Fixtures Monday October 21st - Sheffield United - Bramall Lane - 8:00 Pm

Kick-Off

       Injuries                    Steve Gleiber



Get the Latest Post Go to the Bottom of Page It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:30 pm

All times are UTC


  


Reply to topic

Users browsing this forum: warrior and 10 guests

 
Post #506801  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:04 am
Posts: 5597
Location: Townsville Australia

TOP GUN wrote:
AmericanGooner wrote:
It happened with Chelsea and then with City. The media rarely mentions the amount of money they have in relation to their success since 2004 (Chelsea).
As soon as Roman stopped spending as much as when he first arrived, voila, they aren't winning as much.

Ha ! I’m unblocked !

Fresh fruit will give you a chance of keeping those bowels open in the future. But thanks for the update.

_________________
If this policy does not deliver then I would say we have to change it.
AW 150810


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506802  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:06 am
Posts: 12924

AmericanGooner wrote:
The days of getting 80 some odd points and winning the title may be over. A couple years running now, we are seeing incredible point totals .

The little spoken of feat of the season is Watford making it to the FA cup final. The way the league is, the League Cup has now become incredibly competitive when it wasn't not too long ago with the major clubs fielding weakened squads but now its possibly the only viable trophy of even big clubs like us or Chelsea.
From my understanding from posts on here years ago, the league cup was a big deal. It lost its luster when I became a fan.

I am not confident we will see another "Watford" get to the final again for the foreseeable future. Tottenham are hungry for any trophy. It's now a trophy we should seriously consider now that the league is a bridge way too far and the FA Cup is still a huge trophy that City, Liverpool and Tottenham have the squad to field strong sides, with the exception being early rounds against lower division sides.

??

_________________
Hamba kakuhle, Madiba


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506803  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 11:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:42 am
Posts: 11657
Location: Rotorua New Zealand

bromley gooner wrote:
kiwipete wrote:
No way in the world I'd want to be seen as taking Yankee Doodle Dandy's side on anything .... but you might have wanted to read passed the first meaning Brom

allotment ..noun
1.
BRITISH
a plot of land rented by an individual for growing vegetables or flowers.

2. the action of allotting something.
synonyms: allocation, issuing, issuance, awarding, grant, granting, administration, earmarking, designation, setting aside, budgeting;

3 . an amount allotted to a person or persons
synonyms: quota, share, ration, grant, limit, portion, allocation, allowance, helping, batch, slice, stint, lot, measure, proportion

Morning Kiwi not wishing to be pedant or anything, but the word you're looking for is 'past', not 'passed'. :7laughter:

Also I'm obviously going to stick with the dictionary definition of allotment that begins with the word 'BRITISH' :icon_mrgreen:

Very glad you seem to be feeling better now!

:12hello-bye: Greetings Brom .... I think you've cacked in your own nest again ........they are all 'BRITISH '

I said you should have looked "passed" the first interpretation of allotment ....... that's a verb

Prof Paul Brians explains .....

passed / past
If you are referring to a distance or a period of time before now, use “past”: “the police car drove past the suspect’s house” (distance) or “the team performed well in the past” (time). If you are describing the action of passing, however, you need to use “passed”:

“Past” can be an adjective, a noun, a preposition, or an adverb, BUT NEVER A VERB .

If you need to write the past tense of the verb “to pass,” use “passed.”


Okay that's sorted that little upstart ...... adding up the score ... hmmm that's ..... Bromley 0 NZ 2 ... too easy


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506804  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:06 am
Posts: 12924

kiwipete wrote:
bromley gooner wrote:
Morning Kiwi not wishing to be pedant or anything, but the word you're looking for is 'past', not 'passed'. :7laughter:

Also I'm obviously going to stick with the dictionary definition of allotment that begins with the word 'BRITISH' :icon_mrgreen:

Very glad you seem to be feeling better now!

