Varchester City 18/19 discussion

cyberman said:
No @padr81 you're not disproving my point.
I said relative success, who knows what Arsenal and Spurs could have achieved with 2 of their greatest ever squads if not saddling themselves with stadium construction costs.
Chelsea have been frugile for years now yet have won every competition possible since 2013.
Hell you have spent billions on your club and have won less since your takeover.
Other clubs finishing above us even after out spending them completely backs up my point. Also saying we wouldn't have had the same level of success without Sir Alex slam dunks it home as well.
But no, City needs near 3b worth of investment to compete ffs...
Click to expand...

Relative success for Liverpool is 2 trophies in 15 years? Liverpool... c'mon. The last 15 years have been terrible for them.
Relative success for Arsenal is not 3 FA Cups in 14 years, relative success for Spurs is not doing worse than Portsmouth in terms of trophy haul.

Kepa (70m), Jorginho (51m), Morata (59m), Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Rudiger, Batshuayi, Kante, David Luiz (bought back admittedly (all over 30m)) Zappacosta, Emerson, Giroud, Barkley and Alonso all between (15m and 25m)
Thats over £400m in the last 3 years according to Transfermarkt and that is reigned in spending in comparison to the mid naughties in comparison by your own admission.
According to transfermarkt their current squad cost £577.3m. Putting them only behind City, PSG and United in terms of cost to assemble in Europe, but yeah frugal.

Indeed they have won more than us, but we'll get there. In the 10 years since the takeover its currently at:
City 3 PL's, 1 FAC, 3LC
United 3 PL's, 1 FAC, 3LC, 1EL
Chelsea 3 PL's, 4 FAC, 1LC, 1CL
I can see us making more inroads on that.. though Chelsea being such a great side will win more trophies too, given what you guys are spending if you remove Woodward from football matters and get your shit together you'll be back to winning trophies as well. 3 teams spending shit loads and strangling out the trophies, why? because they fecking spend loads. They already have a stangle hold on the league as it is, City and Chelsea in particular more recently.
Its ridiculous you claim City only win because they spend money, then you claim spending money is not a guarantee for success.

No it doesn't. It happened for 3-4 seasons for christ sake where they finished above you, that's such a small window and more you trying to get your house in order.

Sir Alex done it in the 90's, in the 2000's he spent relative feckloads to stay with Chelsea, you guys like to bury your head in the sand about it, but he repeatedly broke the british transfer record and cherry picked the best players from all bar the biggest clubs (and rightly so.)

No one said to compete, we're doing a little more than competing.. we need investment now to be able to compete at the top for good.
 
ayushreddevil9 said:
Liverpool were competitive up until 2011. They fecked it up after that and took them 4 years to get it right again.

I don't see world class players who ply their trade in Spain or Germany peddling their brand like Paul Pogba. You don't really want to be famous for what you do on youtube/IG if you are a footballer.

Talking about your point 6, that's what I had agreed with some poster claiming that whatever that has happened with city could have happened with any other club. City just won the lottery. No offense but I don't think that there is anything 'special' about city. No emotions attached with football. Call me biased or what but its only money and artificialness that springs to my mind when I hear city.

Look at Spurs. They haven't won anything but they are going to get there some day. There are other ways to make a name and I just don't approve of what city/PSG are doing these days. Its not fair for other clubs when you are owned by a sugar daddy. At least this generation will know how all this success was achieved, the money from an oppressive regime like the ones that own city.
Click to expand...

The weren't really, they had a few 2nd places but were about as competitive as 2nd place last year in most of them. They appointed Souness, Evans, Hodgson, reappointed Daglish. Their best appointments in that time were Benitez and Rodgers for crying out loud. The destroyed themselves from the inside out as most Liverpool fans will admit to.

