other Arsenal fans here are open to objective criticism of the morality of certain facets of how Arsenal is owned and run. No major football club exists in a total vacuum, they are all connected to unsavoury processes to one degree or another.

I would argue that in terms of proportionality our moral shortcomings are dwarfed by those of City, but I absolutely acknowledge they exist of course. My argument is that the sheer scale of City's is anomalous from the average and that that shouldn't just be brushed under the carpet.

Personally I have no interest in using that as a stick to beat you with, for me it's merely a matter of acknowledging the truth and moving on. Your fellow City fan on here has made that particularly difficult. But if we can just all acknowledge some basic truths then we can move on and get back to discussing what is a very good football team.

 

[M18CTID]

You sound like a very reasonable chap. Myself and other Arsenal fans here are open to objective criticism of the morality of certain facets of how Arsenal is owned and run. No major football club exists in a total vacuum, they are all connected to unsavoury processes to one degree or another.

I would argue that in terms of proportionality our moral shortcomings are dwarfed by those of City, but I absolutely acknowledge they exist of course. My argument is that the sheer scale of City's is anomalous from the average and that that shouldn't just be brushed under the carpet.

Personally I have no interest in using that as a stick to beat you with, for me it's merely a matter of acknowledging the truth and moving on. Your fellow City fan on here has made that particularly difficult. But if we can just all acknowledge some basic truths then we can move on and get back to discussing what is a very good football team.

To be honest, I've gotten embroiled in similar spats that my fellow City fan has been involved in on other forums in the past about this kind of thing so I'm not totally innocent on that score. However, as you say fans shouldn't really be beating each other up about the people who run/own our football clubs when we're pretty powerless in having a say in who runs our respective clubs. I am, however, happy to acknowledge that I'm quite uncomfortable with some of the stuff that goes on in Abu Dhabi although compared to the likes of Saudi, I think the UAE states aren't quite as extreme but some of the penalties for certain "crimes" are ridiculously harsh. I'm not sure how the more draconian aspects of thousands of years of Sharia Law can be reformed though - it's clear in a lot of these countries religion is king and is pretty much above everything else and that often includes the leaders of some of those countries.

 

[A_G]

They need to wrap Aguero in cotton wool

 

[Slartibartfast]

Well as you say sponsorship isn't permanent but neither is ownership. Incidentally, Arsenal's current deal with Emirates runs until 2028 so that amounts to a 22 year association since the original deal came online in 2006. If it were to end in 2028, City's owner would have to be in situ until at least 2031 to have a longer association with the club than Emirates have had with Arsenal.

Anyway, I'm not on here to discuss the perceived rights and wrongs of football club ownership and to change people's minds - that's a fruitless exercise - but if I feel a post has a whiff of double standards (regardless of subject matter) then I'll point it out.

Ownership is permanent until the owner decides to sell. And Arsenal's shirt sponsorship deal with the Emirates runs out in 2019 (it's only the stadium naming rights that runs until 2028). But basically the argument you're trying to make to me is that Max Stadler & Co., fine 19th Century clothiers of Broadway, New York, was just as bad as the slave owners in the Antebellum South who beat their slaves with a whip to produce the cotton that was used to make the clothes sold in Max Stadler's shop.

 

[Tir Na Nog]

See the media are getting on Pep's bandwagon now about the fouls and stuff, **** me don't remember the media being so kind back in 2008 for example when all our star players were fouled constantly and it resulted in Eduardo's career almost being ended. We were always told to man up and told we were too soft.

**** 'em, hope more of their players get butchered today.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

Pep rather have 6 subs than allowing youth player on the bench. Is there more disgusting human being on this planet or???

 

[al-Ustaadh]

Pep rather have 6 subs than allowing youth player on the bench. Is there more disgusting human being on this planet or???

Zinchenko and Diaz are on the bench. Or are you saying he should add a third on the bench?

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

Zinchenko and Diaz are on the bench. Or are you saying he should add a third on the bench?

There are 7 players allowed on bench. He has 6.

 

[al-Ustaadh]

There are 7 players allowed on bench. He has 6.

Yes, I know that. I'm pinpointing out your comment about not having youth on the bench. He already has 2. Are you suggesting he should have a third to fill out the rest of the bench? I mean... I understand it wouldn't hurt anything. It's just what you originally said suggested that there were no youth players at all on the bench.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

Yes, I know that. I'm pinpointing out your comment about not having youth on the bench. He already has 2. Are you suggesting he should have a third to fill out the rest of the bench? I mean... I understand it wouldn't hurt anything. It's just what your originally said suggested that there were no youth players at all on the bench.

It is chance to get players who are not involved with first team a chance to be on the bench. They players you mention already and have been for some time involved with first team.

 

[GDeep™]

The guy is ****. Sooner he leaves the better. Cardigan wearing ****.

 

[al-Ustaadh]

The guy is ****. Sooner he leaves the better. Cardigan wearing ****.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It does seem rather odd that a club that has spent more than £450 million on player acquisitions since Pep took over can't find enough players to fill out the bench. Granted, they could only play three anyway so it doesn't much matter, but it just looks bad. Maybe they should have fought United for Alexis or paid what Leicester City wanted for Mahrez.