:12hello-bye: Greetings Brom .... I think you've cacked in your own nest again ........they are all 'BRITISH '

I said you should have looked "passed" the first interpretation of allotment ....... that's a verb

Prof Paul Brians explains .....

passed / past
If you are referring to a distance or a period of time before now, use “past”: “the police car drove past the suspect’s house” (distance) or “the team performed well in the past” (time). If you are describing the action of passing, however, you need to use “passed”:

“Past” can be an adjective, a noun, a preposition, or an adverb, BUT NEVER A VERB .

If you need to write the past tense of the verb “to pass,” use “passed.”


Okay that's sorted that little upstart ...... adding up the score ... hmmm that's ..... Bromley 0 NZ 2 ... too easy

In your sentence, 'read' is the verb. Past is a preposition.

Other examples:

Trump passed the Big Mac to the Queen.
(here 'passed' is a verb)

I can look past your political ignorance, but must draw the line at your grammar.
(here 'past' is a preposition).

_________________
Hamba kakuhle, Madiba


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506805  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 4444
Location: SE9

Decaf wrote:
kiwipete wrote:
:12hello-bye: Greetings Brom .... I think you've cacked in your own nest again ........they are all 'BRITISH '

I said you should have looked "passed" the first interpretation of allotment ....... that's a verb

Prof Paul Brians explains .....

passed / past
If you are referring to a distance or a period of time before now, use “past”: “the police car drove past the suspect’s house” (distance) or “the team performed well in the past” (time). If you are describing the action of passing, however, you need to use “passed”:

“Past” can be an adjective, a noun, a preposition, or an adverb, BUT NEVER A VERB .

If you need to write the past tense of the verb “to pass,” use “passed.”


Okay that's sorted that little upstart ...... adding up the score ... hmmm that's ..... Bromley 0 NZ 2 ... too easy

In your sentence, 'read' is the verb. Past is a preposition.

Other examples:

Trump passed the Big Mac to the Queen.
(here 'passed' is a verb)

I can look past your political ignorance, but must draw the line at your grammar.
(here 'past' is a preposition).

Quite right Decaf. Take that Kiwi :7laughter:


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506806  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:06 am
Posts: 12924

bromley gooner wrote:
kiwipete wrote:
No way in the world I'd want to be seen as taking Yankee Doodle Dandy's side on anything .... but you might have wanted to read passed the first meaning Brom

allotment ..noun
1.
BRITISH
a plot of land rented by an individual for growing vegetables or flowers.

2. the action of allotting something.
synonyms: allocation, issuing, issuance, awarding, grant, granting, administration, earmarking, designation, setting aside, budgeting;

3 . an amount allotted to a person or persons
synonyms: quota, share, ration, grant, limit, portion, allocation, allowance, helping, batch, slice, stint, lot, measure, proportion

Morning Kiwi not wishing to be pedant or anything, but the word you're looking for is 'past', not 'passed'. :7laughter:

Also I'm obviously going to stick with the dictionary definition of allotment that begins with the word 'BRITISH' :icon_mrgreen:

Very glad you seem to be feeling better now!

Clearly well enough to partake of rum again :laughing7: :laughing7:

_________________
Hamba kakuhle, Madiba


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506807  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:27 pm
Posts: 7264

TOP GUN wrote:
AmericanGooner wrote:
It happened with Chelsea and then with City. The media rarely mentions the amount of money they have in relation to their success since 2004 (Chelsea).
As soon as Roman stopped spending as much as when he first arrived, voila, they aren't winning as much.

Ha ! I’m unblocked !

He didn't do it as a reply to you, so perhaps he would claim it was pure coincidence that his post immediately followed one by you on the same topic. In other words, that his post had nothing to do with your one?


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506808  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 10976

Bernard wrote:
TOP GUN wrote:
Ha ! I’m unblocked !

He didn't do it as a reply to you, so perhaps he would claim it was pure coincidence that his post immediately followed one by you on the same topic. In other words, that his post had nothing to do with your one?

Probably but it clearly showed he read the previous comment. The great big loonie

_________________
A manager is a guide. He takes a group of people and says, 'With you I can make us a success; I can show you the way.
Arsene Wenger


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506809  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:58 am
Posts: 28042

warrior wrote:
AmericanGooner wrote:
The days of getting 80 some odd points and winning the title may be over. A couple years running now, we are seeing incredible point totals .