CR7 peddles his brand everywhere...(granted he's in Italy now). 90% of players have social media PR experts running their pages. It's not about being famous for what you do on those places, its about getting yourself out there and being in peoples faces 24/7. Those guys are everywhere and City (cringely is that even a word, probably not) are trying the exact same, it might be childish (if your happy for the champions clap you hands), it might be that absolute tit who runs our twitter, it might be the youtube channel, but they are constantly pushing City in peoples faces. Its not something I like but it is unfortunately modern society.

100%, it could be any club, not a single City fan will disagree with you. Not one. Is there a reason we were chosen over say Villa, Newcastle, Everton etc... ? fecked if I know what it is... hell it was maybe even being in the same City as United. We don't kid ourselves to believing, we are special. We are completely lucky, but I am delighted for loyal fans who stuck by the club in League One that we are lucky enough to see whats happening now. Its actually why I couldn't care if we never gained a single supporter on our Maine Road days... those that stuck by the club through the worst are being rewarded with the best (and yes its purely down to the luck of one man choosing us).

There is plenty of emotion to US, just like when you guys were hoovering up trophies, it had no emotion to me.. why because it could have been any of Englands giant clubs hoovering them up.. if not United it would have been Liverpool, maybe Arsenal. Then along came Roman and Chelsea and I'll admit it brought a huge smile to my face. A club who were sold for £1 who had their ups and downs, who had successes in the past but not to the level of others and they were kicking ass and taking names under Jose. I was delighted for them. They won the lotto and they loved every second of it.

There is no guarantee Spurs will win anything, in fact some posters in here calling them relatively successful said that the boat had passed for them 2-3 years ago. They were in a 2 horse title race vs Leicester and came 3rd. I just don't see them winning the league, another league cup, possible FA Cup maybe, even their manager came out post City game and said they are not competing for titles, they are on another level to the title chasing teams.

Football was never fair... Was it fair on Spurs when they were building a good side and you took firstly Carrick from them? When yourselves and Liverpool decimated their front line by taking Berbatov and Robbie Keane? Was it fair when Madrid took Bale and Modric? No, it wasn't and its still not fair when we are taking Kyle Walker. You guys are probably going to take Toby, Eriksen is probably being tapped up as we speak.
 
I did mean frugal with the owners money, we can't criticise clubs for spending earned money now.
You're also taking things at face value, its the need to keep up with State backed clubs thats pushing the fees up. You can't claim youre fighting against the staus quo when its City who are setting this financial bar. You are the problem here. Thats what it takes for Chelsea to even compete with you rather than City spending whats par for the course. Never mind the titles you've stolen from others if you never existed as all. Thats why its relative.
 
cyberman said:
I did mean frugal with the owners money, we can't criticise clubs for spending earned money now.
You're also taking things at face value, its the need to keep up with State backed clubs thats pushing the fees up. You can't claim youre fighting against the staus quo when its City who are setting this financial bar. You are the problem here. Thats what it takes for Chelsea to even compete with you rather than City spending whats par for the course. Never mind the titles you've stolen from others if you never existed as all. Thats why its relative.
Click to expand...

But Chelsea could never have got in that position without spending the way they did 15 years ago. Same for City, its 10 years since the takeover and its getting to the stage where we should be becoming self sustainable (and depending on how much of football leaks is true, we are either failing miserably or getting quite close).

How are we pushing up fees, we've signed one player over £60m in our history, we have none of the 5 most expensive signings in premier league history buddy. We spent 2/3 of what you spend on Pogba on KDB. The reality, transfers like Neymar are the ones that push the envelope, transfers like Pogba. After Pogba players took a jump, after Neymar someone like Coutinho became a £130m player along with Dembele). It when someone like Levy can say "well Barca paid £130m for Dembele, so I want £150m for Eriksen" that prices rise.

We certainly haven't helped, but we didn't pay £90m for a midfielder, £75m for a CB, £70m for a goalkeeper. We're maybe guilty of inflating the price of average defenders, and over paying for complete dross like Mangala but you get the midfielder and striker award and Liverpool get the goalkeeper. Take the early 00's Chelsea bought a lot of £18-25m players (huge money at the time) but it didn't hugely bump the market, its was the huge transfers that did that, like Zidane, Ronaldo etc... those deals bump the market for everyone else. Its interesting to take a look at transfermarkt and see where the real bumps come and they are things like Veron, Zidane, Torres, Neymar etc...

