Man city escape ban! Or did they? [Update 6/2/23]

Doobedoo said:
10% stake isn’t being bought by Abu Dhabi though is it? Why didn’t they buy a 10% stake in your club?
Click to expand...

Why didn't they is irrelevant. They didn't. They bought 10% in yours, with I might add, the intention of buying 100%. The same as Abu Dhabi didn't buy either of ours, they bought Man City. It's the consequences of such unlevel playing fields that you and I are discussing, not how or why they come about. That's a completely different topic.
 
Last edited:
inogen said:
Why didn't they is irrelevant. They didn't. They bought 10% in yours, with I might add, the intention of buying 100%. The same as Abu Dhabi didn't buy either of ours, they bought Man City. It's the consequences of such unlevel playing fields that are the issue, not how or why they come about. That's a completely different subject.
Click to expand...
And that’s unique to United? What do you want repatriations for being so hard done by?
 
inogen said:
Yes, being owned by the same company that's financing and marketing the new Premier League as was, is completely unique to Manchester United.
Click to expand...
Oh give over Jesus Christ. Clubs althoughout the history of clubs have an advantage over another at some point in time. Be it better players, a better manager, better coaches and some more money. This isn’t unique to the football world. Even nations have been afforded advantages.

Oh and 10% is a minor stake not ownership.
 
Last edited:
Doobedoo said:
Oh give over Jesus Christ. Clubs althoughout the history of clubs have an advantage over another at some point in time. Be it better players, a better manager, better coaches and some more money. This isn’t unique to the football world. Even nations have been afforded advantages.
Click to expand...
You sound like a Man City fan.

Doobedoo said:
Oh and 10% is a minor stake not ownership.
Click to expand...
To all intents and purposes it was in that was held with the express intention of acquiring the whole club and had a deal agreed to do so. When the Monopolies Commission wouldn't let that through they sold up. That was after at one point creeping up to nearly 13% ownership but being forced to reduced it by the introduction of PL ownership rules.

But you know this don't you?
 
Last edited:
IronSpider said:
Are you saying Usmanov never put a penny into the side? Not one penny of his money benefitted them at any point what so ever?
Click to expand...
No, he offered cash injections but the board voted them down as they wanted to maintain their model of self sustainability. In the end, he felt like his hands were tied so much he gave in and sold up to Kroenke and turned his attentions to Everton. He was always moaning about the Arsenal board because he felt they should have been doing more to become successful, like accept his cash injections.
 
robfosters said:
No, he offered cash injections but the board voted them down as they wanted to maintain their model of self sustainability. In the end, he felt like his hands were tied so much he gave in and sold up to Kroenke and turned his attentions to Everton. He was always moaning about the Arsenal board because he felt they should have been doing more to become successful, like accept his cash injections.
Click to expand...

So having £500m of shares in the club or whatever his percentage was to you means he injected no financial value into the club because it wasn't a cash injection? Interesting.
 
Last edited:
IronSpider said:
So having £500m of shares in the club or whatever his percentage was to you means he injected no financial value into the club because it wasn't a cash injection? Interesting.
Click to expand...
When he bought his shares, the club didn’t get the money did they? The person who sold the shares does, in this case David Dein and a few other minor shareholders, and walks away richer.

The club has always been self sustainable, hence the barren years when we was forced into selling our best players to balance the books after the stadium build. Selling RVP made Usmanov go nuts at the board, and he started accusing them of having no ambition
 
Last edited:
robfosters said:
When he bought his shares, the club didn’t get the money did they? The person who sold the shares does, in this case David Dein and a few other minor shareholders, and walks away richer.

The club has always been self sustainable, hence the barren years when we was forced into selling our best players to balance the books after the stadium build. Selling RVP made Usmanov go nuts at the board, and he started accusing them of having no ambition
Click to expand...
I think you are deluded if you think he didn't put a penny in and you got no benefit from him being a large shareholder.
fez said:
Come on guys, this is exactly what Man City want, us fighting amongst ourselves instead of our real enemy, Man City :p
Click to expand...

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom