Quantcast
Man City - the new bitters? - Page 123 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Naz17

Man City - the new bitters?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, dockers_strike said:

Totally disagree mate, it's not a technicality. It's cheating. Just have to disagree!

No worries man! Glad we can disagree like men! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ill be back to neg you soon you flying cunt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rotoq said:

I'd take it on a technicality just to get the numbers ticking back up. Then we could prepare for getting 3 in a row.

Let them keep it. Forever tainted now and we can give them the big finger for years every time their titles are mentioned. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Trumo said:

Will that tinfoil-hatted blert Gaz ring up 606 again tomorrow?

His Twitter account is curiously silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Alex_K said:

Points should be deducted for last season, not this. We should be awarded the title retrospectively.

Or they should start next season with a minus 20 point deduction.

 

Or just do a Juventus and relegate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Leyton388 said:

The tin foul hat brigade are in town.

 

  1. Proof, if needed, that they're out for us

I'm sure uefa are out for them, because they're know city are fucking chests and it's uefas job to stop the cheating and pretext the integrity of their competition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sir roger said:

That's a good article. Unlike the one from martin samuel who continues his rant that city's owners should be able to spend what they want on the club because, it 'encourages' other potential club owners to pump money into smaller clubs and achieve the success city have.

 

But Samuel ignores the fact only city have got lucky. I dont see a plethora of smaller clubs waited to be bought by mega rich owners and pump obscene amounts of money into them. neither does it recognise like abramovic did it with chelsea and mansour with city, it just results in hyper inflation of the game's finances. Transfer fees go up and wages go up. Many more clubs struggle to compete.

 

Tits like samuel then wonder why clubs like bury go out of business and there are no reputable business men stepping forward to try and save them. What's the point if the next club is owned by a country, entity or mega rich owner who could just blow you away at every turn?

 

You'd think tits like samuel would want a level playing field where every club could compete. Blackpool got in the PL on a shoestring a few years back. Huddersfield did the same. Sure, they'd have needed more money to compete at the top of the PL but that should come via evolution not instant lottery win.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

What difference will a points deduction for this season mean? Absolutely fucking none. Deduct them pants starting next season if you want to punish them for fuck sake. 

 

I actually hope they don't get a points deduction. This season or next. 


Depends how many points they are deducted obviously, Juve were deducted just enough points for them to be relegated.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

That's a good article. Unlike the one from martin samuel who continues his rant that city's owners should be able to spend what they want on the club because, it 'encourages' other potential club owners to pump money into smaller clubs and achieve the success city have.

 

But Samuel ignores the fact only city have got lucky. I dont see a plethora of smaller clubs waited to be bought by mega rich owners and pump obscene amounts of money into them. neither does it recognise like abramovic did it with chelsea and mansour with city, it just results in hyper inflation of the game's finances. Transfer fees go up and wages go up. Many more clubs struggle to compete.

 

Tits like samuel then wonder why clubs like bury go out of business and there are no reputable business men stepping forward to try and save them. What's the point if the next club is owned by a country, entity or mega rich owner who could just blow you away at every turn?

 

You'd think tits like samuel would want a level playing field where every club could compete. Blackpool got in the PL on a shoestring a few years back. Huddersfield did the same. Sure, they'd have needed more money to compete at the top of the PL but that should come via evolution not instant lottery win.

Typical Daily Mail shit from Samuel; casting the mega rich as plucky insurgents battling the elite.

 

I rather like FC Rubin Kazan's response to the article:

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

That's a good article. Unlike the one from martin samuel who continues his rant that city's owners should be able to spend what they want on the club because, it 'encourages' other potential club owners to pump money into smaller clubs and achieve the success city have.

 

But Samuel ignores the fact only city have got lucky. I dont see a plethora of smaller clubs waited to be bought by mega rich owners and pump obscene amounts of money into them. neither does it recognise like abramovic did it with chelsea and mansour with city, it just results in hyper inflation of the game's finances. Transfer fees go up and wages go up. Many more clubs struggle to compete.

 

Tits like samuel then wonder why clubs like bury go out of business and there are no reputable business men stepping forward to try and save them. What's the point if the next club is owned by a country, entity or mega rich owner who could just blow you away at every turn?

 

You'd think tits like samuel would want a level playing field where every club could compete. Blackpool got in the PL on a shoestring a few years back. Huddersfield did the same. Sure, they'd have needed more money to compete at the top of the PL but that should come via evolution not instant lottery win.

I remember him making the same points when Abramovic started pumping money into Chelsea- his rationale was that this was what it took to get a club into the elite. As you say though, it has had so many knock on effects that it's highly detrimental to the game. He, and football in general, would be far better off demanding that money is more equitably shared, one aspect of which is by taking a heavy line on FFP. Allowing mega-rich oligarchs or states to buy their way to success might disrupt the established order, but ultimately, it's just going to massively distort the top of the game and destroy anything below it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, manwiththestick said:

The delusions of grandeur over on Blue Moon are something else.

 

They genuinely think they are some football powerhouse. 

 

Never been on there and just read what posters were pasting on here. Just had a quick gander and my oh my. They also have a thread about us which is over 12.000 posts long! Christ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheDrowningMan said:

Typical Daily Mail shit from Samuel; casting the mega rich as plucky insurgents battling the elite.

 

I rather like FC Rubin Kazan's response to the article:

 

 

 

 

The funny thing is a lot of City fans will build their hopes up of things being overturned just because some fat cunt prints a load of bollocks in a shit rag that nobody outside of the Uk gives a fuck about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×