I also don't see us as fighting the status quo as much as joining it. There is nothing honorable in what we are doing, we are just joining others at the top. In fact the more football leaks reveals and if proven legit the more sour a taste I'll have in my mouth. I don't see City as some little hero pumped up on steroids taking on the evils of football, I see us as a little guy pumped up on steroids joining all the others at the top.
 
padr81 said:
you spend on Pogba on KDB. The reality, transfers like Neymar are the ones that push the envelope, transfers like Pogba..
Click to expand...
As an aside, PSG have simply paid Neymar's release clause. It hardly changed anything, other than having an implicit affect on Barca's transfers given clubs knew how much cash they had. You either pay it or not, but I don't believe it changed the global state of the market for good or something like that.
 
I always thought PSG signing David Luiz for £50m in 2014 was the transfer that sent everything mad.
 
padr81 said:
Relative success for Liverpool is 2 trophies in 15 years? Liverpool... c'mon. The last 15 years have been terrible for them.
Relative success for Arsenal is not 3 FA Cups in 14 years, relative success for Spurs is not doing worse than Portsmouth in terms of trophy haul.

Kepa (70m), Jorginho (51m), Morata (59m), Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Rudiger, Batshuayi, Kante, David Luiz (bought back admittedly (all over 30m)) Zappacosta, Emerson, Giroud, Barkley and Alonso all between (15m and 25m)
Thats over £400m in the last 3 years according to Transfermarkt and that is reigned in spending in comparison to the mid naughties in comparison by your own admission.
According to transfermarkt their current squad cost £577.3m. Putting them only behind City, PSG and United in terms of cost to assemble in Europe, but yeah frugal.

Indeed they have won more than us, but we'll get there. In the 10 years since the takeover its currently at:
City 3 PL's, 1 FAC, 3LC
United 3 PL's, 1 FAC, 3LC, 1EL
Chelsea 3 PL's, 4 FAC, 1LC, 1CL
I can see us making more inroads on that.. though Chelsea being such a great side will win more trophies too, given what you guys are spending if you remove Woodward from football matters and get your shit together you'll be back to winning trophies as well. 3 teams spending shit loads and strangling out the trophies, why? because they fecking spend loads. They already have a stangle hold on the league as it is, City and Chelsea in particular more recently.
Its ridiculous you claim City only win because they spend money, then you claim spending money is not a guarantee for success.

No it doesn't. It happened for 3-4 seasons for christ sake where they finished above you, that's such a small window and more you trying to get your house in order.

Sir Alex done it in the 90's, in the 2000's he spent relative feckloads to stay with Chelsea, you guys like to bury your head in the sand about it, but he repeatedly broke the british transfer record and cherry picked the best players from all bar the biggest clubs (and rightly so.)

No one said to compete, we're doing a little more than competing.. we need investment now to be able to compete at the top for good.
Click to expand...

There's a problem with your argument. Chelsea, like any other club, have to sell in order to buy. City don't. We had to sell some top players over the years, and some of those deals (KDB, Salah) came back to bite us in the ass. Liverpool spent plenty, but they had to sacrifice Coutinho to finance some of the deals. Name one quality player City had to sell to make their big money deals? Your net spend over the last five years or so has been absolutely ridiculous. And no wonder, you don't have to sacrifice any quality in order to finance your transfer business. The sheik will just move some pocket change from one of his pockets to another, City will call it a commercial income and voilà, problem solved. I'll give you one simple example. Three of your fullbacks Clichy, Zabaleta and Sagna were released back at the end of 2016-17 season. The very same summer you proceded to replace them with the trio of Walker, Mendy and Danilo to the tune of around £130m. No club in the world can operate like this, unless, of course, they don't have to worry about money.
 
