We arenât âhamstrung with debtâ 🤦ââď¸
I guess you don't understand what hamstrung means. It means we can't spend because we are using that money to pay back debt, debt that shouldn't be saddled on the on the club. You don't agree, that's fine.
And we pay off the loan when we can , there is no set repayment
Again...we shouldn't have to be repaying anything. JWH and FSG should have taken on the renovation costs themselves in my opinion. You don't agree that's fine.
We arenât not spending because of loan repayments.
Well no, we are. And you have even said that the club only spends what it has to spend. If we don't spend because we don't have and we don't have because we are spending on repayments, then yes, we are not spending because of loan repayments. You don't agree, that's fine.
As for not casting an accused finger at them , I was one of those that walked out during a game because of them - what have you ever done apart from cry on a forum
I'm not crying about anything. I really think you need to take a course on logic and debate. What you are doing is using logical fallacies to try and add weight to your argument. An argument that doesn't really make any logical sense. You walked out of a game...good for you. That's one time you've done something (at least you say you've done it...none of us would ever really know, you could be making it up) that you believe tells them you are unhappy with them concerning one specific issue. We aren't discussing that issue, we are discussing the issues surrounding their fiscal strategy for the club.
Who cares about owners at the game , Man Cityâs owner has been twice in the whole time he owned the club. They donât need to be at the game , they donât need to act like Ryan Reynolds, they donât need to care about the club
Just an example of an owner you don't have to question their passion for the club they own. JWH's passion for this club is easily questioned and certainly supporters are well within their rights to desire owners that are more emotionally invested. You don't agree that's fine.
We have spent the last 6 years competing with the big boys and out performing all bar one who is state funded
We did not outperform all but one this year, not even close. And those clubs that we didn't outperform are already showing signs that they are willing to do whatever they can to keep us behind them. What is at question is whether FSG have the same mindset. I believe they don't. You don't agree that's fine.
Christ shall we go back to Moores who cared for the club ?
What a silly thing to say...because someone that wants this club to be unbeatable would rather it go back to a time of unsustainability and low performance? I'm not sure what you are even trying to argue?
They are successful sports investments and have turned the club hugely around from the mess it was
They've turned many aspects of the club around yes, but it's not like they did anything that any other reasonably positioned owners couldn't have done. The biggest hurdle was getting Hicks and Gillette out...who bought us wasn't near as important as the fact that SOMEONE did and got rid of those two idiots.
It always the same crying from the likes of you
Try to not resort to thinly veiled attacks. Firstly, they don't hurt my feelings as you may think they do, and second, they add nothing to your arguments and only serve to make you look childish. So please just stop. We can debate the these topics without resorting to childish tactics. I'll agree to that if you will.