Not from us :icon_eek1:


Just had a peek and we haven't scored more than 80 points since the '07-'08 season!

_________________
"Satire is meant to ridicule power. Ridiculing people arbitrarily isn't satire, its bullying" - Pratchett


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506810  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:51 pm
Posts: 2124

Rich wrote:
Europa final is in a 68,700 seater stadium, actual official fans of both clubs looks like it will be less than 10,000 due to the cost of getting there. What will the atmosphere be like? Two small pockets of noisy away style fans in amongst 60,000 sponsors, competition winners and corporate types. Bizarre

Nothing a few private jets can't take care of for those 60k corporate types, sponsors, comp winners, families to Baku.


Attachments:


_________________
'So sweet, but oh so vicious' .... Mae West about Owney Madden
 Profile  
 
 
Post #506811  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:53 pm
Posts: 16891

Manchester City’s sky blue smashing of Watford proves football is broken

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... _clipboard

_________________
It's a terrible love and I'm walking with spiders.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506812  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:42 am
Posts: 11657
Location: Rotorua New Zealand

bromley gooner wrote:
Decaf wrote:


Other examples:

Trump passed the Big Mac to the Queen.
(here 'passed' is a verb)

I can look past your political ignorance, but must draw the line at your grammar.
(here 'past' is a preposition).

Quite right Decaf. Take that Kiwi :7laughter:



:laughing7: :laughing7: bastards .......... white hankerchief appears above the trench on this ocassion . Thought I could bluff you with that one .

however ... don't worry ...... little Decaf's 'political ignorance' jibe is going to be jammed directly up his ***^%$# followed by a Lberal dose of liquid nails behind it ; when I've finished reading a book I got from the Op Shop a couple of weeks back ..... " Legacy of Ashes " Tim Weiner 's History of the CIA .


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506813  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 10:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:20 am
Posts: 8824

AmericanGooner wrote:
warrior wrote:
Not from us :icon_eek1:


Just had a peek and we haven't scored more than 80 points since the '07-'08 season!


That was a fantastic Fabregas-led team assembled by Wenger. Injuries to Rosicky, RvP and Eduardo spoiled our season. Adebayor stepped up big time though.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506814  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:20 am
Posts: 8824

Niall wrote:
Manchester City’s sky blue smashing of Watford proves football is broken

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... _clipboard


Guardiola will make the CL MC's number 1 priority. That should be enough distraction to allow other clubs to win the league and FA cups... doesn't he usually leave after 3 or 4 seasons?

Don't know when, but they will suffer a similar fate to Chelsea when the owner loses interest.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506815  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:04 am
Posts: 5597
Location: Townsville Australia

Niall wrote:
Manchester City’s sky blue smashing of Watford proves football is broken

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... _clipboard

The really scary part about this is that the guardian and media have apparently just realised this. Where have they been for the last ten years. The media have joined politicians, priests, banks and many others who are not and never to be trusted. When it suits them they are on the pulpit but when it doesn’t it is all wrong.

When an English club is battering a Johnny Foreigner in the CL the EPL is great, brilliant and wonderful but when little old Watford get smashed and make the whole thing look unbalanced. Woe is me..

_________________
If this policy does not deliver then I would say we have to change it.
AW 150810


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506816  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 11:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:42 am
Posts: 11657
Location: Rotorua New Zealand

Niall wrote:
Manchester City’s sky blue smashing of Watford proves football is broken

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... _clipboard

Thought exactly the same yesterday after Dec saying "how sad" the Cup final .

Dickwacking commentators never touch on this .

.... if your club has more money than the rest of the Premier League put together is it any surprise they win trophies .

The sooner Man City f $$**&^ off to some super league the better for English football .

The Yanks for all their evils ; at least have a decent system of fair play in their NFL .... the teams that finish bottom of the leagues get first choice at any incoming talent .

Burning question would be .... if they formed some super league Barc , Man C , PSG , Juventus , Real , Bayern etc etc ..... would we want to be part of it ...?


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506817  Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 11:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:42 am
Posts: 11657
Location: Rotorua New Zealand

Goonie wrote:

Don't know when, but they will suffer a similar fate to Chelsea when the owner loses interest.

Yes but Goonie this isn't a single owner who gets bored / tired and decides he'll move on to wind surfing , Tai Chi , stamp collecting or building a hot rod to occupy his time .

Man City is owned by a greazy bunch of shitbag sheiks who see out a day out at the Etihad as a pleasant little stop over between jetting off to some Carribean island , visiting a casino , tripping around on a yacht with fifty bikini clad play girls .

They be in it for ever .

Only way things might change if the Yanks start a war with Iran and they in turn decide to stick a few missiles into the Emirates / Saidi Arabia to really disrupt world oil production .


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506818  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:20 am
Posts: 8824

kiwipete wrote:
Goonie wrote:

Don't know when, but they will suffer a similar fate to Chelsea when the owner loses interest.

Yes but Goonie this isn't a single owner who gets bored / tired and decides he'll move on to wind surfing , Tai Chi , stamp collecting or building a hot rod to occupy his time .

Man City is owned by a greazy bunch of shitbag sheiks who see out a day out at the Etihad as a pleasant little stop over between jetting off to some Carribean island , visiting a casino , tripping around on a yacht with fifty bikini clad play girls .

They be in it for ever .

Only way things might change if the Yanks start a war with Iran and they in turn decide to stick a few missiles into the Emirates / Saidi Arabia to really disrupt world oil production .


To me it's not all gloom and doom. Since the 80s when I started watching English football, traditionally there have always been one super dominant team and there's always one worthy challenger. Liverpool in the 80s, MU in the 90s, then Chelsea and now MC. As for us, we somehow managed to average one or two titles a decade. 2010s have not been too kind to us (still 3 FA Cup victories) but Liverpool and Tottenham (Leicester too) have shown it's possible to become genuine contenders balancing the books like we did under Wenger's Highbury years.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506819  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:20 am
Posts: 8824

I know a lot of us are unhappy with the way the club is run. There is a lot of room for improvement but I think we are getting most things right.
1. A very good youth set up. This should allow us to get one or two players to be part of the first team squad every season - we are doing well in this regard. It should also allow us to sell some of the players for profits to add to the 50m a season transfer budget - we are not quite doing it yet.
2. Giving Emery three years to build his team. I think this is fair. We should see more improvements next season. If we become genuine contenders by his third season, he deserves a new contract. If not, give another manager three seasons to build his team.
3. Transfers and contract negotiations should work more towards our favour now that Law and Gazidis (plus Wenger) have left. Hope we see less of our players leaving for free or low transfer fees, and players holding the club for ransom when it comes to renewing contracts.
4. I like last summer's transfer dealing where Leno, Sokratis, Torreira and Guendouzi came in for modest fees and improve the team. But the previous season's transfer (esp. Lacazette and Aubameyang) proved to be good signings as well this season. Let's see if the club can balance bringing in a marquee signing and augment the squad with Leno-esque signings - established young players who can develop into world class-ish players. Not sure if losing Mislintat will affect us in this area.

Assuming we don't lose players we do not want to (Lacazette and Aubameyang) and we manage to acquire two very good defenders plus a midfielder, I reckon we should be able to build upon this season and get more than 70 points.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506820  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:27 pm
Posts: 7264

Goonie wrote:
To me it's not all gloom and doom. Since the 80s when I started watching English football, traditionally there have always been one super dominant team and there's always one worthy challenger. Liverpool in the 80s, MU in the 90s, then Chelsea and now MC. As for us, we somehow managed to average one or two titles a decade. 2010s have not been too kind to us (still 3 FA Cup victories) but Liverpool and Tottenham (Leicester too) have shown it's possible to become genuine contenders balancing the books like we did under Wenger's Highbury years.

Goonie, I've discussed your optimism with you before. If we're relegated next season I'm sure you'd see it as an opportunity to rebuild at a lower level. If we sold all our best players for peanuts I'd expect you to say there might be better youngsters in the youth set-up. Kroenke's ownership? To you, 'not all doom and gloom'. The stadium falling down? To Goonie a chance to build a better one.

