• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Danny Rose

I dont believe this comes down to money on its own. He's in his prime and wants to win things - you can believe that he'd stay at Spurs where he clearly likes Poch and accept a lower salary if he thinks we'll be challenging for trophies. But if we're not going invest, then doubling your salary and moving to somewhere which will invest in the squad is clearly attractive. We just need to demonstrate some ambition and he'll settle down - get Barkley tied up, bring in a RB and 1 or 2 others and all will be fine again
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
if I follow you correctly, you're basically saying that as long as you win trophies it doesn't matter how you do it? That is the objective measure you are talking of?
Click to expand...

Yes. Objectively, that is what football is about, and always has been about. Winning trophies.

Subjectively, different matter entirely.

Grays_1890 said:
Taking out his 1.2bn investment and the dodgy but above board investments in sponsorship and boxes - hahahaa I am sorry but you are proving that their model is not sustainable to me.
Click to expand...

Again, what do you mean? It *is* sustainable - 100% so. He isn't putting money in any more, they are running on their own income - it's 100% sustainable. He spent a billion to get here, but now they are the same type of club we are - in fact, slightly better than us in an infrastructural and fiscal sense, and much better than us in terms of their trophy cabinet. You take Mansour out tomorrow, and they will be run exactly like they're being run now - his input isn't needed any more.

Their model got them to where we are now in about half the time and with many more trophies. Objectively, it's a better one than ours is.
 
AdamB said:
I dont believe this comes down to money on its own. He's in his prime and wants to win things - you can believe that he'd stay at Spurs where he clearly likes Poch and accept a lower salary if he thinks we'll be challenging for trophies. But if we're not going invest, then doubling your salary and moving to somewhere which will invest in the squad is clearly attractive. We just need to demonstrate some ambition and he'll settle down - get Barkley tied up, bring in a RB and 1 or 2 others and all will be fine again
Click to expand...
While I would have loved us to have signed some shiny, well-known players, not signing them does not show a lack of ambition. If there were a tangible lack of ambition the Hugo and Kane and a few others would have been out of the door. I have no clue what Rose and his 'advisors' are thinking - especially with this 'strategy' - but I'd be shocked if it didn't come down to money pure and simple. He's been injured for months and might have doubts about his ability to FULLY recover and kick on and if it was me I'd rather double my salary with those doubts in mind.

The bigger picture is that if Poch wants to get rid of him then so be it. In Poch I trust.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Again, what do you mean? It *is* sustainable - 100% so. He isn't putting money in any more, they are running on their own income - it's 100% sustainable. He spent a billion to get here, but now they are the same type of club we are - in fact, slightly better than us in an infrastructural and fiscal sense, and much better than us in terms of their trophy cabinet. You take Mansour out tomorrow, and they will be run exactly like they're being run now - his input isn't needed any more.

Their model got them to where we are now in about half the time and with many more trophies. Objectively, it's a better one than ours is.
Click to expand...

You overlook the getting there part like it was not part of the model, it was 100% because he is not going to get that back so that is 100% still relevant. And the fact they are where they are with a 1.2bn investment, without which they would not be

And he is also Chairman/Owner of Etihad who are ploughing 80m a year in and his family and family run companies from the UAE are the ones purchasing executive boxes at inflated prices.

SO you would have to replace him and the sponsorship deal that comes with him and also hope the initial investment was not in the form of a loan.

Ohh and they don't own their ground
 
Last edited:
DubaiSpur said:
Yes. Objectively, that is what football is about, and always has been about. Winning trophies.

Subjectively, different matter entirely.



Again, what do you mean? It *is* sustainable - 100% so. He isn't putting money in any more, they are running on their own income - it's 100% sustainable. He spent a billion to get here, but now they are the same type of club we are - in fact, slightly better than us in an infrastructural and fiscal sense, and much better than us in terms of their trophy cabinet. You take Mansour out tomorrow, and they will be run exactly like they're being run now - his input isn't needed any more.

Their model got them to where we are now in about half the time and with many more trophies. Objectively, it's a better one than ours is.
Click to expand...

Every trophy City and chelsea have won since their lottery win has an * next to it. I have zero respect for it.

He is still putting money in via the dodgy sponsorships and ticketing, it's just dressed up under a different banner, everyone knows it which is why they are on the FFP watch list.
 
Grays_1890 said:
You overlook the getting there part like it was not part of the model, it was 100% because he is not going to get that back so that is 100% still relevant.

And he is also Chairman/Owner of Etihad who are ploughing 80m a year in and his family and family run companies from the UAE are the ones purchasing executive boxes at inflated prices.

SO you would have to replace him and the sponsorship deal that comes with him and also hope the initial investment was not in the form of a loan.

Ohh and they don't own their ground
Click to expand...

I don't overlook it - I acknowledge that it needed a billion to get off the ground. But your point was that removing Levy and Lewis would make no difference to how we're run - the same can be said of Mansour at City now. The billion it took to get there is a fact, as is the fact that said billion won them two Prem titles and a smattering of cups in eight years, versus our paltry investments winning us one League Cup in sixteen years.

As for the Mansour/Etihad connection, it's more complicated than that. What was once well above market value is now no longer that far-fetched - and Etihad is run by some very smart people unconnected with Mansour who share that view. The City deal is a sponsorship that covers the shirt, the stadium and the training ground and is worth about 80m a year (iirc) - a comparable amount to what Chelsea or United would get if they packaged their sponsorship deals like City have done. United actually might get a lot more if they offered a shirt + training ground + Old Trafford sponsorship deal - judging by the size of the Chevrolet sponsorship alone.

