bazooka1:

The revenue they generate can get those players. Sugar daddies never backrolled those transfers. And the time these players where transferred, the transfer system never went haywire not until the Arabs bought Psg and Manchester city

Eruditor:


This makes no sense. Every big club you know today first got bankrolled and then used their success to perpetuate themselves as big clubs. City did just that. This rose-colored analysis you are spewing is just anti-pep. Nothing more.

How someone will justify Klopp's spending and in another breath pan Pep's is legendary.

bazooka1:

I wish city spent what they earned on these players instead of depending on a sugar daddy.

Eruditor:


Another huge lie. Zidane's transfer to RM was already inflated. Pogba's to United the same. This narrative about City ruining the market is such a daft lie. City have even shown themselves to be a club who will resist wanton inflation. They missed out on Jorginho for the same reason.

bazooka1:


What are you talking about? I take it you don't know Liverpool are running an almost self sustaining buisness model.
Selling Coutinho for £130m went along way to balance their books. Add that to the champions league money they got last season. They made close to £60m from Uefa last year. Factor in the lottery they won with Solanke who cost them zero ££ and went for 18m.
Its a far cry from Man city who get monies pumped into the team with reckless abandon.

TheGoodJoe:


I wish the big clubs were decent enough to limit their spending and not try to stay on top with unlimited spending, then cry foul when another club sources for fund to battle them.

bazooka1:


Infalted. Do you know the definition of inflation? Zidane was the world best player and a world cup winner. His transfer to Madrid broke the world record but the market wasn't inflated.
Ask yourself how long it took before his transfer record was broken before you talk about inflation.
Talking about Jorginho, are you saying his decision to move to Chelsea had nothing to do with Sarri's influence? When Chelsea matched city's offer, there was no guesses where he's was going.

bazooka1:

Funny enough these clubs are running within the ambit of the financial fair play rules while some other clubs pulled a fast one by getting their sponsorship inflated by Abu Dabi.

bazooka1:


What are you talking about? I take it you don't know Liverpool are running an almost self sustaining buisness model.
Selling Coutinho for £130m went along way to balance their books. Add that to the champions league money they got last season. They made close to £60m from Uefa last year. Factor in the lottery they won with Solanke who cost them zero ££ and went for 18m.
Its a far cry from Man city who get monies pumped into the team with reckless abandon.

bazooka1:

Funny enough these clubs are running within the ambit of the financial fair play rules while some other clubs pulled a fast one by getting their sponsorship inflated by Abu Dabi.

TheGoodJoe:


And then spend humongous again. The cycle continues. Then Sell Van Dijk later probably to Real Madrid and the cycle continues. How will the small clubs ever get to compete with them when they already have a wide edge.

Remember when Liverpool were spending fortunes on Clyne, Lalana, Lovren, Charlie Adams and Co. When they were spending on Torres, Maxi Rodriguez and co.

They have the edge to keep making money because they were bank rolled earlier and they keep positioning themselves as lucrative clubs.

Abramovic came and broke the big club myth by spending and walking over the so called big club.

The so called big clubs got money earlier and started a cycle. Nothing different from what City is doing.

bazooka1:


Infalted. Do you know the definition of inflation? Zidane was the world best player and a world cup winner. His transfer to Madrid broke the world record but the market wasn't inflated.
Ask yourself how long it took before his transfer record was broken before you talk about inflation.
Talking about Jorginho, are you saying his decision to move to Chelsea had nothing to do with Sarri's influence? When Chelsea matched city's offer, there was no guesses where he's was going.

TheGoodJoe:


Zidane was inflated it was a big jump in prices of top players. I think Ronaldo De Lima who had bigger clout went for £31m then Zidane jumped to £60m which was huge inflation.

bazooka1:

You're scraping the barrel by mentioning these players, some of whom were bought for £10m.
I never said clubs shouldn't buy. No club in the world can be sustainable without buying not even Mfm.
What I'm against is cheating the system to get ahead of competition. It's an unfair practice and Man City should be reprimanded. Altho, they have cleaned out their records with the Abu Dabi dollar rain.

