The mancityfans.net football forum

Another go at this - but for genuine debate with the forthcoming uefa rules on finance in mind. how do you feel about the structure and set up - rather than the background of these 2 clubs? I can't help admire the structure and aims personally and am a little envious of the ethos (rather than the reality) of both clubs. if you condense the things you like about football doesn't it chime more with what they're doing rather than the consumerist following of our club?

just asking?:

Take it for what it's worth, but this septic's two cents (or pence) is that both of these clubs' DIY "ethos" took a credibility hit this fall with live broadcasts of FA Cup ties here in the States. I think the mini-rags even scrambled around the kickoff time in exchange for Disney's filthy lucre. Huh.

Ten years ago I could have never imagined that I could watch City in beautiful HD every weekend much less taking in a game against the European champs on American soil. As a weekly "consumer" I would never apologise for that, particularly considering the dignity and integrity our current owners have displayed since the takeover.

I don't think of myself as just another MCFC customer and I don't consider FC Scum supporters of all people to be on any moral highground.

yeh fair do's mate. although the moral high ground is exactly what i'm attempting to discuss.

am i right in thinking that might is right? that the ability to watch city on a HD telly is worthier than the principles of clubs that have once (once) played on telly?

i'm no fc utd fan but i'm intrigued to know why you feel wimbledon "sold out" in some way coz they had a game on telly - i can't find anything in the constitution that prohibits it.

anyway - as stated before - i was interested in people's opinions of the structure and ethos of such clubs.

but then i wouldn't describe people who come from down the road from me mutants or knuckle-draggers on account of where they live.(apart from the cunts from St Blaise middle coz they were all gipsy thieving green invisible little shits).

I dont really know too much about afc wombles, but i do believe that the reasons for starting the club up are poles apart compard to fc scum.

Wimbledon fans didnt think thier club should have moved to milton keynes - fc scum simply didnt like the way the scum ownership was going and needed to have that assurance once again that they can still 'buy the league' - so they create a club with far more buying power than those arround them to fill the void that thier original team fails to deliver anymore.

At the end of the day, fc untd didnt get created when the scum were flying high, floated on the market and became a very rich plc - they reaped the rewards of that!

Twobob wrote:I dont really know too much about afc wombles, but i do believe that the reasons for starting the club up are poles apart compard to fc scum.

Wimbledon fans didnt think thier club should have moved to milton keynes - fc scum simply didnt like the way the scum ownership was going and needed to have that assurance once again that they can still 'buy the league' - so they create a club with far more buying power than those arround them to fill the void that thier original team fails to deliver anymore.

At the end of the day, fc untd didnt get created when the scum were flying high, floated on the market and became a very rich plc - they reaped the rewards of that!

as i say mate - just talking bout the ethos. and yer right about the difference between afc w and fc utd. however fc utd don't have "more buying power". far from it. they're somewhere below 6th in "buying power" and in the relegation zone in real terms. so that argument dunt really hold water.

i probably shouldn't have mentioned FC UTD - just confusing people.how bout barcelona and aldershot?

All clubs started off like they did, didn't they?
Surely there aim is too grow and get bigger...

TheGOAT wrote:All clubs started off like they did, didn't they?
Surely there aim is too grow and get bigger...

true story. do i know u? isn't it healy? you've def matured nippa :) x

Rag threads, mini rag threads ... this is a City site right?

Chinners wrote:Rag threads, mini rag threads ... this is a City site right?

it's a football site right? as i said chinners - i probably muddied the waters by talking about manu lite. the yokels may get confused.

you of all people should understand the concept of corporate governance and it's many forms.

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:

TheGOAT wrote:All clubs started off like they did, didn't they?
Surely there aim is too grow and get bigger...

true story. do i know u? isn't it healy? you've def matured nippa :) x

Aye that's Scott and I'm Nick - Who are you Arjan?