antihenry said:
There's a problem with your argument. Chelsea, like any other club, have to sell in order to buy. City don't. We had to sell some top players over the years, and some of those deals (KDB, Salah) came back to bite us in the ass. Liverpool spent plenty, but they had to sacrifice Coutinho to finance some of the deals. Name one quality player City had to sell to make their big money deals? Your net spend over the last five years or so has been absolutely ridiculous. And no wonder, you don't have to sacrifice any quality in order to finance your transfer business. The sheik will just move some pocket change from one of his pockets to another, City will call it a commercial income and voilà, problem solved. I'll give you one simple example. Three of your fullbacks Clichy, Zabaleta and Sagna were released back at the end of 2016-17 season. The very same summer you proceded to replace them with the trio of Walker, Mendy and Danilo to the tune of around £130m. No club in the world can operate like this, unless, of course, they don't have to worry about money.
Click to expand...

Chelsea NOW have to sell to buy, Chelsea didn't when they were building. That is what you are not taking in. Crying about net spend is unbefitting of a Chelsea fan tbh... you guys literally wrote the blueprint City and PSG have followed. You don't operate like that NOW but for a very long time you did. Eventually you got self sufficient and fair play as Roman has tightened the purse strings. What you've done is to be commended but for a very long time Chelsea, unlike any other club, didn't have to sell in order to buy, most Chelsea fans admit this buddy. You seem to act like the first 10 years under Roman never happened.

Do you know the single biggest spending window in comparison to prize money and tv income, so the most financial muscle ever used by any owner in the history of football is Romans
https://beta-staging.grafiti.io/facts/69229 - Where was selling to buy back then also please note I completely disagree with the Chelsea ruining football narrative Tomkins is peddling but for pure figures its an accurate graph.
 
SqualorVictoria said:
As an aside, PSG have simply paid Neymar's release clause. It hardly changed anything, other than having an implicit affect on Barca's transfers given clubs knew how much cash they had. You either pay it or not, but I don't believe it changed the global state of the market for good or something like that.
Click to expand...

Of course it did and i'll not deny we're part of the inflation too but when people pay that kind of money on a player, everyone else gets bumped, its actually and easy enough trend to spot if you look through transfermarkt buddy. That combined with the prem's mega money and you end up as we are now imho.
 
Just saw a stat that said City have scored 5 goals in a domestic game 28 times since we last did it.
 
cyberman said:
Yeah. Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal and even Chelsea are examples of sides who can be relatively successful without breaking the bank over the last 15 years.
I hate the City argument of FFP protecting the elite, especially since Utd didn't outspend the competition during the height of our success.
Who are they protecting exactly?
I just find them to be a club of excuses and what-aboutisms.
Click to expand...
Very true.
 
padr81 said:
There is no guarantee Spurs will win anything, in fact some posters in here calling them relatively successful said that the boat had passed for them 2-3 years ago. They were in a 2 horse title race vs Leicester and came 3rd. I just don't see them winning the league, another League Cup, possible FA Cup maybe, even their manager came out post City game and said they are not competing for titles, they are on another level to the title chasing teams.

Football was never fair... Was it fair on Spurs when they were building a good side and you took firstly Carrick from them? When yourselves and Liverpool decimated their front line by taking Berbatov and Robbie Keane? Was it fair when Madrid took Bale and Modric? No, it wasn't and its still not fair when we are taking Kyle Walker. You guys are probably going to take Toby, Eriksen is probably being tapped up as we speak.
Click to expand...
Spurs were better than city in 15-16 and 16-17 until pep decided to spend half a billion on the defence itself. Spurs put together a side which ain't any weaker compared to city without any insane spending. The difference now? City have 50m players sitting on the bench and spurs couldn't spend a dime on new players this season. That's where I say its unfair because whatever city are spending is not their earned money, its from Abu Dhabi!
A player gets injured and Pep has plans for a new 50m player. That's the luxury city and Psg can afford and not any other club in the world. That's where I say its unfair. Use the club generated money and there's a level playing field.
Again, if a club uses its 'own' money to buy a player then I don't see any wrong with that. That's the whole concept of a transfer window. United, Liverpool, Arsenal all have their own funds and they buy players with that. Not using oil money like city do.
 