Eruditor:


You obviously do not know who you are responding to. Self-sustaining business model my foot. Do you think Barcelona have paid even up to one-half of Phillipe's deal? You guys should stop it with this sophistry. Add up Keita, Fabinho, Allison, VVD that is already 100M more than UCL and Countinho money. Never mind that they almost signed that winger from Lyon and backed out only when he failed a medical.

Liverpool by virtue of Klopp's UCL run decided to reinvest money in strengthening the team. That is what happened. Nothing like balancing books. In fact, City have made more revenue than Liverpool in the last 5 years consistently and are even more valued than United today.

TheGoodJoe:


If only Bournemouth could have those multiple 10 million to spend.

Manchester United and the other clubs were bank rolled to get ahead over other clubs including Manchester City but you do not call that cheating. It is cheating when another does the same to fight them.

Fantastic breakdown of bias.

bazooka1:


You're comparing Bournemouth's merchandise and the brand Liverpool? That's a miss match bro.
Think of another illustration.

bazooka1:


You think Barcelona haven't paid up for Coutinho and on the other hand believe Liverpool have paid up in cash for VVD, keita, fabinho... You can see the bias in your statement.
If you know how transfer system works, then you should know monies are paid in installments. For instance Cardiff will in 3 installments for the dead Argentine player. That's how it works alright?

TheGoodJoe:


The merchandise and brand is because they were bank rolled earlier. That is what the likes of Chelsea and City have shown. The Manchester United, Liverpool, your Real Madrid and others were bank rolled earlier. With money, sound investment and time, even Bournemouth can challenge for titles.

bazooka1:

But that's the point I'm making. Man city have spent their way to success. Your comment is in agreement with my point.

Eruditor:


I know the argument goes both ways which is why I went on to mention the over 100M disparity. That is not balancing any books my friend. That is not even promissory spending. That shows that Liverpool reinvested in the squad. Something even Sarri did in signing Kepa whose value was heavily inflated just like Allison's. But you are crying kpaho for City who paid just 35M for Ederson and talmbout inflation. Miss me with the claptrap.

bazooka1:

Have you factored in the Champions league money and the extra gate takinhs from the ant field expansion in your 100 million disparity quote?
Don't just bandy words around without a deep thought.

Eruditor:


He is saying every big club did that. Every one of them. Luck might deflect results here and there but that is what ALL of them did.

Eruditor:


LOL do you think City did not make champions league money as well or did not sell far more merchandise than all the other english franchises last year? Where was your own deep thought in that regard?

BascoVanVeli:



You can blow all the grammar but it doesn't change the fact that you know I am right.

bazooka1:

City were bundled out of the champions league at the quarter finals. I would imagine their earnings won't be the same with the finalists.
I didn't know the Etihad was also expanded like Antfield. My apologies

bazooka1:


Every big club scammed the system to win trophies?
For real?

Eruditor:


The much-vaunted champions league money is propaganda. It is about 20M difference between QF and final. First division team's playing qualifiers into the EPL get more money - fact. Then Etihad being expanded or not is straw man argument. The Centurion team playing the best football in the country attracted the most coverage and sold the most merchandise never mind game tickets.

You are talking earnings and you are bringing Liverpool. LOL.

Eruditor:


The much-vaunted champions league money is propaganda. It is about 20M difference between QF and final. First division team's playing qualifiers into the EPL get more money - fact. Then Etihad being expanded or not is straw man argument. The Centurion team playing the best football in the country attracted the most coverage and sold the most merchandise never mind game tickets.

You are talking earnings and you are bringing Liverpool. LOL.

bazooka1:


You're shooting all over the place. I thought you were talking about the so called 100m deficit. Suddenly the deficit goes up in flames when you add the champions league money and extra takings from the stadium expansion.
Try and anchor your argument on a point. You're currently all over the place.