I hate the mini rags for a simple reason they harp on about being a different team,but they arent.As soon as the opportunity came to make cheddar,THEY DID.If they were so against the footballing grain they would have told TV to fuck off if they do well in the future they will fleece the fans and get up to date with modern football NO DOUBT.

They sing about City,Leeds,cocks of the North Etc. They are rags plain and simple dressed up in a more scummy toys thrown out of the cot pram hat.
FCUM fans are pondlife and to think they are moving just round the corner from us in the near future. whoooooo.


AFC-Dont give a shit what happened,why it happened.

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:

TheGOAT wrote:All clubs started off like they did, didn't they?
Surely there aim is too grow and get bigger...

true story. do i know u? isn't it healy? you've def matured nippa :) x

It's Healey mate ;)

I admire the principles on which the new clubs were founded and the "alternative" way of running a football club. It appears though that there is little difference between what fcum are doing, and the basis on which Barcelona for example are run (for the benefit of the members)

However I am very skeptical as to how this will all pan out as the teams climb the way up the football pyramid, because at the moment they are both financially much stronger than any of their rivals by virtue of their attendances and resultant income. The challenge for both clubs will be to build a fan base that increases exponentially with each step up the ladder, because were they ever to make it to the championship for example, they would have to find ways to compete financially with their rivals and pay the salaries that would be needed for survival.

Fundamentally that is where the business plans of both clubs fail. Fcum to an extent could attract bandwagon jumpers from the evil empire, but both clubs are competing for support in an era when peoples loyalties are strong. Thus I think they are limited to what they can achieve by the limits of their potential fan base..

Using Barcelona as an example may seem extreme, but there you have an example of a members owned club, but the big difference being that they can count on the support of a mini-nation which is why they have mega crowds. They have also because of their long history of success that was made possible by the large attendances, negotiated their own tv deal which is why clubs in spain aside from real madrid can never compete on an even playing field.

Where fcum will start to also have problems is when they have to start shelling out big bucks for wages, which they will have to do eventually to compete. The squeeze always ends up on the fans regardless of tv money, so there is a very specific level that I feel fcum could never get beyond.

I find much more sympathy with the Wombles. They felt their club had been stolen and they formed a replacement. I don't think they had any other motive, other than to continue the old club in the best way they could afford.

The rags are a completely different kettle of fish. It was set up by a rag opposition group who held dreams of eventually being in a financial position to take the rags over when the Glazers had driven it into the ground. I had a long conversation with one of the main movers and he had all the figures and projections in his head to show how possible this was.
FCSCUM operate at the level they do, simply because that is their financial level. They are ambitious and should they rise up the pyramid, they will be happy to operate at the level they need to to survive.

All that philosophical shite they spouted was exactly that...shite.
Unlike most clubs that begin from nothing, they had massive media exposure and a huge potential market to tap into.

john68 wrote:I find much more sympathy with the Wombles. They felt their club had been stolen and they formed a replacement. I don't think they had any other motive, other than to continue the old club in the best way they could afford.

The rags are a completely different kettle of fish. It was set up by a rag opposition group who held dreams of eventually being in a financial position to take the rags over when the Glazers had driven it into the ground. I had a long conversation with one of the main movers and he had all the figures and projections in his head to show how possible this was.
FCSCUM operate at the level they do, simply because that is their financial level. They are ambitious and should they rise up the pyramid, they will be happy to operate at the level they need to to survive.

All that philosophical shite they spouted was exactly that...shite.
Unlike most clubs that begin from nothing, they had massive media exposure and a huge potential market to tap into.

as an outsider (e.g. non-Manc, and with little or no interest in the Rags beyond who we're playing this week), Mini-rags as Kiers has dubbed them are like Journey when they toured with that Filipino singer a few years ago. It's not anything like the real thing, but someone can put a bunch of cunts in a red kit and trot them out to the adoration of Rag fans, etc. and try and feel good about it. Who am i to judge? i just don't give two fucls.

cheers