ayushreddevil9 said:
Spurs were better than city in 15-16 and 16-17 until pep decided to spend half a billion on the defence itself. Spurs put together a side which ain't any weaker compared to city without any insane spending. The difference now? City have 50m players sitting on the bench and Spurs couldn't spend a dime on new players this season. That's where I say its unfair because whatever city are spending is not their earned money, its from Abu Dhabi!
A player gets injured and Pep has plans for a new 50m player. That's the luxury city and Psg can afford and not any other club in the world. That's where I say its unfair. Use the club generated money and there's a level playing field.
Again, if a club uses its 'own' money to buy a player then I don't see any wrong with that. That's the whole concept of a transfer window. United, Liverpool, Arsenal all have their own funds and they buy players with that. Not using oil money like city do.
Click to expand...

Do you think it matters to the club losing or being bullied out of their player where the money comes from? Spurs have put together a good side but by their own admission its not a title winning one. If it wasn't City it would be someone else finishing above them, thats the difference.

Again with the £50m player bullshit, City have 8, not two for every position.

There is no level playing field using club generated money, it gives the clubs who generate big money a huge advantage (which is why its so popular around here because guess who earns the most?). I'm sure Spurs were more hurt by City taking Walker then they were by United and Liverpool taking Berbatov and Keane in the same window. Do you think Villa losing Milner and Barry was worse than Fulham losing Saha and Van Der Sar?

The kind of level playing field you want is akin to the Bundesliga and Serie A. They are working out great and have a huge variety in who takes the trophies.
What you really mean is a playing field that suits United. There is no level playing field, never has been but I will say it is getting to extreme levels now compared to say the 90's and City are a huge part of that.
Stop pretending its about a level playing field at all. Its about United being at the top.
 
Something that is seldom commented on but arguably great for football as a whole is that the number of clubs in the 'big 4/5/6' (it changes over time of course) is now greater than the number of clubs who get CL football. If you view that top group as currently being United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, City and possibly Spurs, at least two of those six won't/can't get a CL spot. I thi
ayushreddevil9 said:
Spurs were better than city in 15-16 and 16-17 until pep decided to spend half a billion on the defence itself. Spurs put together a side which ain't any weaker compared to city without any insane spending. The difference now? City have 50m players sitting on the bench and Spurs couldn't spend a dime on new players this season. That's where I say its unfair because whatever city are spending is not their earned money, its from Abu Dhabi!
A player gets injured and Pep has plans for a new 50m player. That's the luxury city and Psg can afford and not any other club in the world. That's where I say its unfair. Use the club generated money and there's a level playing field.
Again, if a club uses its 'own' money to buy a player then I don't see any wrong with that. That's the whole concept of a transfer window. United, Liverpool, Arsenal all have their own funds and they buy players with that. Not using oil money like city do.
Click to expand...

The world is an unfair place

If you are a bournemouth fan and see that United, at the end one of the seasons you won the league, went and spent a then huge amount of money on Van Nistelroy, that looks unfair. Do the fans of those clubs really sit back and say 'at least United did it with 'their money, that bl**dy city do it with their owner's money' ?

Unless there are transfer or other forms of budgetary caps in place to truly put clubs on a level playing field, there will be inequality. I get why a United or Liverpool fan will say it's different for them because it's 'earned income' and I'm not suggesting they don't, to a degree, have a point. But seriously, to the outside world, the idea that of all the clubs in the world, United fans should moan about another club getting success by flexing their financial muscle is going to be simply laughable

Only using 'club generated money' won't feel like a level playing field if you're Derby County or Swansea.
 
padr81 said:
Chelsea NOW have to sell to buy, Chelsea didn't when they were building. That is what you are not taking in. Crying about net spend is unbefitting of a Chelsea fan tbh... you guys literally wrote the blueprint City and PSG have followed. You don't operate like that NOW but for a very long time you did. Eventually you got self sufficient and fair play as Roman has tightened the purse strings. What you've done is to be commended but for a very long time Chelsea, unlike any other club, didn't have to sell in order to buy, most Chelsea fans admit this buddy. You seem to act like the first 10 years under Roman never happened.

