Tevez! You're a twat! Tevez, Tevez, you're a twat!

Nothing like winning with class...

I really hope Tevez leaves the Premier League so we don't have to deal with his shit in the press all next season.

I actually find it entertaining. Not something I would endorse but entertaining none the less. He's definately not worried about getting himself a job in the future. LOL

I think he has put himself in the position of never playing in the Prem again. Something he so obviously wants.

rodderzzz said: Really? by holding a banner? are you telling me all bar 3/4 teams in the premiership wouldnt jump at the chance to have him providing they could afford him? If El Hadji Diouf and Joey Barton can continue to find teams Tevez would have no problem. Massive over reaction to this really!

I agree, if he was worried about employment he wouldn't do what he did. He's not worried in the least.

Hammer said: I agree, if he was worried about employment he wouldn't do what he did. He's not worried in the least.

Tevez will certainly end up at a top tier club. Phoenominal talent, but it's crap like this (plus the fact this is the third club he's worn out his welcome with) that prevents him from becoming one of the greats of his generation.

rodderzzz said: Really? by holding a banner? are you telling me all bar 3/4 teams in the premiership wouldnt jump at the chance to have him providing they could afford him? If El Hadji Diouf and Joey Barton can continue to find teams Tevez would have no problem. Massive over reaction to this really!

Thing is, its clear he doesnt want to play for Man City. He wouldn't be considered by Man Utd, he wants champions league football. He options are Arsenal, Spurs and possibly Chelsea, if he was to stay in England.

I think this is all to do with his exit strategy. He has made himself untenable to English football.

I totally disagree, Redknapp has already said he tried to buy him in Jan and the trick he pulled today will only breed forgiveness from Man City. being 'untenable to English football' would mean no club wanted him not just the top 3/4.

rodderzzz said: I totally disagree, Redknapp has already said he tried to buy him in Jan and the trick he pulled today will only breed forgiveness from Man City. being 'untenable to English football' would mean no club wanted him not just the top 3/4.

I think its the other way around. Tevez doesnt want to stay in England.

That doesn't look like Tevez to me. But whatever, big deal.

Legal_Alien said: Am I missing something here?

Whatever the Club's official statement to defuse the faux horror of the popular media, I would have thought this only endears him to the City fans and helps his reconciliation with them, as I gather he's indicated a desire to stay there now.

******Also, it should be remembered that this sign refers to Fergie's statement that City would not dominate Utd in his lifetime.****** Bad taste maybe but in the the heat of victory if I was a City player or fan I wouldn't care a damn what Man U fans or neutrals thought.

For the record as a Chelsea fan... he can come play for us next season if no-one else wants him. Wages are no issue! ;)

This. It's about context and was simply a shot at Fergie's bold and arrogant statement. Besides, I don't think Tevez was up with his magic markers last night designing a sign - probably handed to him by a supporter.

Also, someone else associated with another club said something very bad this one time. I think it was racist. Might have been sexist, maybe just stupid.

Careful SRFC, lest you be hauled in by the F.A. and charged with sedition and then keel hauled by the media before being thrown under the bandwagon.

Lefty said: Careful SRFC, lest you be hauled in by the F.A. and charged with sedition and then keel hauled by the media before being thrown under the bandwagon.

Haha yep nobodies allowed to say anything bad about Ferguson.

I should add I'm not a fan of Tevez either and he shows alot of what is wrong with plenty of footballers nowadays

SRFC said: Dont see why anyone could get upset by this, its just a little joke at Ferguson for saying Man City wouldnt dominate them in his lifetime.

Anyway Ferguson has been having digs at Man City for years, calling their ground The chamber of horrors'(in reference to Old Trafford being called The theatre of dreams), Man City would never catch Man Utd 'As long as he was still breathing', even questioning where the 5 minutes added time came from yesterday (he was in Sunderland, how would he know what time should be added on), he stated that Man City's spending was ruining the game ( this coming from the man who spent £30 million on Veron, £28 million on Ferdinand etc etc), he even had a dig at the FA for spoiling the tradition of the FA Cup by playing the final at 5.15 on a normal league day (this coming from a man whose club pulled out of the FA Cup once to play in another tournament, even though they'd have only missed the 3rd round) I think Ferguson deserves any stick he gets

Oh seriously, give it a rest. Ferguson did not pull united out of the fa cup, they didn't want to go to the world club championship as it was too many games and the FA insisted they go because we had another failed world cup bid on the go. The compromise was that the fa dropped us out of the fa cup.

The money thing isn't really an issue for me, but if you can't tell the difference between 30 million every couple of seasons and 200 million in two seasons, there's no hope for us.

Man U:

2011/12 - spent 52m - net 38m
2010/12 - spent 27m - net 14m
2009/10 - spent 21m - net (64m)
2008/09 - spent 36m - net 34m
2007/08 - spent 62m - net 27m

City:

2011/12 - spent 76m - net 48m
2010/12 - spent 155m - net 117m
2009/10 - spent 125m - net 99m
2008/09 - spent 128m - net 118m
2007/08 - spent 46m - net 39m

So . . . Manchester United spends tonnes of money that comes from merchandise sales, and Manchester City spends tonnes of money that comes from their owners.