There is no evidence to suggest now that Etihad are paying above market value. And the same goes for executive boxes.

In short, you take Mansour out now, and it's unlikely there would be a radical change anywhere at the club, I think. As for their ground, it's a formality - there are few alternate uses for the place, and by pressing for expansions to the stadium funded entirely by the club, City are de-facto buying it out over the medium-term anyway. The 250-year lease they're on suits them perfectly, but it can be changed to outright ownership for a fairly minimal fee, I suspect.
 
DubaiSpur said:
I don't overlook it - I acknowledge that it needed a billion to get off the ground. But your point was that removing Levy and Lewis would make no difference to how we're run - the same can be said of Mansour at City now. The billion it took to get there is a fact, as is the fact that said billion won them two Prem titles and a smattering of cups in eight years, versus our paltry investments winning us one League Cup in sixteen years.

As for the Mansour/Etihad connection, it's more complicated than that. What was once well above market value is now no longer that far-fetched - and Etihad is run by some very smart people unconnected with Mansour who share that view. The City deal is a sponsorship that covers the shirt, the stadium and the training ground and is worth about 80m a year (iirc) - a comparable amount to what Chelsea or United would get if they packaged their sponsorship deals like City have done. United actually might get a lot more if they offered a shirt + training ground + Old Trafford sponsorship deal - judging by the size of the Chevrolet sponsorship alone.

There is no evidence to suggest now that Etihad are paying above market value. And the same goes for executive boxes.

In short, you take Mansour out now, and it's unlikely there would be a radical change anywhere at the club, I think. As for their ground, it's a formality - there are few alternate uses for the place, and by pressing for expansions to the stadium funded entirely by the club, City are de-facto buying it out over the medium-term anyway. The 250-year lease they're on suits them perfectly, but it can be changed to outright ownership for a fairly minimal fee, I suspect.
Click to expand...

Ok so get yourself a Billion Quid and an 80m a year sponsorship deal and you are good to go....I don't know why everyone's not doing it
 
Given what Rose has said about us, and what Mourinho has said about Luke Shaw, would you take a swop plus £20m?

I know I would.

I am not sure there is any way back for Rose from this outburst. We major on team unity and he has just shown himself up as a selfish, self-centred wnker with no thought of the team.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
I get what makes you happy.....spending. When it's not happening, you''re not happy. You start bashing Levy and even recently weren't that pleased that Lewis has not decided to w*nk his fortune up the wall.

And when you strip it back, What is so wrong with our strategy? You have complained many times, yet history shows we have continued in an upward trajectory , and considering that strategy, we are punching well above our weight. Something's going right somewhere.

It begs the question. What are you expecting? What extra are you trying to eek out?
Click to expand...

I hate to say it but there is one member on here( i think its obvious who i am talking about) who is probably loving this as it gives him the excuse to get his Levy doll out and start using it to stick pins in AGAIN. They say leopards never change their spots and although his distain of Levy and the way he runs our club has dropped off over the last year or so ( after all its hard to keep bitching when things have been going so well) he now is showing his real feelings and he seems to be loving it. Shame really.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Ok so get yourself a Billion Quid and an 80m a year sponsorship deal and you are good to go....I don't know why everyone's not doing it
Click to expand...

Sure. Your point was that our model was objectively better than theirs. My point is that it was not by any conceivable stretch of the term 'objectively' better. Objectively, they have reached all the milestones we plod along trying to hit in half the time, and with much, much more success to boot.

That's all. As for why everyone's not doing it, not everyone can find a City-esque billionaire - some aren't attractive enough, and some just get lumped with a stingy billionaire who sees their club as an asset to sell on for a profit. But, if you had the choice, *objectively* - you'd take City's model. Subjectively, different story.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Sure. Your point was that our model was objectively better than theirs. My point is that it was not by any conceivable stretch of the term 'objectively' better. Objectively, they have reached all the milestones we plod along trying to hit in half the time, and with much, much more success to boot.

That's all. As for why everyone's not doing it, not everyone can find a City-esque billionaire - some aren't attractive enough, and some just get lumped with a stingy billionaire who sees their club as an asset to sell on for a profit. But, if you had the choice, *objectively* - you'd take City's model. Subjectively, different story.
Click to expand...

Well as a model that did not take the 1bn booster and would not take large investments to keep it going then I still stand by that.
 
Pirate55 said:
Given what Rose has said about us, and what Mourinho has said about Luke Shaw, would you take a swop plus £20m?

I know I would.

I am not sure there is any way back for Rose from this outburst. We major on team unity and he has just shown himself up as a selfish, self-centred wnker with no thought of the team.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that swap deals never happen, I'd take Shaw and Fosu Mensah in exchange. Get a decent up and coming CB and like for like replacement
 
Listening to The Fighting rooster podcast now, and the interview with Rose was supposedly done three weeks ago, after the City game. The Sun chose to release it yesterday.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Well as a model that did not take the 1bn booster and would not take large investments to keep it going then I still stand by that.
Click to expand...

A) It does not take large investments to keep it going, and b) again, I think you're certainly perfectly entitled to hold that view. But it's not *objectively* more successful, is all. They achieved more than we did in an objective sense in half the time - their model took a *billion* pounds to set up, but if the objective of football is to win trophies, or if your objective metric is to build infrastructure, achieve fiscal health and generally succeed - they've done all that. The price tag is really more of a subjective matter (i.e, do you think it's justified, and so on).
 
AdamB said:
Ignoring the fact that swap deals never happen, I'd take Shaw and Fosu Mensah in exchange. Get a decent up and coming CB and like for like replacement
Click to expand...

Siggi for Davies and Vorm?

I would take those two as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back