Is there anything at all that would make you think 'Arsenal is f*cked? Anything at all?

I'm not even talking about the City issue, by the way. If City dominte and it stops any of Manchester United, Tottenham, Chelsea and Liverpool winning things, I'm comfortable with that.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506821  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 2:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:20 am
Posts: 8824

Bernard wrote:
Goonie wrote:
To me it's not all gloom and doom. Since the 80s when I started watching English football, traditionally there have always been one super dominant team and there's always one worthy challenger. Liverpool in the 80s, MU in the 90s, then Chelsea and now MC. As for us, we somehow managed to average one or two titles a decade. 2010s have not been too kind to us (still 3 FA Cup victories) but Liverpool and Tottenham (Leicester too) have shown it's possible to become genuine contenders balancing the books like we did under Wenger's Highbury years.

Goonie, I've discussed your optimism with you before. If we're relegated next season I'm sure you'd see it as an opportunity to rebuild at a lower level. If we sold all our best players for peanuts I'd expect you to say there might be better youngsters in the youth set-up. Kroenke's ownership? To you, 'not all doom and gloom'. The stadium falling down? To Goonie a chance to build a better one.

Is there anything at all that would make you think 'Arsenal is f*cked? Anything at all?

I'm not even talking about the City issue, by the way. If City dominte and it stops any of Manchester United, Tottenham, Chelsea and Liverpool winning things, I'm comfortable with that.


But Arsenal is not f*cked.

We got 70 points compared to previous 63. And in the EL final. If we continue to improve in that trajectory under Emery we will become title contenders in the next couple of seasons. Just like it took Liverpool a while under Klopp...

As for Kroenke, he is a businessman. I think the self-sustaining model (spending entirely funded from self-generated revenues) makes the most sense for ANY club. We are trying to put in a place a system where the club doesn't have to rely on the genius of one man - we didn't quite get it right with Gazidis and Law but let's give Sannllehi, Edu (has he joined?) and the new head of recruitment a chance to put things right.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506822  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 4:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:58 am
Posts: 28042

Goonie wrote:
AmericanGooner wrote:

Just had a peek and we haven't scored more than 80 points since the '07-'08 season!


That was a fantastic Fabregas-led team assembled by Wenger. Injuries to Rosicky, RvP and Eduardo spoiled our season. Adebayor stepped up big time though.

Shhh...it's against forum rules to speak complimentary about Fabregas judging by posts since his first 'Brexit'.

_________________
"Satire is meant to ridicule power. Ridiculing people arbitrarily isn't satire, its bullying" - Pratchett


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506823  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 6:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:27 pm
Posts: 7264

Goonie wrote:
Bernard wrote:
Goonie, I've discussed your optimism with you before. If we're relegated next season I'm sure you'd see it as an opportunity to rebuild at a lower level. If we sold all our best players for peanuts I'd expect you to say there might be better youngsters in the youth set-up. Kroenke's ownership? To you, 'not all doom and gloom'. The stadium falling down? To Goonie a chance to build a better one.

Is there anything at all that would make you think 'Arsenal is f*cked? Anything at all?

I'm not even talking about the City issue, by the way. If City dominte and it stops any of Manchester United, Tottenham, Chelsea and Liverpool winning things, I'm comfortable with that.

But Arsenal is not f*cked.

We got 70 points compared to previous 63. And in the EL final. If we continue to improve in that trajectory under Emery we will become title contenders in the next couple of seasons. Just like it took Liverpool a while under Klopp...

As for Kroenke, he is a businessman. I think the self-sustaining model (spending entirely funded from self-generated revenues) makes the most sense for ANY club. We are trying to put in a place a system where the club doesn't have to rely on the genius of one man - we didn't quite get it right with Gazidis and Law but let's give Sannllehi, Edu (has he joined?) and the new head of recruitment a chance to put things right.

