The mancityfans.net football forum

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:Beefy, she's a bitter nutcase. She has a history of it.

Makes sense mate. Never heard of her and totally understandable she gets stick. Not because she's a woman, just because she comes out with claptrap like that.

Beefymcfc wrote:

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:Beefy, she's a bitter nutcase. She has a history of it.

Makes sense mate. Never heard of her and totally understandable she gets stick. Not because she's a woman, just because she comes out with claptrap like that.

guaranteed she’d go all serena williams on you if you called her out

Nigels Tackle wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:Beefy, she's a bitter nutcase. She has a history of it.

Makes sense mate. Never heard of her and totally understandable she gets stick. Not because she's a woman, just because she comes out with claptrap like that.

guaranteed she’d go all serena williams on you if you called her out

Another strange fucker with those comments but at least she's got a few trophies to fall back on.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45492477

Sterling under pressure from rashford now.

Original Dub wrote:https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45492477

Sterling under pressure from rashford now.

'He has had a mixed opening to the season at United, playing just 122 minutes in all competitions, not starting since the opening game against Leicester and getting sent off for thrusting his head at Phil Bardsley at Burnley' - that's not mixed, its pure crap . He does have qualities but this over-hyping is not helping him.

Hutch's Shoulder wrote:

Original Dub wrote:https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45492477

Sterling under pressure from rashford now.

'He has had a mixed opening to the season at United, playing just 122 minutes in all competitions, not starting since the opening game against Leicester and getting sent off for thrusting his head at Phil Bardsley at Burnley' - that's not mixed, its pure crap . He does have qualities but this over-hyping is not helping him.

Exactly.

I suppose he had a "mixed" season last season as well? The media are a funny old bunch - you'd swear he had a better season than Sterling by the way they speak about him. When in actual fact, he had a disgraceful season and Sterling was electric.

But one plays in red and the other in blue.

Seen an article today in the Sun about FFP rearing its head again. Apparently clubs are to be limited to a net spend of £90M per season. The headline includes us and PSG. No surprise there.

But the last laugh is now on us as with the Academy now bearing fruit, it isn't us who are at the risk of falling foul of this.

nottsblue wrote:Seen an article today in the Sun about FFP rearing its head again. Apparently clubs are to be limited to a net spend of £90M per season. The headline includes us and PSG. No surprise there.

But the last laugh is now on us as with the Academy now bearing fruit, it isn't us who are at the risk of falling foul of this.

The Aguero situation could be a problem and perhaps the Fernandinho one as well. Apart from that, I think we are pretty well set and won't need any huge acquisitions in the next few seasons.

mr_nool wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Seen an article today in the Sun about FFP rearing its head again. Apparently clubs are to be limited to a net spend of £90M per season. The headline includes us and PSG. No surprise there.

But the last laugh is now on us as with the Academy now bearing fruit, it isn't us who are at the risk of falling foul of this.

The Aguero situation could be a problem and perhaps the Fernandinho one as well. Apart from that, I think we are pretty well set and won't need any huge acquisitions in the next few seasons.

Think a replacement for Fernandinho will be in the region of £50M. Aguero on the other hand.

nottsblue wrote:

mr_nool wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Seen an article today in the Sun about FFP rearing its head again. Apparently clubs are to be limited to a net spend of £90M per season. The headline includes us and PSG. No surprise there.

But the last laugh is now on us as with the Academy now bearing fruit, it isn't us who are at the risk of falling foul of this.

The Aguero situation could be a problem and perhaps the Fernandinho one as well. Apart from that, I think we are pretty well set and won't need any huge acquisitions in the next few seasons.

Think a replacement for Fernandinho will be in the region of £50M. Aguero on the other hand.

I meant more in the case that we need to replace two or more of our spine in one window/season.

mr_nool wrote:

nottsblue wrote:

mr_nool wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Seen an article today in the Sun about FFP rearing its head again. Apparently clubs are to be limited to a net spend of £90M per season. The headline includes us and PSG. No surprise there.

But the last laugh is now on us as with the Academy now bearing fruit, it isn't us who are at the risk of falling foul of this.

The Aguero situation could be a problem and perhaps the Fernandinho one as well. Apart from that, I think we are pretty well set and won't need any huge acquisitions in the next few seasons.

Think a replacement for Fernandinho will be in the region of £50M. Aguero on the other hand.

I meant more in the case that we need to replace two or more of our spine in one window/season.

Well that could be a problem if this FFP gets off the ground. I wonder if its actually a way to stop transfer fees getting even higher. Though i reckon Aguero probably has a year extra on Fern so we may not sign both replacements in a single window

nottsblue wrote:Seen an article today in the Sun about FFP rearing its head again. Apparently clubs are to be limited to a net spend of £90M per season. The headline includes us and PSG. No surprise there.

But the last laugh is now on us as with the Academy now bearing fruit, it isn't us who are at the risk of falling foul of this.

Heard a little on the radio and I think they said £89 million (100 mil euros) net loss in one season. Whichever it is, it's there to once again cement the current old guard at the top and ensure that they get the most revenue. Double whammy with the introduction of historical seeding when it comes to CL payments.

Heard that the Dippers got approx 70 mil from the CL last season but if they did the same this season it would jump to approx 120.

There's only one loser in all this, and it's the majority of clubs that are historically outside of the old guard.

