Manchester City 17/18 discussion | "If you're here for the Champions clap your hands" (#6505)

[padr81]

Are you for real? How many goals
did Delph give away again exactly? Its your lies that are the issue here. Delph had a poor game but made one truly costly error. One. Lukaku made 3 that were directly responsible for his team's loss. As I told you earlier erase his and Lukaku's mistakes from the game and you lose the game. Period. Its quite sad that you imagine its remotely a debatable point.

Delph missed the ball for the goal and he also dropped a clanger that almost led to your second. He gave up two good chances, so did lukaku. If you want to pin that negative shit ye served up yesterday on lukaku and use that for losing fire away.

No. Yet again your are simply refusing to understand the obvious. Lukaku didnt miss an " if, but or maybe chance". He missed a chance as good as what Silva and Otamendi both scored with. A can't miss, clear cut chance. Not a half, possible, if I did just a bit better, I might score opportunity. You listing all City's half chances, and worse trying to claim 'ifs' about them adjusting shooting style simply emphasizes my point further. The game had 4 clear cut chances. 3 created by bad errors and the 1 missed by Lukaku. If I were referring 'ifs, buts and maybe" chances like Lukaku skying the ball over that bar from a decent position, you'd have had grounds to highlight what you listed. Frankly none of your rebuttals hold any water up to this point.

If it's a can't miss chance how did he miss it? It was a good chance he reacted decently to but no better than Sanchez. Again if they are can't miss how did 2 top class forwards miss them in a week? Lacazette too, sometimes the keeper just does something great (or lucky) and the striker is unlucky.

Was Bernardo Silva's one on one from 3 yards out at the end a "can't miss chance"?

Not only do you have me confused with someone else, you are simply conflating issues to buttress your weak argument:
1. I have never praised De Gea for pulling off that save vs Alexis. Not once. He should have scored the chance, just like Lukaku should have scored. I praised De Gea, and I praise Ederson for saving the follow up shots.

Apologies if I have you mixed up with someone else but anyway we'll agree to disagree on this one as imho they were 2 great saves by keepers and the strikers just unlucky. If Lukaku or Lacazette (I believe it was him and not Sanchez on the first ball) had skied the ball I'd say fair enough he messed it up. From that position just getting something on the ball 99% of the time is a goal. At that pace, with the ball fizzing across there is no time to pick a spot. I'd say 2 miracle saves.

2. We beat Arsenal by forcing them into 4 errors. Scoring directly from three of those errors and hitting the post with a 4th. That is why we deserved to win. It wasnt because Alexis fluffed his lines, nor because De Gea stopped 14 mostly routine shots at him. You in comparison for all your possession, had only 2 more shots on target than us, and didn't force a single error with your play. You actually scored off two unforced errors, and escaped a draw because of a third. That is the difference between winning because you were better than your opponent and winning because you were luckier.

We beat you because we forced two errors from good balls into dangerous positions. Of course the situation is comparable. Your excuse for losing to City "If we didn't gift you two goals and had scored our good chance." Arsenal fans excuse for losing to you "If we didn't gift them two goals and fluff our lines". You are just viewing things with red tinted specs my friend.

Still untrue. The last time you visited us in the league, not only did your force at least 2 world class saves from de gea by half time, your forced several bad errors from us, scored directly from 2, and we were hanging on for dear life by half time. We only had more possession then because we were not a threat to you. You let us have ths ball because it even made it infinitely easier for you to rip us apart. Infact Bravo's gift saved us from being dead and gone by half time.

Last time I was on the edge if my seat watching us and worrying. This time I was nervous because its a derby but you never threatened at all. In the last 15 minutes we had more chances to get a 3rd than you an equaliser. But the big reason yesterday was worse from you is unlike last season, you needed a win.

We played far better last season and many on here said you deserved a point. Can you say that of yesterday.

Last seasons derby according to skysports:
City 18 shots, 6 on target, 1 clear cut chance and 60% possession.
United 14 shots, 3 on target, 2 clear cut chances and 40% possession.

This seasons derby according to skysports.
City 14 shots, 7 on target, 1 clear cut chance and 65% possession.
United 8 shots, 5 on target, 1 clear cut chance and 35% possession.

I'd argue the top one shows a closer game, I'd also like to know what SS considers a clear cut chance.

Yesterday, in spite of all your extra possession as compared to your last league visit, barring Lukaku's two gifts, you'd NEVER have scored. United were also not hanging on for dear life that is why we were even able to equalise with in 4 minutes with our first few coherent attacks. Even sans the error we had begun to threaten. Last time we scored off a direct gift. Off zero work from us. At least Delph this time miss timed a ball whilst fending off a threatening attack. Bravo in comparison just plain gave us a goal under minimal pressure.

You gave up more chances in the last derby but also missed more 2nd half last time. I've never said we were better this time, I've said you were worse this time. See above.

Man, you do love confusing your self. I never ever called Pep a "gungho idiot". Rather I stated he NEVER switches to a defensive mode during a matcg he feels he is far superior during the game to his opponent. I also never criticised him for switching to such a mode. Not when my argument is he switched to that mode precisely because the game was actually closer than the likes of your care to admit, and he felt we carried a significant threat to warrant the defensive shift.

Tell me again where I said it wasn't a close game please? What I said is he did the same thing vs West Ham and Huddersfield because of their threat in the air just like yours.

