Newcastle United v Manchester City

[luckyluke 2]

I think it's good to see another team winning the title and deposing Man Utd, who in recent times have had a financial advantage over everyone esle- until Chelsea came along with a bigger financial advantage - even if it is by a team that has achieved this with a bigger financial advantage, and I don't begrudge City fans the enjoyment of doing so.

 

I do feel a bit like ewerk/Stevie, that it is a bit hollow, that it could have happened to anyone, but that's what football is sadly. It's just a question of how much money clubs are willing to throw at the team. City have obviously thrown a lot more money at the team (comparisons to us trying to 'buy' the league in the 90s are a bit ridiculous imo) although it has taken them time to reach the top (it looks like) and only just at that, and their CL performances this season show that it might take a while for them to succeed there. But there is a grim inevitablity about it all. But like I said, that's just how football is now.

[manc-mag 1]

I think it's good to see another team winning the title and deposing Man Utd, who in recent times have had a financial advantage over everyone esle- until Chelsea came along with a bigger financial advantage - even if it is by a team that has achieved this with a bigger financial advantage, and I don't begrudge City fans the enjoyment of doing so.

 

I do feel a bit like ewerk/Stevie, that it is a bit hollow, that it could have happened to anyone, but that's what football is sadly. It's just a question of how much money clubs are willing to throw at the team. City have obviously thrown a lot more money at the team (comparisons to us trying to 'buy' the league in the 90s are a bit ridiculous imo) although it has taken them time to reach the top (it looks like) and only just at that, and their CL performances this season show that it might take a while for them to succeed there. But there is a grim inevitablity about it all. But like I said, that's just how football is now.

 

I make the comparison based on the popular refrain of the time, which was: "You're buying all the best players". Which was true, we were accumulating lots of big players in a very short space of time. It was mint but you can't get away from that very basic truth. It just costs inordinately more now.

 

Down the tracks we also became a significant, loss making outfit as this model continued without "success"

 

It's daft for anyone to get on their high horses, it's just what the game has become. City are entitled to enjoy it and we'd be absolutely no different if it was us.

[McFaul 35]

I make the comparison based on the popular refrain of the time, which was: "You're buying all the best players". Which was true, we were accumulating lots of big players in a very short space of time. It was mint but you can't get away from that very basic truth. It just costs inordinately more now.

 

Down the tracks we also became a significant, loss making outfit as this model continued without "success"

 

It's daft for anyone to get on their high horses, it's just what the game has become. City are entitled to enjoy it and we'd be absolutely no different if it was us.

I make the comparison based on the popular refrain of the time, which was: "You're buying all the best players". Which was true, we were accumulating lots of big players in a very short space of time. It was mint but you can't get away from that very basic truth. It just costs inordinately more now.

 

Down the tracks we also became a significant, loss making outfit as this model continued without "success"

 

It's daft for anyone to get on their high horses, it's just what the game has become. City are entitled to enjoy it and we'd be absolutely no different if it was us.

I just feel it was far more noble, far fairer that the players we were attracting were indicitive of the size of Newcastle United Football Club, based on the income we were generating from our vast fanbase at the time. Only Manchester United were richer, we had no Jack Walker, all of the Shearer money was paid for by our turnover. You look at the likes of Abramovic and the Arabs, when their association with Chelsea and Man City ends they will have losses approaching £1 billion for the excitement of creating a professional football club at the top of the tree. The overly praised Sir John Hall made SEVENTY million pound profit on Newcastle by speculating to accumulate.

 

Man City and Chelsea are not where they are because they are or have been big clubs, they're there by artificial means, they're there because someone made a decision to make them a big club. We were there because by completely fair means, we developed in to a big club by maximising our potential on and off the pitch. It's my view that Man City and Chelsea could never be what we were, which was for a time on the pitch, and quite a long time off the pitch, the second biggest club in English football in the 90's. That's why I'm bitter, and people new to football, your talksport generation, "Newcarsewww aint a big claaab", we were a big club one of the biggest off our own means, our only piers were Manchester United Arsenal (who are the only two SBR saw as being above us) and probably Liverpool. We were so far away from Tottenham it was laughable, and Man City and Chelsea well if I'm going on it is because I'm bitter, and I don't care how deluded I appear, it's not right for clubs to have such an unfair advantage by artificial means. If we were all on an even level playing field we'd be a regular top four club again, something the likes of Everton, Man City and Aston Villa couldn't have even dreamt of.

 

I know it's swept under the carpet a lot but I always remembered that it was rumoured we were first choice for the Mansour's, we were and Ashley didn't want to know. I'm not name dropping, but I know a lad from school, who a lot of you will know off the telly, Richard Conway, cracking lad he does the F1 and chips in on BBC News, and the odd FF interview too he's quite a player. He always was a good kid. The last time I had a pint with him, he was adamant that, it's a 100% fact that Mansour did everything he could to buy Newcastle United, but in the end had to go with his second choice Manchester City due to the obstacles that were put in his way.

 

If I sound bitter, I am. We'll always be a much bigger club than Man City in my eyes, a football club who before they moved to the COMs had averaged over 40,000 twice in its' history. Paul Calf remains my image of Manchester City.