I didn't actually say Arsenal was f*cked if you read my post again. My question was whether there was anything at all that would make you think it was? Time and time again (plus a few hundred other 'times'), you have put a positive slant on practically anything bad that's happened. The floor is yours. Is there anything that would make you think that Arsenal was f*cked? Losing the Europa League final wouldn't, as I couldn't even go that far.

So how about going broke? I'm not even sure you wouldn't see the club going out of business as a chance to rebuild a brand new club called 'The Arsenal'.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506824  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 7:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:22 pm
Posts: 18133

kiwipete wrote:
Goonie wrote:

Don't know when, but they will suffer a similar fate to Chelsea when the owner loses interest.

Yes but Goonie this isn't a single owner who gets bored / tired and decides he'll move on to wind surfing , Tai Chi , stamp collecting or building a hot rod to occupy his time .

Man City is owned by a greazy bunch of shitbag sheiks who see out a day out at the Etihad as a pleasant little stop over between jetting off to some Carribean island , visiting a casino , tripping around on a yacht with fifty bikini clad play girls .

They be in it for ever .

Only way things might change if the Yanks start a war with Iran and they in turn decide to stick a few missiles into the Emirates / Saidi Arabia to really disrupt world oil production .


I agree, kiwi, the infrastructure they have put in place around Manchester suggests they are not going anywhere anytime soon.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506825  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 7:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:22 pm
Posts: 18133

Niall wrote:
Manchester City’s sky blue smashing of Watford proves football is broken

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... _clipboard


It feels like something of a watershed moment in football. If City are found guilty of inflating sponsorship deals and other ways of circumventing the FFP rules (effectively cheating) then they should be stripped of any title and trophies they have won and a marker laid down for what will happen if you cheat. Juve were stripped of a title so why not City.

That said, such is the might of City's legal teams that they could probably make anything look legit with a bit of creative accounting so it will be hard to prove and may not stand up in a court of law, even if it is obvious what is going on. Have the football authorities got the balls or even the financial means to take them on?

Sadly, allowing foreign ownership of clubs has basically made them a rich man's plaything and it is too late to try to shut the stable door now because the horse has already bolted.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506826  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 7:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:52 pm
Posts: 12982

socrates wrote:

I agree, kiwi, the infrastructure they have put in place around Manchester suggests they are not going anywhere anytime soon.

100%. They are in this for the duration.

Suprised not more people have picked up on Abramovich's loss of interest in Chelsea. When the sanctions were tightened after that Salisbury incident, he didn't have his visa renewed. Similarly, Usmanov sold his shares not long after. Definitely some kind of squeeze on the oligarchs post Salisbury.

_________________
There's a man who's been out sailing in a decade full of dreams


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506827  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 7:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:22 pm
Posts: 18133

I suspect City's reserve side would probably finish in the top 6. That shows you the gulf in quality that teams without City's financial might are up against.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506828  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 7:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:22 pm
Posts: 18133

Darren wrote:
socrates wrote:

I agree, kiwi, the infrastructure they have put in place around Manchester suggests they are not going anywhere anytime soon.

100%. They are in this for the duration.

Suprised not more people have picked up on Abramovich's loss of interest in Chelsea. When the sanctions were tightened after that Salisbury incident, he didn't have his visa renewed. Similarly, Usmanov sold his shares not long after. Definitely some kind of squeeze on the oligarchs post Salisbury.


Yep.

I also think City have taken spending to another level and Abramovich probably looked at them and thought it was just impossible to compete.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506829  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 7:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:20 am
Posts: 8824

Bernard wrote:
Goonie wrote:
But Arsenal is not f*cked.

We got 70 points compared to previous 63. And in the EL final. If we continue to improve in that trajectory under Emery we will become title contenders in the next couple of seasons. Just like it took Liverpool a while under Klopp...

As for Kroenke, he is a businessman. I think the self-sustaining model (spending entirely funded from self-generated revenues) makes the most sense for ANY club. We are trying to put in a place a system where the club doesn't have to rely on the genius of one man - we didn't quite get it right with Gazidis and Law but let's give Sannllehi, Edu (has he joined?) and the new head of recruitment a chance to put things right.

