MAN CITY vs MAN UTD
- Thread starter Monarch
- Start date
Donator
- Dec 24, 2020
- 554
- 1
- 283
- 111
- Dec 24, 2020
- 554
- 1
- 283
- 111
City has probably the best team (out of the 2) OAT, only time will tell. United have a MUCH better history. I hate City as a club, I hate United as a club and all their fans. Citeh the better team overall.
Unreal take by the liVARpool fan
Any dog team can win anything when they have unlimited money and don't play by the rules, I'm sure even Liverpool (1 UCL & 1 fake covid title in their golden klopp era) would be able to bottle less if they had the same backing.
United is the better team overall and City would still be in the 3rd tier of English football without a sugar daddy. Give me 115 financial fair play breaches and I'd give you any title in the world.
Net spend years after they got their money.....................
United is the biggest club in the world by far marketing wise so have a higher net spend and still don't breach financial fair play. Even with 10000 fake businesses City still got caught. City buys players they should never have been able to and sell them on, hence a lower net spend. Big clubs should have big history & this is a dumb stat.
United follow the rules in line with what we make. If you want me to explain financial fair play to you I can..
no doubt they have cheated and broken rules, but they also have been incredibly smart with who they buy... Haaland for 60 mil, Alvarez 21mil, Foden u18....
Pep is also one of the best managers ITW.
- Dec 24, 2020
- 554
- 1
- 283
- 111
As a Manchester United fan, this is what Vietnamese fans do whenever they lose
Hate them both, but City are cheats so reluctantly id say United (Pic - A real team with real fans)
To put it simply FFP is where you cannot outspend what you make.
United is the biggest club in the world marketing wise meaning that it's got one of the highest revenues in the world, and has access to more funds. All the players we've bought under the Glazers has been money coming from the club's revenue and the Glazers never spent one penny of their own money on the club and just like to buy shirt-selling players.
Compared to City... What they do (one of the 115 things they're being charged for) is they get "sponsors" like "Mansour Enterprises", which is literally just a fake business where state money can get pumped into it, allowing them to make it look like they can buy all of their players without breaking any rules (they cannot). Newcastle are doing the same which is why they binned off their sponsors (sports direct, etc..).
Our net spend is higher due to terrorists like the Glazers and Ed Woodward whilst City's entire infrastructure that has allowed for a decent net spend & high investments is based on state-owned money and not money the club made from being a football club.
This was always the case because how could a team that loses 8-1 to Middlesbrough & battle with relegation the next season be able to actually buy Robinho. It's only being charged now as there's been a 10+ year investigation on it.
It's easier to run a football club as a football club when you're running it for political leverage (state-owned) vs. for profits (Glazers).