Furthermore, its laughable that you dare to compare the move to what he did vs West Ham. Vs West Ham he never took off a striker and Fernadinho moving to defence was for attacking purposes. Mangala in that game was brought in to ensure West Ham couldnt fluke set pieces. Vs us however, Fernandinho moving to defence was enforced by injury. And to further prove the move was defensive in nature, he took out a striker to strengthen his defence with Mangala's height, having two dedicated holding midfielders on pitch, and adding an extra man in midfield by removing a striker. That is why David Silva was involved in most of the mid second half tactical fouls that even got him booked. City also started wasting time in possession and strictly playing on the counter with over 32 minutes to play.

I dont care how you try to dress it. Pep went defensive after the second goal and for good reason.

No he didn't move fernandinho in v west ham for attacking. He moved him in to return to a more defensive formation from playing an extra midfielder. Just like mangala v united and Huddersfield. Not while chasing an equaliser but when we went 2-1 up.

Against big teams (in stature) like united and west ham he added another defender as soon as 2-1 up. Your clutching at straws saying anything else. V westham fernandinho was the defensive move, v Huddersfield it was again mangala.

Your whole west ham argument is rubbish, I'll say thus clearly. Fernandinho came on as a sub at CB a minute after we went 2-1 in a defensive shift to combat long balls. Mangala started that match so I have no clue where you pulled what you just wrote from. Not reality thats for sure. We finished the West Ham game with Otamendi, Mangala (the starting CB's and Fernandinho making a back 3).

He also came on for Aguero in that game, just like Mangala for Jesus yesterday. We shifted from a 352 before we scored to almost a 550 to see out that game. The 3 cbs named above, Delph and Walker as wingbacks. Jesus fell back into a no.10 role and everyone else just played as defensive midfielders.

So using your "went defensive for good reason", I actually said he went defensive for good reason but it was the same good reason vs west ham and Huddersfield. You're trying to make out it was different but it was the exact same reason. Big team hoofing the ball forward means we needed more defenders. To say anything different is lying to make yourself feel good.

You think Gundogan is a holding midfielder? Who were the 2? When fernandinho went back to midfield. Gundogan moved into Silvas position with Silva moving forward. Its why Gundogan was literally on your goal line to roll that ball across the box. Don't know many holding midfielders who are found on the oppositions goal line in the 85th minute while trying to hold a 2-1 lead do you?

Oh look tactical fouls again, tell me how many times or quote me messages you posted about our tactical fouls before Jose got his excuses in early. In fact quote me a post and I'll apologize for this paragraph.

Im sorry but its you kidding yourself here. That is why you keep attempting to conflate you having to come from behind vs West Ham to you having to hold on to a 2-1 lead, vs a team, the likes of you claim were so superior to on the day, by resorting to a very defensive stance with over half an hour to play. Maybe you have only followed Pep since he came to City. Those of us who have followed from his Barca job till know his M.O very well. Going defensive vs an opponent he is 'far better than' with over 30 mins to play never happens. He'd normally kill off the opponent, then close out the game in the last 15mins like any smart manager would.

Do you? Its like you just skip past my actual arguments and got to a straw man to attack
Let me simplify it for you. Taking a striker off for Mangala WAS the defensive move. Not adding Mangala to the back four. If you cant understand why or how its defensive, I suggest we end the conversation here and just agree to disagree. For it means you just wont get the point Ive been making

Where am I talking about coming from behind? Your the one whose imagining we brought Fernandinho on chasing the game. We didn't. We brought him on when we went 2-1 up.

You should at least know what you are on about before arguing your case. You say I skip past arguments but you just plainly make stuff up and lie about Fernandinho and Mangala's involvement vs West Ham. A lie that makes your entire argument redundant as it's clear you have no clue about our game vs West Ham so are in no position to make comparisons.

I'll give you a comparison and its nice and simple.
We went 2-1 up versus United, we took off a striker for a CB (Jesus for Mangala) to deal with the incoming aerial bombardment.
We went 2-1 up versus West Ham, we took off a striker for a CB (Aguero for Fernandinho) to deal with the incoming aerial bombardment.

Apologies about the edit but the earlier post off the tablet was all over the place.

 

[Kola_Nut]

No it wouldnt. What is this based on?

City rarely sell out games in the PL. It's even rarer they do it in the CL. Not sure if this is still down to the boycott or if it's just general apathy. They also have little support outside Manchester. PSG pretty much sell out most games but they have a much smaller stadium. They also have little support outside France. In regards to PSG you would think they would have expanded the stadium if demand was there. It seems highly unlikely to me that these 2 are going to have enough fans willing to travel to the Ukraine & fill a 70k stadium. In regards to neutrals, you would have top go all the way back to 03/04 for a less appealing final. I personally can't see much appetite in seeing 2 state funded plastic clubs going at it.

I just can't see us being able to compete with City for the foreseeable future. Not unless either the Sheikh gets bored with them or we get our own sugar daddy with (effectively) limitless funds.
Mansour will just keep pumping more and more money into the squad until they dominate the game.

I've been wondering why nothing has been done TBH. Every man & his dog knew that City & PSG would circumvent FFP. It's like FIFA have decided that they can't be arsed trying anything else.
The powers that be probably thought that City would feck things up themselves as they usually do. When this happened everything would sort itself out naturally. This hasn't happened & in effect things are becoming even more manic as both City & PSG are accelerating their spending . Most thought that the owners spending would plateau.

What is happening at City puts the other 5 clubs from the top 6 in serious danger. We are in effect playing a game of poker with someone who has infinite stake money. They are going to keep raising the stakes until you bow out.

 

[sk6blue]

City rarely sell out games in the PL.

Do you have a source for that? Because you're wrong, almost every league game is sold out.

I've been wondering why nothing has been done TBH. Every man & his dog knew that City & PSG would circumvent FFP. It's like FIFA have decided that they can't be arsed trying anything else.

Well first of all it's UEFA that govern FFP for City and PSG not FIFA. Both clubs have had sanctions in the past, PSG much more so as they were forced to halve their hugely inflated shirt sponsorship deal. PSG are also currently under investigation again so UEFA (not FIFA) do appear to be arsed. City aren't being investigated because they're clearly complying now.

It's a complex topic, I'd recommend you read up on it.

 

[BlueMoonOutcast]

Really hope they draw Real Madrid tomorrow but seeing how lucky these cnuts are they are pretty much guaranteed to get Basel.

Oh.

 

[Giggs86]

Oh.

You're welcome

 

[Karel Podolsky]

If the Sheikhs get bored, I am sure they will sell City to another sugar daddy.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Delph missed the ball for the goal and he also dropped a clanger that almost led to your second. He gave up two good chances, so did lukaku. If you want to pin that negative shit ye served up yesterday on lukaku and use that for losing fire away.

The facts are clear. Lukaku contributed 3 errors that directly cost his team Delph didnt Almost doesnt count.

If it's a can't miss chance how did he miss it? It was a good chance he reacted decently to but no better than Sanchez. Again if they are can't miss how did 2 top class forwards miss them in a week?

By fluffing their lines due to lack of intelligence and composure in their finishes. Hence the truly bad misses

Lacazette too....

Lacazette's follow up wasnt a miss. Like Ederson's save vs Nata that was outstanding goal keeping. The keepers composure to react with intelligence and push out of danger a follow up shot was incredible.

[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]
sometimes the keeper just does something great (or lucky) and the striker is unlucky. [/Quote] Fair enough, thats your view. For me the moment luck is talked of after a save like De Gea and Ederson pulled off, it counts as sufficient proof it was a bad miss. Akin to missing a penalty with a poor take.
[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]
Was Bernardo Silva's one on one from 3 yards out at the end a "can't miss chance"? [/Quote] Really? Was he bang in the center of the goal, with the ball arriving on his favoured foot at a good pace, only needing to either redirect it or cleverly place it past the keeper?

[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]
Apologies if I have you mixed up with someone else but anyway we'll agree to disagree on this one as imho they were 2 great saves by keepers and the strikers just unlucky. If Lukaku or Lacazette (I believe it was him and not Sanchez on the first ball) had skied the ball I'd say fair enough he messed it up. From that position just getting something on the ball 99% of the time is a goal. At that pace, with the ball fizzing across there is no time to pick a spot. I'd say 2 miracle saves.
[/QUOTE] Fine. We agree to disagree on that point. For me you miss there, you are a clown. Keeper has no business saving


[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]
We beat you because we forced two errors from good balls into dangerous positions. Of course the situation is comparable. [/Quote] It really isnt. In our last encounter at OT you forced us to destroy ourselves due to your excellence of play. On Sunday, in spite of loads of excellent play, you inspire no cause a single error from. Lukaku simply gifted you three Bravo style.

[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]
Your excuse for losing to City "If we didn't gift you two goals and had scored our good chance." Arsenal fans excuse for losing to you "If we didn't gift them two goals and fluff our lines". You are just viewing things with red tinted specs my friend.
[/Quote] I'm so obviously not. We forced Arsenal into every error they made. They cant ever use the "we gifted goals" line. You guys on the other hand didn't create a single chance nor goal you scored from. On top of benefitting from a terrible miss to keep all 3 points. Its also not an excuse. Its a fact. You were just the luckier team on a typical derby day. It isnt a crime.

[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]
Last time I was on the edge if my seat watching us and worrying. This time I was nervous because its a derby but you never threatened at all. In the last 15 minutes we had more chances to get a 3rd than you an equaliser. But the big reason yesterday was worse from you is unlike last season, you needed a win.

We played far better last season and many on here said you deserved a point. Can you say that of yesterday.
[/Quote]
Last time you had a poor second half and Bravo, but you were so far ahead first half, that the work you did them couldnt be undone. This time with your first half, you never threatened a goal, took the lead twice via unbelievable gifts, you NEVER had a poor second half, wasted time and went defensive as early as 32 minutes to yet still gave up the best chance of the entire game with the match at 2-1.

[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]
Last seasons derby according to skysports:
City 18 shots, 6 on target, 1 clear cut chance and 60% possession.
United 14 shots, 3 on target, 2 clear cut chances and 40% possession.
[/QUOTE]
Brilliant. In this game you forced us to self destruct and only two Bravo gifts kept us in the picture. Even in spite of your poor second half.

[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]....I'd also like to know what SS considers a clear cut chance.
[/Quote]
Same here.

[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]
You gave up more chances in the last derby but also missed more 2nd half last time. I've never said we were better this time, I've said you were worse this time. See above. [/Quote] Fair enough. That got lost in translation in the heat of argument....

[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]
.....
Your whole west ham argument is rubbish, I'll say thus clearly. Fernandinho came on as a sub at CB a minute after we went 2-1 in a defensive shift to combat long balls. Mangala started that match so I have no clue where you pulled what you just wrote from. Not reality thats for sure. We finished the West Ham game with Otamendi, Mangala (the starting CB's and Fernandinho making a back 3).