I didn't actually say Arsenal was f*cked if you read my post again. My question was whether there was anything at all that would make you think it was? Time and time again (plus a few hundred other 'times'), you have put a positive slant on practically anything bad that's happened. The floor is yours. Is there anything that would make you think that Arsenal was f*cked? Losing the Europa League final wouldn't, as I couldn't even go that far.

So how about going broke? I'm not even sure you wouldn't see the club going out of business as a chance to rebuild a brand new club called 'The Arsenal'.


If we both agree Arsenal is not f*cked, and I've listed things to be positive about, so you just want to know what I would consider would be disaster for Arsenal? Not sure why my positivity rub your the wrong way. Anyway if we ended up like Leeds, that would be pretty disastrous. And they just missed out on promotions to EPL this season.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506830  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:27 pm
Posts: 7264

Goonie wrote:
Bernard wrote:
I didn't actually say Arsenal was f*cked if you read my post again. My question was whether there was anything at all that would make you think it was? Time and time again (plus a few hundred other 'times'), you have put a positive slant on practically anything bad that's happened. The floor is yours. Is there anything that would make you think that Arsenal was f*cked? Losing the Europa League final wouldn't, as I couldn't even go that far.

So how about going broke? I'm not even sure you wouldn't see the club going out of business as a chance to rebuild a brand new club called 'The Arsenal'.

If we both agree Arsenal is not f*cked, and I've listed things to be positive about, so you just want to know what I would consider would be disaster for Arsenal? Not sure why my positivity rub your the wrong way. Anyway if we ended up like Leeds, that would be pretty disastrous. And they just missed out on promotions to EPL this season.

I just looked Leeds up. They were last in the Premier League in season 2003/4, when they were relegated. So it would take not only relegation but fifteen years of failure to get promotion to make you see Arsenal's position as 'pretty disastrous'. Okay, thanks for explaining what it would take to stop you being positive. It strikes me as a fairly extreme down turn in fortunes.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506831  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:27 pm
Posts: 7264

Goonie wrote:
I think the self-sustaining model (spending entirely funded from self-generated revenues) makes the most sense for ANY club.

Wonder if Man City fans, and Chelsea supporters considering all the succes they've enjoyed under Abramovich, share your view? I doubt it somehow.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506832  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:04 am
Posts: 5597
Location: Townsville Australia

socrates wrote:
Niall wrote:
Manchester City’s sky blue smashing of Watford proves football is broken

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... _clipboard


It feels like something of a watershed moment in football. If City are found guilty of inflating sponsorship deals and other ways of circumventing the FFP rules (effectively cheating) then they should be stripped of any title and trophies they have won and a marker laid down for what will happen if you cheat. Juve were stripped of a title so why not City.

That said, such is the might of City's legal teams that they could probably make anything look legit with a bit of creative accounting so it will be hard to prove and may not stand up in a court of law, even if it is obvious what is going on. Have the football authorities got the balls or even the financial means to take them on?

Sadly, allowing foreign ownership of clubs has basically made them a rich man's plaything and it is too late to try to shut the stable door now because the horse has already bolted.

I don't think any of these rules are really enforceable especially about inflating sponsorship. Who determines a proper value of sponsorship? IMO the only way restrictions can start making a difference is with restrictions on how many players you can own. Chelsea have players all over the place as I expect do Man City. If you make it that you can loan out up to 6 players who must have come thru your youth squad, only have 25 players in your squad of which 10 must be from GB or originally a youth player and anyone else you own or have an interest in incurs a 5 point deduction of points from your league total. If you are found to have an interest in a player that is undeclared then the following season you start with minus 30 points per player. Might make a few people focus a little better. I have not suggested a salary cap because people in every sport find ways to cheat on the cap. The exact same situation needs to be rigorously enforced against places like Real and Barca who often have large debt levels. Plus I would like to see some recognition given to clubs who actually own their own stadium and are not owned by a government or someone else.

_________________
If this policy does not deliver then I would say we have to change it.
AW 150810


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506833  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:20 am
Posts: 8824

Bernard wrote:
Goonie wrote:
I think the self-sustaining model (spending entirely funded from self-generated revenues) makes the most sense for ANY club.

