Duchene2MacKinnon
In the hands of Genius
- Aug 8, 2006
- 45,300
- 9,465
Transfer: Summer Transfer news and rumors discussion part 11: Sky Sports Deadline Day show needs Roy Kent
- Thread starter Jussi
- Start date
- Jan 18, 2016
- 34,150
- 25,311
I mean their entire fan base is mostly 20 year olds in America who just got into soccer.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,881
- 14,845
And to think, it hasn't even been two decades since we were saying the same thing about Chelsea...
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
So prime HF-poster age?
We have a City fan on the Flyers board, and he's actually from Manchester. Never seen him post here though.
Pavel Buchnevich
Drury and Laviolette Must Go
City has been a top team for about 10 years. They also are bankrolled by a nation state.
It’s not surprising that they have a lot less fans than all the other top teams.
It’s not surprising that they have a lot less fans than all the other top teams.
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
I would have no problem posting as a City fan. They win shit. Most of the people here can't say that consistently.
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
They may win some meaningless trophies on their island backwater, but they lost the much more important battle for their soul...just like the rest of you sellouts. That's why you people only sing when you're winning.
- Jan 18, 2016
- 34,150
- 25,311
You should be a City fan then - you never have to listen to 60k singing.
JeffreyLFC
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 10,204
- 7,311
One of my friend is a city fan from a longtime ago (prior to Sheik Mansour ownership) just like PSG fans now with Nasser Al Khalaifi he has become a bit hypocrite.
I don't blame them as a sport fan of a team you would gladly want an owner to invest ridiculous sum of money for instant results and winning titles. Especially when you are a lower level club.
My point is that now my friend truly believe Man City could sustain the same level of competitiveness without the Sheik pouring in his personal money. I understand they have grown the brand and their sponsorship deal but no way they can keep that high of a payroll and pay premium transfer fee without that ownership.
As for PSG prior to Qatar coming in they were the largest club in the league along with Marseille but PSG level of spending the past few years is impossible unless you have a rich ownership. I feel without Qatar as owner they spending power would be more similar to Liverpool/Atletico maybe even a notch lower and not Barcelona/Real Madrid. So now PSG fans have become a bit entitled. 10 years ago even the most hardcore PSG fan would have laughed at the idea or having arguably the best team in Europe and 3 of the top 5 players in the world (not developed at their academy). All this recent glory is direct results of the Qatari investment into the club.
Last edited:
They weren't at the Atleti level before this ownership, so I don't know why that would be the floor without them.
It takes a special level of detachment to watch the money roll in at that level and convince yourself it's irrelevant to the results.
It takes a special level of detachment to watch the money roll in at that level and convince yourself it's irrelevant to the results.
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
I don't think that's what his buddy is saying. If I understand him correctly, he's saying that the club could now sustain itself at an elite level if the money stopped pouring in...which is still a dubious claim, but we've seen Chelsea become "sustainable" in a similar way, so it's not completely outlandish.
KJS14
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2013
- 3,105
- 980
Both Chelsea and City were bright enough to invest into the club's infrastructure and academy, so I think its fair to say they'd be able to sustain themselves within the top 6 clubs fairly easily. Now would they be able to sustain themselves at an elite level (competing for CL every year)? I'm doubtful they'd be able to do that as well.
Got it, makes sense. Yeah, definitely still dubious. Chelsea made organizational changes/priority shifts that haven't been made in those other clubs. Also just a weird thing to hang your hat on. I'm sure almost any club in the world could up their brand and club stature with a no-interest, and in fact no strings attached, multi-billion pound grant.
And if I'm not wrong, Abramovich still covered those big transfers that covered Covid losses last summer anyway. Not like he's a non-factor even now.
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
FWIW Citeh has invested a ton in their academy & scouting network, and now-a-days a lot of talented english kids pass through that youth system. So they have been building up the infrastructure to become more self-funding, even if they haven't yet turned it into a money-printing system like Chelsea has.
Your edit is why I put sustainable in quotes; though that was a once-in-a-lifetime situation they were reacting to...having the opportunity to snag Kai before Flick convinced the Bayern board to get him...
KJS14
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2013
- 3,105
- 980
Just like you said, any club that had half a brain to invest their money into the club's infrastructure (as well as the transfer spending) could have done the same thing. But now FFP acts as the gatekeeper for any future clubs from getting a billionaire and making that jump in a short time period. For as much as the old money clubs tried to hold off the new money clubs, the new money clubs are making just as much of an effort to keep out any newer money clubs.
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
This feels weird to say, but to be fair to FFP, it doesn't technically prevent a billionaire from pumping tons into the academy & club-infrastructure; so that part of the Chelsea/City/Leipzig experience isn't automatically dead.
Though the limitations it does impose, limit the short term appeal for a billionaire to take over a club when looking for a new toy, which will likely prevent any of them from having much incentive to pour money into a clubs' youth system unless it's a Hoffenheim situation...where some rich person just wants to build up their local club because it's their hometown.
So if someday I were to become wealthier than I knew what to do with, I would still be able to transform Union's academy into the best in europe & keep Kruse around after he retires, to serve as a cultural ambassador who teaches our kids how to really live
Last edited:
East Coast Bias
Registered User
City has done plenty of things well to run the club well beyond money. Structural, managerial, etc. Money helps but you can't just blindly throw it around.
But I think the issue when you talk about removing the "sugar daddy" is not just about the excess spending. They artificially inflated revenues. So while we joke around about them not being popular or the same level as United/Liverpool/Arsenal/Chelsea in mostly a banter way, it would truly have financial impact if these bullshit bids stopped appearing.
But I think the issue when you talk about removing the "sugar daddy" is not just about the excess spending. They artificially inflated revenues. So while we joke around about them not being popular or the same level as United/Liverpool/Arsenal/Chelsea in mostly a banter way, it would truly have financial impact if these bullshit bids stopped appearing.
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
Though that's a large part of my doubts about their "sustainability" without their owner's money, wasn't the same thing true of Chelsea 10-15 years ago? Or am I misremembering?