Corrupt? You fucking bet it is and they're not ashamed to let everybody know it.

Don't like this piece from the BBC. Basically our attendance numbers are bullshit.

Rags on the other hand....

Football club attendances: Are fans getting the full picture? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45158878

london blue 2 wrote:Don't like this piece from the BBC. Basically our attendance numbers are bullshit.

Rags on the other hand....

Football club attendances: Are fans getting the full picture? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45158878

The BBC are very selective in their "news" pieces. They're just behind the mirror at the moment.

Original Dub wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Don't like this piece from the BBC. Basically our attendance numbers are bullshit.

Rags on the other hand....

Football club attendances: Are fans getting the full picture? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45158878

The BBC are very selective in their "news" pieces. They're just behind the mirror at the moment.

Clubs are compelled (I think by the FA or maybe the Premier League?) to publish 'tickets sold' per game - police are compelled (for health and safety reasons) to keep actual matchday attendance figures. It keeps coming up in the media every now and then, usually to beat us around the head with the discrepancy.

Dameerto wrote:

Original Dub wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Don't like this piece from the BBC. Basically our attendance numbers are bullshit.

Rags on the other hand....

Football club attendances: Are fans getting the full picture? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45158878

The BBC are very selective in their "news" pieces. They're just behind the mirror at the moment.

Clubs are compelled (I think by the FA or maybe the Premier League?) to publish 'tickets sold' per game - police are compelled (for health and safety reasons) to keep actual matchday attendance figures. It keeps coming up in the media every now and then, usually to beat us around the head with the discrepancy.

Strangely, Merseyside police are not compelled to hold that data and were therefore unable to publish it. The game we played against Southampton was apparently attended by 38k according to the police. I was at that game and there was a lot more than 38k there. One of us is lying.

South Stand Balti wrote:

Dameerto wrote:

Original Dub wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Don't like this piece from the BBC. Basically our attendance numbers are bullshit.

Rags on the other hand....

Football club attendances: Are fans getting the full picture? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45158878

The BBC are very selective in their "news" pieces. They're just behind the mirror at the moment.

Clubs are compelled (I think by the FA or maybe the Premier League?) to publish 'tickets sold' per game - police are compelled (for health and safety reasons) to keep actual matchday attendance figures. It keeps coming up in the media every now and then, usually to beat us around the head with the discrepancy.

Strangely, Merseyside police are not compelled to hold that data and were therefore unable to publish it. The game we played against Southampton was apparently attended by 38k according to the police. I was at that game and there was a lot more than 38k there. One of us is lying.

They held it, for certain. Publishing it is something else though.

South Stand Balti wrote:

Dameerto wrote:

Original Dub wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Don't like this piece from the BBC. Basically our attendance numbers are bullshit.

Rags on the other hand....

Football club attendances: Are fans getting the full picture? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45158878

The BBC are very selective in their "news" pieces. They're just behind the mirror at the moment.

Clubs are compelled (I think by the FA or maybe the Premier League?) to publish 'tickets sold' per game - police are compelled (for health and safety reasons) to keep actual matchday attendance figures. It keeps coming up in the media every now and then, usually to beat us around the head with the discrepancy.

Strangely, Merseyside police are not compelled to hold that data and were therefore unable to publish it. The game we played against Southampton was apparently attended by 38k according to the police. I was at that game and there was a lot more than 38k there. One of us is lying.

A discrepancy of 15000 or so punters is equivalent to the main stand being completely empty with the rest of the ground full. Be gobsmacked if that was the case.

nottsblue wrote:

South Stand Balti wrote:

Dameerto wrote:

Original Dub wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Don't like this piece from the BBC. Basically our attendance numbers are bullshit.

Rags on the other hand....

Football club attendances: Are fans getting the full picture? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45158878

The BBC are very selective in their "news" pieces. They're just behind the mirror at the moment.

Clubs are compelled (I think by the FA or maybe the Premier League?) to publish 'tickets sold' per game - police are compelled (for health and safety reasons) to keep actual matchday attendance figures. It keeps coming up in the media every now and then, usually to beat us around the head with the discrepancy.

Strangely, Merseyside police are not compelled to hold that data and were therefore unable to publish it. The game we played against Southampton was apparently attended by 38k according to the police. I was at that game and there was a lot more than 38k there. One of us is lying.

A discrepancy of 15000 or so punters is equivalent to the main stand being completely empty with the rest of the ground full. Be gobsmacked if that was the case.

Absolutely and the discrepancy is about 17k. It doesn't have any balance as a story either. It's only a sample of games and only a sample of clubs.......agenda based.

I find it laughable that we are down 7500 on average yet scum manage to convince everyone that thier figures exactly match the published figures. Something not right there.

Average attendances per club
Club (% of capacity) FOI (% of capacity) Difference (% of capacity)

West Ham 55,309 (97%) 42,779* (75%) 12,530 (22%)
Man City 53,274 (97%) 45,792* (83%) 7,482 (14%)
Southampton 29,906 (92%) 25,660 (79%) 4,246 (13%)
Tottenham 61,843 (69%) 58,103 (65%) 3,740 (4%)
Chelsea 40,593 (98%) 37,088** (89%) 3,505 (8%)
Watford 20,319 (95%) 17,171*** (80%) 2,602 (15%)
Man Utd 73,575 (98%) 73,575* (98%) 0 (0%)