Does it really matter which wallets these large sums come from? I don't care for either of these clubs, but I will say that whenever a team that hasn't won a league in a long time wins one, at least we get a little variety. If someone pours enough money into Sprus, Aston Villa, or Newcastle to the point where one of them wins the English league, I'll consider it better than seeing the same old, same old win yet again.

If, next year, I was a billionaire, and spent 3 million dollars turning Victoria Highlanders into a full pro team in the NASL, and the team I paid for won the NASL championship, would that somehow be less of an achievement than Minnesota's win last season, on a shoe-string budget?

When the playing field isn't level a win by the underdog will always be that much more special. We can only hope that Financial Fair Play rules will help level the playing field but the big clubs with large followings will always have a financial advantage.

seathanaich said:

Chris said: Yes, I think it would. I freely admit that I can't nail down why, exactly, but it would feel cheapened somehow.

Seriously? If I paid 25 players $50K, paid a coaching staff of six people $60K, paid for the travel costs, built a 10 person club administration, created a youth academy and fielded a womens team, and then actually advertised my team locally - all of this stuff would cost about $3M to do - that would be something "cheap" for you, instead of being a fantastic contribution to the growth of soccer in this country? To each his own, I guess, but I think 8 people doing this in Canada would be a dream come true.

If only we had 8 such people!

seathanaich said:

Chris said: Yes, I think it would. I freely admit that I can't nail down why, exactly, but it would feel cheapened somehow.

Seriously? If I paid 25 players $50K, paid a coaching staff of six people $60K, paid for the travel costs, built a 10 person club administration, created a youth academy and fielded a womens team, and then actually advertised my team locally - all of this stuff would cost about $3M to do - that would be something "cheap" for you, instead of being a fantastic contribution to the growth of soccer in this country? To each his own, I guess, but I think 8 people doing this in Canada, and building a D2 league that was financially stable would be a dream come true.

He never said it wouldn't be a good thing for Canadian soccer, he said it'd cheapen your claim to the best team in the NASL.

Sure, you'd be the best team, but that's like putting a wolf in a ring with ten chickens and feeling it's real accomplishment that the wolf came out alive.

Rubbish. Your claim to be the best isn't cheapened by having larger finances than your rivals. "Best" means best; especially in my example, where we're comparing clubs of rougher comparable situations and resources.

To get this discussion back on topic . . . Man Utd spends $168M pounds, or whatever they have spent on players in X years, and it comes from their clubs' massive global merchandise sales. These sales are to glory hunters in places like Hong Kong with no real attachment to the city or the club, and are the result of massive advertising, exposure, and the fact that they are already massively wealthy. I find that no more "noble" or "holy" than Man City spending a similiar amount, the bulk of which comes from their uber-rich owners.

stratasaurus said:

This. It's about context and was simply a shot at Fergie's bold and arrogant statement. Besides, I don't think Tevez was up with his magic markers last night designing a sign - probably handed to him by a supporter.

exactly. Tevez can barely speak english... yet alone read or write. I'm sure it is time for Fergie to pack it in. Retire on a high note you ol' gin blossom.

I think it would be a good thing if someone walked into Heart of Midlothian, and poured so much money into them that Hearts could challenge Celtic and Rangers for the Scottish league, which is now a two-horse race, to the end of time, due to the power of money over the game, and the disparity gap between these teams and their domestic competition.

If this team (the only hope for a third "force" in Scotland) was massively financed, maybe the next generation in both Edinburgh and around Scotland would "follow the money" and become Hearts fans, to the long term benefit of Scottish soccer. Sure, it would be better if people in Edinburgh just did that on their own, and followed their local teams, because if they did Celtic and Rangers would actually have some competition; but if I were a Hearts fan I'd put more hope into a sugar-daddy than in my neighbours following their local team rather than "glory-hunting" with the established sure thing. England's not as unbalanced as Scotland, but Spain arguably is.

Today's masses of Rangers and Celtic fans are the product of past title wins. Today's masses of new Chelsea and Man City fans are the product of current or recent title wins. The old wins were bought with large crowds producing trophies (crowds lead to wins). The new crowds are created with wins bought by wealthy owners (wins lead to crowds). The big Euro teams have been around for a century - you can't pry fans away from them, or appeal to the young fans (who haven't yet picked a team) without doing something big, like winning trophies. "We're your local club" appeals to me, but not to most people any more. People naturally drift to supporting that which is already popular, so in a weird way I see the big-money owners as the only realistic way to "shake up" the list of teams that win everything. Believe me, I'd prefer a world in which it was all about which team devleoped the best players, and a world in which everyone supported their local team, but I have to temper that fantasy with what goes on in reality.