He also came on for Aguero in that game, just like Mangala for Jesus yesterday. We shifted from a 352 before we scored to almost a 550 to see out that game. The 3 cbs named above, Delph and Walker as wingbacks. Jesus fell back into a no.10 role and everyone else just played as defensive midfielders. [/Quote] The only thing Ill admit to is mixing things up from two different fixture. But my argument isnt rubbish. Not even close....

Anyone who has watched Pep long enough knows he doesn't switch to a back 3 to defend. The fact you are trying to claim Jesus started 'playing as a 10" makes it even worse. If what he did vs West Ham was the SAME he did vs us, he'd have switched to a back 3. He instead vs us switched to a standard defensive 4-6-0. A system with 2 holders, one with a license to break forward, two wide midfielders/wingers, plus two Ams, one playing closer to the two holder, other acting as false 9 when in possession then falling back to form a shield of two ahead of the two holders when possession is lost.
[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]
So using your "went defensive for good reason", I actually said he went defensive for good reason but it was the same good reason vs west ham and Huddersfield. You're trying to make out it was different but it was the exact same reason. Big team hoofing the ball forward means we needed more defenders. To say anything different is lying to make yourself feel good. [/Quote] You stick to wisfhull thinking. Ill stick facts. There was very little difference between the 3-5-2 Pep fished with vs West Ham and the same formation he started the season with, when he wanted to use Jesus and Aguero as a twin partnership. To try and paint it as defensive is laughable. To try yo equate it to what happened vs us is worse.

[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]
You think Gundogan is a holding midfielder? Who were the 2? When fernandinho went back to midfield. Gundogan moved into Silvas position with Silva moving forward. Its why Gundogan was literally on your goal line to roll that ball across the box. Don't know many holding midfielders who are found on the oppositions goal line in the 85th minute while trying to hold a 2-1 lead do you? [/Quote] Seriously? You think a holding player cant break forward to contribute to a counter attack as his partner holds fort?
Come on now...
[QUOTE="padr81, post: 21836440, member: 1008077]
Oh look tactical fouls again, tell me how many times or quote me messages you posted about our tactical fouls before Jose got his excuses in early. In fact quote me a post and I'll apologize for this paragraph.
[/Quote] Why would I do such a thing? Do I look like Nostradamus to you? Furthermore, do you seriously believe Mourinho invented the term?
And what would you call, for example, the foul that got D. Silva booked mid second half? You seem to have this weird disdain for the term as if its not a valid football tactic, employed when a team has gone into defensive mode. Stop confusing me with Mourinho. My argument was the increased frequency of those type of fouls second half, with over 30+ minutes to play were evidence and proof of you lot going defensive. And not being "far better' like the like of you and Pep have tried to sell. Mourinho in comparsion, was arguing, yall are a dirty, cheating team that a ref has to look out for.

 

[Invictus]

@PexiGlass quit signing up with new accounts every other week, and wasting our time – as well as yours.

Cc: @Kola_Nut.

 

[Law's Law]

Tactical Fouls!

City are so reliant on fouls in their strategy that United only committed 60% more fouls in the game.
In fact, City is the top 6 team with the least amount of fouls. United is topping that stat league, but it does not matter apparently because only tactical fouls count.

Also, how does bringing Mangala on translates to going into defensive mode?
City went offensive after losing Kompany by bringing Gundogan on for him and putting Fernandinho back. It was only natural to bring on Mangala after going ahead, considering United reliance on long balls and potential entry of Zlatan.

Going 4-6-0 doesnt mean going defensive either, he just needed the change and did not want to lose any of his wide players, and certainly not KDB or Silva. There was no other choice.
I remember Guardiola speaking ahead of the Euro 2012 final, saying that Spain dont need a striker to beat Italy. Eventually Spain went into the game 4-6-0 and ripped Italy a new one.

Finally, all this "if it wasnt for Lukaku" is both hypothetical and grasping at straws. You are assuming City wouldnt get any chance in the last 30 minutes if they needed to. They were already winning and didnt really need to pursue it.

 

[TheReligion]

Tactical Fouls!

City are so reliant on fouls in their strategy that United only committed 60% more fouls in the game.
In fact, City is the top 6 team with the least amount of fouls. United is topping that stat league, but it does not matter apparently because only tactical fouls count.

Also, how does bringing Mangala on translates to going into defensive mode?
City went offensive after losing Kompany by bringing Gundogan on for him and putting Fernandinho back. It was only natural to bring on Mangala after going ahead, considering United reliance on long balls and potential entry of Zlatan.

Going 4-6-0 doesnt mean going defensive either, he just needed the change and did not want to lose any of his wide players, and certainly not KDB or Silva. There was no other choice.
I remember Guardiola speaking ahead of the Euro 2012 final, saying that Spain dont need a striker to beat Italy. Eventually Spain went into the game 4-6-0 and ripped Italy a new one.

Finally, all this "if it wasnt for Lukaku" is both hypothetical and grasping at straws. You are assuming City wouldnt get any chance in the last 30 minutes if they needed to. They were already winning and didnt really need to pursue it.

You just repeatedly contradict yourself throughout that post. Makes for very strange reading I must say.

 

[notcool]

City went offensive after losing Kompany by bringing Gundogan on for him and putting Fernandinho back. It was only natural to bring on Mangala after going ahead, considering United reliance on long balls and potential entry of Zlatan.

Playing with Gundogan and Fernandinho was a defensive change. You wanted more ball-playing players in your team so that you could keep the ball better and stop us counter-attacking.

Going 4-6-0 doesnt mean going defensive either, he just needed the change and did not want to lose any of his wide players, and certainly not KDB or Silva. There was no other choice.

You were playing 4-6-0 all game. In the first half Sterling was playing as a false nine. You did that to keep the ball better and stop us countering. Pragmatic Pep strikes again!

 

[Ronetta]

Too much "if my aunt had bollocks she'd be my uncle" going on here I think.

One of the interesting things about history is that there is only one version of it. Once you start ignoring what actually happened and getting into the "what if's", the all bets are off. You're then in a fantasy land where any and all alternative histories are possible.

What if Lukaku didn't cause the 2nd City goal? Well in that alternative universe, there was a fire in the ground and the game was suspended after 72 minutes. Or a plane carrying meat carcasses exploded in mid air, raining whole dead cows onto the pitch. Or Aguero came on and scored a hatrick. Or any other fantasy you wish to imagine.

What you cannot reasonably do, is to only rewrite the bits of history that you want to, to suit your narrative. "We would have won if..." You didn't and that's all there is to it.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

City rarely sell out games in the PL. It's even rarer they do it in the CL. Not sure if this is still down to the boycott or if it's just general apathy. They also have little support outside Manchester. PSG pretty much sell out most games but they have a much smaller stadium. They also have little support outside France. In regards to PSG you would think they would have expanded the stadium if demand was there. It seems highly unlikely to me that these 2 are going to have enough fans willing to travel to the Ukraine & fill a 70k stadium. In regards to neutrals, you would have top go all the way back to 03/04 for a less appealing final. I personally can't see much appetite in seeing 2 state funded plastic clubs going at it.



I've been wondering why nothing has been done TBH. Every man & his dog knew that City & PSG would circumvent FFP. It's like FIFA have decided that they can't be arsed trying anything else.
The powers that be probably thought that City would feck things up themselves as they usually do. When this happened everything would sort itself out naturally. This hasn't happened & in effect things are becoming even more manic as both City & PSG are accelerating their spending . Most thought that the owners spending would plateau.

What is happening at City puts the other 5 clubs from the top 6 in serious danger. We are in effect playing a game of poker with someone who has infinite stake money. They are going to keep raising the stakes until you bow out.

Even when FFP was being taken seriously, there were ways that City were allowed to effectively circumvent it - like having related companies provide hugely overvalued sponsorship deals (stadium / kits / etc) , or Mansour funding the building of hotels / leisure complexes linked to the ground (more revenue that can be counted) or spending money on the stadium, etc, etc

 

[Ronetta]

Even when FFP was being taken seriously, there were ways that City were allowed to effectively circumvent it - like having related companies provide hugely overvalued sponsorship deals (stadium / kits / etc) , or Mansour funding the building of hotels / leisure complexes linked to the ground (more revenue that can be counted) or spending money on the stadium, etc, etc

I must have missed the Manchester City Hotel complex. Where is it?

FFP is and has always been taken seriously. It was an attempt to stop clubs with new money gate-crashing the cosy little party, but unfortunately for the very many vested interests behind such a scheme, the shutters came down just a bit too late.

City is now in a position where it doesn't need (nor does it use) Sheikh Mansour's money - or that of anyone associated with him. It's a big, successful, profitable club and business. It's here now and the ship that could impose arbitrary rules to stop it, has sailed.

You might as well invent rules to restrict United, or Arsenal or Liverpool or Barca for example. Anything that is now done to try to hurt City, will hurt the rest of the big clubs.

On the face of it, PSG would seem to be in a different piss-taking boat. But we haven't seen their accounts, so who knows whether their financing of Mbappe and Neymar for example, falls within the rules. If it doesn't, Fifa will sanction them in some way.

 

[Handré1990]

Even though it kills me to say, this City team really reeks of Guardiola. The way they always seem to have a player free (vs Mou no less) and the way they keep the ball all over the pitch to the point of frustration for the oppos. Also, like someone already mentoined, they are masters in destroying their adversarys momentum using professional fouls.

The last point frustrated me no end on Sunday. We commit fouls to try to get the ball back, for Pep's teams it's part of the whore strategy. Every player on that team does it. He is clever the maniac.. It was the same with Barcelona. Excellent teams that's impossible for me to like.

 

[Random Task]

I must have missed the Manchester City Hotel complex. Where is it?

FFP is and has always been taken seriously. It was an attempt to stop clubs with new money gate-crashing the cosy little party, but unfortunately for the very many vested interests behind such a scheme, the shutters came down just a bit too late.

City is now in a position where it doesn't need (nor does it use) Sheikh Mansour's money - or that of anyone associated with him. It's a big, successful, profitable club and business. It's here now and the ship that could impose arbitrary rules to stop it, has sailed.

You might as well invent rules to restrict United, or Arsenal or Liverpool or Barca for example. Anything that is now done to try to hurt City, will hurt the rest of the big clubs.

On the face of it, PSG would seem to be in a different piss-taking boat. But we haven't seen their accounts, so who knows whether their financing of Mbappe and Neymar for example, falls within the rules. If it doesn't, Fifa will sanction them in some way.

So you're saying that were The Shiekh to up and leave as of tomorrow morning, it would have absolutely no effect on the club he left behind?

Do explain exactly how that would work.

 

[padr81]

So you're saying that were The Shiekh to up and leave as of tomorrow morning, it would have absolutely no effect on the club he left behind?

Do explain exactly how that would work.

Simple really all the sponsors brought in during his reign are all still sponsors and on contracts. Do you genuinely think we couldn't replicate the Etihad deal was the Sheikh to decide its time to move on? Just because the Sheikh moves on is no guarantee that the sponsors would. City are a profitable business who are televised in the CL every season for the last 7 or so seasons and more than likely for the next decade as well. Am I right in thinking we are the only Premier League team to not miss out on the CL since we first qualified?

So why would a new sponsor not take up said deal?

City are no longer reliant on Mansour. The numbers we've posted season on season show that clearly.

 

[TheReligion]

Simple really all the sponsors brought in during his reign are all still sponsors and on contracts. Do you genuinely think we couldn't replicate the Etihad deal was the Sheikh to decide its time to move on? Just because the Sheikh moves on is no guarantee that the sponsors would. City are a profitable business who are televised in the CL every season for the last 7 or so seasons and more than likely for the next decade as well. Am I right in thinking we are the only Premier League team to not miss out on the CL since we first qualified?

So why would a new sponsor not take up said deal?

City are no longer reliant on Mansour. The numbers we've posted season on season show that clearly.

Lets be honest if he left you'd suddenly see an end to these favourable sponsorships you have long term. I would also imagine your obscene wages and spending would slow dramatically.

To suggest it would have no long term effect is naive.

 

[Thunderhead]

Lets be honest if he left you'd suddenly see an end to these favourable sponsorships you have long term. I would also imagine your obscene wages and spending would slow dramatically.

To suggest it would have no long term effect is naive.

Our obscene wages and spending? If ours is obscene what is United's?

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

I must have missed the Manchester City Hotel complex. Where is it?

FFP is and has always been taken seriously. It was an attempt to stop clubs with new money gate-crashing the cosy little party, but unfortunately for the very many vested interests behind such a scheme, the shutters came down just a bit too late.

City is now in a position where it doesn't need (nor does it use) Sheikh Mansour's money - or that of anyone associated with him. It's a big, successful, profitable club and business. It's here now and the ship that could impose arbitrary rules to stop it, has sailed.

You might as well invent rules to restrict United, or Arsenal or Liverpool or Barca for example. Anything that is now done to try to hurt City, will hurt the rest of the big clubs.

On the face of it, PSG would seem to be in a different piss-taking boat. But we haven't seen their accounts, so who knows whether their financing of Mbappe and Neymar for example, falls within the rules. If it doesn't, Fifa will sanction them in some way.

I don't know if there is one yet, it was just another example of a way in which FFP could be circumvented.

 

[Random Task]

Simple really all the sponsors brought in during his reign are all still sponsors and on contracts. Do you genuinely think we couldn't replicate the Etihad deal was the Sheikh to decide its time to move on? Just because the Sheikh moves on is no guarantee that the sponsors would. City are a profitable business who are televised in the CL every season for the last 7 or so seasons and more than likely for the next decade as well. Am I right in thinking we are the only Premier League team to not miss out on the CL since we first qualified?

So why would a new sponsor not take up said deal?

City are no longer reliant on Mansour. The numbers we've posted season on season show that clearly.

City never were reliant on The Shiekh's money. Ever.

Were he to leave then City would be as they were prior to his arrival, a self-sufficient football club capable of generating a tidy profit. Just like the rest of us.

Same thing applies to Chelsea and PSG as well.

 

[M18CTID]

I don't know if there is one yet, it was just another example of a way in which FFP could be circumvented.

So building a hotel complex which in turn would generate revenue equates to circumventing FFP does it? Please do elaborate. After all, UEFA themselves when drafting up their FFP regs specifically made mention of that exact scenario as being a genuine way for a club to generate cash.

Jesus wept

 

[M18CTID]

Lets be honest if the Glazers sold United tomorrow to someone who bought the club in exactly the same way as they did, ie: a leveraged buyout which loaded debt onto the club, albeit a much larger debt this time round due to the huge increase in the club's value since 2005, then United would be back to square one but with a much larger debt to service. I would also imagine your obscene wages and spending would slow dramatically, while ticket prices would sky rocket in order to fund said debt for the foreseeable future.

To suggest it would have no long term effect is naive.

It's easy to dream up these hypothetical scenarios

 

[RedorDead21]

A great team and an even better challenge for the club and team to respond to.
Challenges like this is what really should bring the best out of the team. People wanting city to just disappear so we could stroll to titles make me laugh. If we can't better city we don't deserve titles.....they do. Simples.

 

[Schneckerl]

I personally can't see much appetite in seeing 2 state funded plastic clubs going at it.

Yeah I think you overesimate the amount of neutrals who care about that stuff enough to miss out on a potentially great game.

Additionally a large number of people are bandwagoners and both team have decent potential to attract that crowd with growing CL success. PSG has Neymar/Mpabbe - City has Pep, so Barca fans are interested. City might never make it in Manchester but I they start to win a lot they will gain tons of 'fans' internationally.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

So building a hotel complex which in turn would generate revenue equates to circumventing FFP does it? Please do elaborate. After all, UEFA themselves when drafting up their FFP regs specifically made mention of that exact scenario as being a genuine way for a club to generate cash.

Jesus wept

Let's face it, you'd be a yo yo Premier League club at best without the Sheikh. We've generated our wealth through history, winning things and attracting a big fan base.

 

[M18CTID]

Let's face it, you'd be a yo yo Premier League club at best without the Sheikh. We've generated our wealth through history, winning things and attracting a big fan base.

What's that got to do with what you originally posted and my answer?

But now you come to mention it, I don't think a single City fan would ever deny where we would be without our owner. That said, if you know anything about your own club's history you'd know that United might not even exist if it wasn't for 2 sugar daddy owners and the help you received from City themselves when you begged for their help in driving Manchester Central out of the football league and ultimately out of business

 

[padr81]

Lets be honest if he left you'd suddenly see an end to these favourable sponsorships you have long term. I would also imagine your obscene wages and spending would slow dramatically.

To suggest it would have no long term effect is naive.

How is it naive. Do you think another company wouldn't be delighted to get the Etihad deal for similar money now? If you do it is you whose naive my friend.

City never were reliant on The Shiekh's money. Ever.

Were he to leave then City would be as they were prior to his arrival, a self-sufficient football club capable of generating a tidy profit. Just like the rest of us.

Same thing applies to Chelsea and PSG as well.

Yes but I will also admit that we would never have had the step up we've had without the Sheikh and our huge losses, not being self sufficient anyway. If he walked away 4 years ago we'd be in trouble and probably fallback to being a yo-yo club. If he was to leave next season I believe we'd replace those sponsorships when they eventually run out with ones of equal or great value such is the amount and level the Sheikh has funded us to.

 

[sk6blue]

A yo-yo club that has been in the top division for the large majority of it's history to be fair, 88 seasons which is only 4 fewer than United!

 

[Ainu]

Let's face it, you'd be a yo yo Premier League club at best without the Sheikh. We've generated our wealth through history, winning things and attracting a big fan base.

I find this argument so tedious. Can we really blame or look down on other clubs for trying to reach the status of an elite club? That's like saying: you're poor, you don't belong among our group of elite clubs and you will never belong, you'll just have to accept it. Or give them the impossible task of trying to get into that elite group without access to the ridiculous funds said clubs have because of their history. That's just silly. As if it's all been an easy ride for City. It used to be a titanic struggle for them just to maintain the status of being a Premier League club. I can't find it in me to blame them for how they reached their current level. They're here now and they've turned into a well run football club. We shouldn't be dismissing them, we should strive to become better than them.

 

[Random Task]

What's that got to do with what you originally posted and my answer?

But now you come to mention it, I don't think a single City fan would ever deny where we would be without our owner. That said, if you know anything about your own club's history you'd know that United might not even exist if it wasn't for 2 sugar daddy owners and the help you received from City themselves when you begged for their help in driving Manchester Central out of the football league and ultimately out of business

Presumably you're talking about James Gibson, the guy who saved the club and rebuilt the stadium after the Nazis used it as target practise. The two situations barely even relate if we're being honest, one was a United supporter who saw fit to rescue the club from near bankruptcy, the other is a billionaire Prince whose primary focus when he purchased City was to exploit the club in any way he could and significantly boost his profile in the process. Two very different people both harbouring very different agendas.

Interestingly enough, Mr Gibson was recently given recognition for his services to the club in the form of a memorial plaque, it currently sits rather swankily on the Matt Busby bridge.

Whose the second guy you are referring to?

Yes but I will also admit that we would never have had the step up we've had without the Sheikh and our huge losses, not being self sufficient anyway. If he walked away 4 years ago we'd be in trouble and probably fallback to being a yo-yo club. If he was to leave next season I believe we'd replace those sponsorships when they eventually run out with ones of equal or great value such is the amount and level the Sheikh has funded us to.

I think that will depend heavily on the manner of his exit.

Should he leave City while they are currently champions of England or better yet Europe, the sponsors would be lining up to get their logo printed on City shirts, such is the recognition that would flow from their current status as champions would bring. On the otherhand, should he leave them after a few seasons without a trophy, whilst spending a large fortune every summer, the polar opposite will occur, sponsors will be walking away from you.

When all is said and done, City, for all their huff and puff of late, have yet to win anything of note. Their stature (and I mean no disrespect - well maybe a little in the name of banter) is still that of a minor club. A few seasons in the doldrums would see them fade into obscurity without The Shiekh propping them up. You're not quite there yet.

 

[JASR]

A yo-yo club that has been in the top division for the large majority of it's history to be fair, 88 seasons which is only 4 fewer than United!

Careful mate, facts like that are fake news to some.

 

[Theonas]

I find this argument so tedious. Can we really blame or look down on other clubs for trying to reach the status of an elite club? That's like saying: you're poor, you don't belong among our group of elite clubs and you will never belong, you'll just have to accept it. Or give them the impossible task of trying to get into that elite group without access to the ridiculous funds said clubs have because of their history. That's just silly. As if it's all been an easy ride for City. It used to be a titanic struggle for them just to maintain the status of being a Premier League club. I can't find it in me to blame them for how they reached their current level. They're here now and they've turned into a well run football club. We shouldn't be dismissing them, we should strive to become better than them.

I absolutely agree. The elitism of it is sickening. The same people I assume sing a very different tune when it comes to social issues. It's like you say; Barcelona were trying to sue PSG for goodness sake for having the cojones to do to them what they'd been doing to everyone else forever. Real Madrid were as good as state sponsored under Franco and still are getting governmental favours but because it happened few decades ago, they deserve to be among the elite because apparently if it happened before our lifetime, it was not luck, it was earned somehow.

The other part I don't understand about this argument is how boring the alternative would be. If it weren't for PSG now, we'd be looking at Barcelona dominating again for another decade because they have most likely the best player in the world after the current duopoly of Messi and Ronaldo. How fun! Another era with the same clubs having the very best players. Our league would be us and Arsenal buying the best players of whoever dares try and build a team. The elite clubs are like the elite rich people in every domain; bullies. The only way to establish yourself in their world is through outside investment. It is not ideal but it is so much better than the alternatives.

 

[M18CTID]

Presumably you're talking about James Gibson, the guy who saved the club and rebuilt the stadium after the Nazis used it as target practise. The two situations barely even relate if we're being honest, one was a United supporter who saw fit to rescue the club from near bankruptcy, the other is a billionaire Prince whose primary focus when he purchased City was to exploit the club in any way he could and significantly boost his profile in the process. Two very different people both harbouring very different agendas.

Interestingly enough, Mr Gibson was recently given recognition for his services to the club in the form of a memorial plaque, it currently sits rather swankily on the Matt Busby bridge.

Whose the second guy you are referring to?

Gibson was the second of the two - he came along in 1931 when United were struggling near the foot of the second division and were pretty much bankrupt. The 2 situations might not be comparable on the face of it, but we’re talking 2 totally different eras. Either way, United were given a much needed financial boost. Immediately prior to that, a third Manchester club - Manchester Central - had recently been founded and had just been admitted to the football league. United were struggling far more than City at the time and saw Central as a real threat. As City and United enjoyed a good relationship, they joined forces in lobbying the Football League against Central’s admission and were successful in getting them expelled from the league. Pretty shameful from both clubs really.

The other guy was John Henry Davies in 1902. Again, United (or rather Newton Heath) were on the verge of bankruptcy, and had never to my knowledge finished higher than bottom of the top flight. Thanks to Aston Villa grassing City up for allegedly offering a backhander to throw a match in 1904, City were punished so severely that we almost went out of business when 17 of our players (and our manager) were banned for life from playing for the club. United signed some of them - including the great Billy Meredith (who would return to City many years later after his ban was lifted) - and they formed the backbone of your first trophy winning side. Interestingly, just before Davies got imvolved in United the club held a bazaar to raise much needed funds and a certain other Manchester club made a donation

Back to Gibson - for years there’s been a small plaque on that bridge outside Old Trafford in recognition of him. Has it been upgraded?

 

[Stacks]

I find this argument so tedious. Can we really blame or look down on other clubs for trying to reach the status of an elite club? That's like saying: you're poor, you don't belong among our group of elite clubs and you will never belong, you'll just have to accept it. Or give them the impossible task of trying to get into that elite group without access to the ridiculous funds said clubs have because of their history. That's just silly. As if it's all been an easy ride for City. It used to be a titanic struggle for them just to maintain the status of being a Premier League club. I can't find it in me to blame them for how they reached their current level. They're here now and they've turned into a well run football club. We shouldn't be dismissing them, we should strive to become better than them.

football conservatism is strong here. I love a good upstart from time to time.
RB Leipzig were my joy last year.

 

[Cheesy]

I'd understand the argument if all the big top leagues were setup in a way wherein all clubs can get to the top with clever management and strong signings etc, but that's obviously not the way it is anymore and the game (for the most part) tends to be dominated by a select few sides in each league.

With the exception of the occasional Leicester-esque miracle, the only way any club outside of United, Liverpool or Arsenal can really hope to compete is through being owned by someone who's incredibly rich. Spurs have done an admirable job in recent years but go into most Spurs threads and the inevitable comments will say how they're fecked once Kane moves on...with the assumption being, of course, that he'll go somewhere else for more money. Without their rich owners City and Chelsea probably wouldn't have been threatening for league titles now...so in order to win it's really the best approach. And yeah, it's not exactly savoury, but when the game fundamentally depends on money there's not much else you can do.

 

[notcool]

Also, like someone already mentoined, they are masters in destroying their adversarys momentum using professional fouls.

The last point frustrated me no end on Sunday. We commit fouls to try to get the ball back, for Pep's teams it's part of the whore strategy. Every player on that team does it.

Herrera has done it numerous times for us. And it's something Mourinho has been known for in the past.

Also, tactical fouls are committed usually when your team is being counter-attacked. City are a little more vulnerable to this because they play high up the pitch so I think it's a little bit unfair to criticise them if they tactical foul more than most, which I doubt they do. Mourinho probably pointed this out being he wanted to counter-attack them and was trying to make sure they'd be punished if they did commit tactical fouls.

 

[Ronetta]

So you're saying that were The Shiekh to up and leave as of tomorrow morning, it would have absolutely no effect on the club he left behind?

Do explain exactly how that would work.

Trivially simple.

City have no debts and hardly any of our revenue comes from the Middle East. We'd be one of the world's richest clubs now whether Sheikh Mansour is on the scene or not.

We'd might take a small financial hit but it would depend who bought us. Just like if the Glazers sold you lot.

Disappointing for you i know.

 

[Thunderhead]

Trivially simple.

City have no debts and hardly any of our revenue comes from the Middle East. We'd be one of the world's richest clubs now whether Sheikh Mansour is on the scene or not.

Disappointing I know.

Not so sure about that, reckon 15-20% will still come from the middle east sponsors for the next few years but everything is definitely now in place that we're not so reliant on them in the long run

 

[sk6blue]

AFAIK the Etihad deal is still at £40m per year then there's some much smaller ones with Etisalat, Aabar and Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority. I don't think it's inconceivable that that income could easily be replaced should the "dream scenario" happen and the Sheikh decides to sell up. City are the only English club to qualify for the CL every year for the past 7 years and that brings a lot of extra commercial exposure for associated sponsors. When ADUG bought the club they outlined a 10 year plan with 3 distinct phases to build the club up to compete in Europe and become self-sustainable. This is now phase 3. Of course people are free to believe, even in the absence of any solid evidence, that the Sheikh is somehow still propping up the club.

A Glazer-style takeover would be a fair bit more difficult too as City aren't a plc so you can't just go out and buy up shares on the open market.