MAN CITY vs MAN UTD

[Coolioo]

Yeye let me just stop you there. Don't know why you felt the need to explain financial fair play rules when all I'm asking is where you got marketing from the net spend because most sources most likely including the image above tend to list net spend as transfer in/out not the clubs total expenditure.

Sorry I'll try to dumb it down.

Using net spend as a way to measure transfer success/how much a club is spending when one of the clubs is able to buy/sell such players with an infrastructure built by a state that wishes to achieve political strides so can invest in such resources rather than Americans greedy for profits isn't viable. Especially when the net spend stats are from post-Pep which is years after the abuse of the system. Dirty beginnings has put you in a spot where you can apparently claim the falsified high ground of net spend ignoring the roots of the finance.

This is years after you already had the highest net spend in the league, as a tiny club, which people tend to forget because apparently football only started a few years ago. The reason investment isn't as large as it once was is because the initial breach of FFP has put City in position to use revenue, which should never have been possible.

A team that had won 50%+ of the titles since the PL creation vs a team that wasn't even in the prem for years...

 

[Coolioo]

That's not what you said though, you said marketing was a factor in the net spend - that's all I want to know...

High marketing revenue = ability for a higher net spend due to financial fair play, which City cannot do.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt thinking you'd know that... there is a heavy link between the two....

There is no net spend trophy to win and bigger clubs with big revenue should profit from that, but state-owned clubs ruined that with fraudulent sponsors.

 

["The Latvian"]

They're both shit, end of story.

 

[Remmy]

Holy fucking fuck shut the fuck up you blithering fruity ass gammon-slab pestilent mongs...

This thread is far better (no city OR united fans)

 

[Coolioo]

United is the biggest club in the world by far marketing wise so have a higher net spend

Oh so you misspoke? Could have just said that man, didn't need the paragraphs

Nah I just said it and you didn't understand. I do empathise with City fans that see recycled graphs they don't understand to convince themselves they haven't bought history.

 

[Deleted member 55]

Sorry I'll try to dumb it down.

Using net spend as a way to measure transfer success/how much a club is spending when one of the clubs is able to buy/sell such players with an infrastructure built by a state that wishes to achieve political strides so can invest in such resources rather than Americans greedy for profits isn't viable. Especially when the net spend stats are from post-Pep which is years after the abuse of the system. Dirty beginnings has put you in a spot where you can apparently claim the falsified high ground of net spend ignoring the roots of the finance.

This is years after you already had the highest net spend in the league, as a tiny club, which people tend to forget because apparently football only started a few years ago. The reason investment isn't as large as it once was is because the initial breach of FFP has put City in position to use revenue, which should never have been possible.

A team that had won 50%+ of the titles since the PL creation vs a team that wasn't even in the prem for years...

bro stop being a virgin like what...??

 

[Coolioo]

It's okay man, you made a mistake and I forgive you - appreciate you taking the time to clarify some of the most recycled utd talking points in the last 2 years (although I think they'll go quiet after jassim)

Thank you. All points are valid and....

Spoiler

---

bro stop being a virgin like what...??

Basketball Lebron James Michael Jordan Kobe

 

[Deleted member 55]