Wonder if Man City fans, and Chelsea supporters considering all the succes they've enjoyed under Abramovich, share your view? I doubt it somehow.


They would argue they are "self-sustaining" with the wheeling and dealing in the transfer market (esp. Chelsea) and through self-generated revenue & sponsorships - in fact MC is arguing they are conforming to the financial fair play with those dodgy multimillion sponsorships.. everyone knows that's not true. But it is an admission that self-sustaining model is the correct one.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506834  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:52 am
Posts: 3711

Bernard wrote:
Goonie wrote:
I think the self-sustaining model (spending entirely funded from self-generated revenues) makes the most sense for ANY club.

Wonder if Man City fans, and Chelsea supporters considering all the succes they've enjoyed under Abramovich, share your view? I doubt it somehow.

I know a number of Chav$ fans who stopped going when Abramovich arrived as they felt the club lost it's identity
Mind you, I also know a few who have given up going since he stopped spending as they felt they would no longer be able to compete for major titles.

_________________
Helping find future Arsenal legends


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506835  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 10976

Number of people including itk types are linking us with Zaha who Is just the type of player we need.

Odd one as surely signing him would consume our whole budget . I wonder if this talk of a 40million budget is bluffing as a negotiating tactic.

We seem to be getting linked with tons of players

_________________
A manager is a guide. He takes a group of people and says, 'With you I can make us a success; I can show you the way.
Arsene Wenger


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506836  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 11:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:02 pm
Posts: 6586

There are rumours that between them, Arse & Chavs have only sold 6,000 tickets for Baku.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506837  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:27 pm
Posts: 7264

HoddGooner wrote:
Bernard wrote:
Wonder if Man City fans, and Chelsea supporters considering all the succes they've enjoyed under Abramovich, share your view? I doubt it somehow.

I know a number of Chav$ fans who stopped going when Abramovich arrived as they felt the club lost it's identity
Mind you, I also know a few who have given up going since he stopped spending as they felt they would no longer be able to compete for major titles.

Bet they've gained many, many more fans than they've lost since Abramovich took them over. That's what winning trophies does to your fan base.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506838  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 11:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 10976

DHD wrote:
There are rumours that between them, Arse & Chavs have only sold 6,000 tickets for Baku.

I read Saturday Arsenal have sold 2600 and Chelsea have sold 600

_________________
A manager is a guide. He takes a group of people and says, 'With you I can make us a success; I can show you the way.
Arsene Wenger


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506839  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:27 pm
Posts: 7264

DHD wrote:
There are rumours that between them, Arse & Chavs have only sold 6,000 tickets for Baku.

I went with the Thomas Cook flights as advertised on Arsenal.com. Didn't realise at the time that Thomas Cook are in such big financial.trouble. I hope that doesn't explain why I've still not heard which London airport I'll be going from and at what time.

I'll be amazed if Chelsea haven't done something similar to get their fans there and back. Anyone heard what airline they're using?


 Profile  
 
 
Post #506840  Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:02 pm
Posts: 6586

Bernard wrote:
DHD wrote:
There are rumours that between them, Arse & Chavs have only sold 6,000 tickets for Baku.

I went with the Thomas Cook flights as advertised on Arsenal.com. Didn't realise at the time that Thomas Cook are in such big financial.trouble. I hope that doesn't explain why I've still not heard which London airport I'll be going from and at what time.

I'll be amazed if Chelsea haven't done something similar to get their fans there and back. Anyone heard what airline they're using?


I read that Thomas Cook are handling both teams' travelling arrangements - presumably in separate planes.

Have you heard yet whether it's a direct flight, Bern?


 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     [ 511801 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 12668, 12669, 12670, 12671, 12672, 12673, 12674 ... 12796  Next

All times are UTC

Gooners Online - Click to see what Everyones Doing

Colour Key:  Visited Profile    Members Profile      Admin

Get Latest Post

Users browsing this forum: warrior and 10 guests


Search for:

Go to Top

Powered by php BB © 1993 - 2018