 

[manc-mag 1]

I'm not saying we're not a bigger club than City. We are in my view and I think we're considered bigger by most of football too. The identity of NUFC is in a different stratosphere to MCFC at the very least, but I just don't think it's worth getting het up about these days.

 

John Hall made loads of money out of NUFC as you rightly say, but that equation is all about acquiring the club at the right price, and that's true irrespective of the club in question. Thus if he'd bought it for £300,000,000 instead of £1,000,000 he'd have probably made massive losses and wouldnt have been very happy. He didn't though, he got it for buttons and turned us big shortly after. All credit to him for that. The clock doesn't stop there though and begin again, ie the next owner bought subject to massive debts, thus it doesnt matter what Hall had pocketed personally, the club itself was still a loss maker. Thus it was buying players it couldn't ultimately afford. At different points and at different times it arguably could have 'afforded' them but not overall, given it's ultimate trajectory or lack of success.

 

If it was the case it was us who'd tried to compete with Chelsea with the Mansour's at the helm, we'd have also had to be bankrolled in a way that bore absolutely no relationship to our natural resources, so it's a pyrrhic victory flagging that up to the blues as though it's going to take the gloss off for them. It's just where football is now.

[McFaul 35]

I'm not saying we're not a bigger club than City. We are in my view and I think we're considered bigger by most of football too. The identity of NUFC is in a different stratosphere to MCFC at the very least, but I just don't think it's worth getting het up about these days.

 

John Hall made loads of money out of NUFC as you rightly say, but that equation is all about acquiring the club at the right price, and that's true irrespective of the club in question. Thus if he'd bought it for £300,000,000 instead of £1,000,000 he'd have probably made massive losses and wouldnt have been very happy. He didn't though, he got it for buttons and turned us big shortly after. All credit to him for that. The clock doesn't stop there though and begin again, ie the next owner bought subject to massive debts, thus it doesnt matter what Hall had pocketed personally, the club itself was still a loss maker. Thus it was buying players it couldn't ultimately afford. At different points and at different times it arguably could have 'afforded' them but not overall, given it's ultimate trajectory or lack of success.

 

If it was the case it was us who'd tried to compete with Chelsea with the Mansour's at the helm, we'd have also had to be bankrolled in a way that bore absolutely no relationship to our natural resources, so it's a pyrrhic victory flagging that up to the blues as though it's going to take the gloss off for them. It's just where football is now.

I'm not saying we're not a bigger club than City. We are in my view and I think we're considered bigger by most of football too. The identity of NUFC is in a different stratosphere to MCFC at the very least, but I just don't think it's worth getting het up about these days.

 

John Hall made loads of money out of NUFC as you rightly say, but that equation is all about acquiring the club at the right price, and that's true irrespective of the club in question. Thus if he'd bought it for £300,000,000 instead of £1,000,000 he'd have probably made massive losses and wouldnt have been very happy. He didn't though, he got it for buttons and turned us big shortly after. All credit to him for that. The clock doesn't stop there though and begin again, ie the next owner bought subject to massive debts, thus it doesnt matter what Hall had pocketed personally, the club itself was still a loss maker. Thus it was buying players it couldn't ultimately afford. At different points and at different times it arguably could have 'afforded' them but not overall, given it's ultimate trajectory or lack of success.

 

If it was the case it was us who'd tried to compete with Chelsea with the Mansour's at the helm, we'd have also had to be bankrolled in a way that bore absolutely no relationship to our natural resources, so it's a pyrrhic victory flagging that up to the blues as though it's going to take the gloss off for them. It's just where football is now.

I agree to compete with Chelsea we'd have needed a Mansour. People of our generation grew up believing Liverpool FC were the biggest in the world. We did. They were the benchmark, but in my view even they can't compete. The only thing I'd raise in your post is the fact we were ran in debt, we weren't up to 2004, we broke even or made profits largely speaking up to 2004, then the shit really hit the fan. Anyone reading doesn't need to debate that, because that whole subject may have been discussed once or twice on here iirc

[ewerk 30594]

The only thing I'd raise in your post is the fact we were ran in debt, we weren't up to 2004, we broke even or made profits largely speaking up to 2004

 

That simply isn't true. We broke even a few times but largely we were being run at a loss.

[manc-mag 1]

I'm not looking to turn it into a rehearsal of every thread for the last God knows how many years btw, just saying that what owner X personally made at any given point isn't a measure of whether the club was actually profitable/running according to it's natural resources or not. It's a red herring when used in that context for me.

 

I reckon you're right about Liverpool btw Stevie. In terms of the League. Their fans are on about needing a bigger stadium again now (from 45,000 to 60,000) and while obviously having that extra revenue is desirable it still smacks of them clutching at straws because they already spend above themselves without 'success', so it's not rooted to their gate receipts anyway. Also, whether they'd fill 60,000 regularly is questionable from the get go iyam.

[Renton 21603]

Got to say I completely agree with Stevie on this one. It rankles with me not only has one of the most, no, the most, horrible club in England have been bankrolled like this, but the knock on effect it has had on the rest of the league. Bitter? Maybe. They're still a bunch of cunts though. ManU built a house. We tried to. City bought one. The difference is obvious.