Do you know the single biggest spending window in comparison to prize money and tv income, so the most financial muscle ever used by any owner in the history of football is Romans
https://beta-staging.grafiti.io/facts/69229 - Where was selling to buy back then also please note I completely disagree with the Chelsea ruining football narrative Tomkins is peddling but for pure figures its an accurate graph.
Click to expand...

There was no FFP when Chelsea were spending big and we never hid the fact that we were operating at a huge loss, at least in the beginning. But back then it was legit, no one ever said you can't spend your own money. I realize that City were less fortunate in a sense that the timing of their takeover didn't allow them as much time to establish themselves as a top club prior to FFP but it doesn't change the fact that they deliberately chose to break already established rules in order to get ahead. I mean, it's so blatant, how could anyone in their right mind to this day still believe they could possibly operate the way they did and generate their 'income'.
 
padr81 said:
Do you think it matters to the club losing or being bullied out of their player where the money comes from? Spurs have put together a good side but by their own admission its not a title winning one. If it wasn't City it would be someone else finishing above them, thats the difference.

Again with the £50m player bullshit, City have 8, not two for every position.

There is no level playing field using club generated money, it gives the clubs who generate big money a huge advantage (which is why its so popular around here because guess who earns the most?). I'm sure Spurs were more hurt by City taking Walker then they were by United and Liverpool taking Berbatov and Keane in the same window. Do you think Villa losing Milner and Barry was worse than Fulham losing Saha and Van Der Sar?

The kind of level playing field you want is akin to the Bundesliga and Serie A. They are working out great and have a huge variety in who takes the trophies.
What you really mean is a playing field that suits United. There is no level playing field, never has been but I will say it is getting to extreme levels now compared to say the 90's and City are a huge part of that.
Stop pretending its about a level playing field at all. Its about United being at the top.
Click to expand...
Its not about what suits United. Stop skewing my views to suit your own. United, Arsenal, Liverpool and other tranditional big clubs were because of their football and performances from the past, a legacy which they built not on the basis of the support of their owners splashing money left and right. Some used youth academies and some were smart enough in the transfer market. They are reaping benefits of their past successes now and you think that's unfair?

Okay, there is no level playing field. So is it justified to bypass the FFP rules using all the shady sponsorship deals? All the recent leaks have just shown to how much extent clubs like City and PSG have gone to prevent themselves from facing any punishment. If you think that's justified then there's no point in arguing.

Let me put it this way, do you think city will continue to spend like this if the owner decided to sell up?
You are quoting up all these small clubs - its like me complaining about the billionaires around the world even though i didn't work hard enough like them to achieve that success.

The clubs that use their own money atleast respect FFP. Spurs have a sustainable source of income without being backed by a state and their revenues are rising on yearly basis without the owner money.
 
jontheblue said:
The world is an unfair place

If you are a Bournemouth fan and see that United, at the end one of the seasons you won the league, went and spent a then huge amount of money on Van Nistelroy, that looks unfair. Do the fans of those clubs really sit back and say 'at least United did it with 'their money, that bl**dy city do it with their owner's money' ?

Unless there are transfer or other forms of budgetary caps in place to truly put clubs on a level playing field, there will be inequality. I get why a United or Liverpool fan will say it's different for them because it's 'earned income' and I'm not suggesting they don't, to a degree, have a point. But seriously, to the outside world, the idea that of all the clubs in the world, United fans should moan about another club getting success by flexing their financial muscle is going to be simply laughable

Only using 'club generated money' won't feel like a level playing field if you're Derby County or Swansea.
Click to expand...
What financial muscle? Financial muscle of the owners if that's what you mean and there's no point arguing the same point again and again.
 
antihenry said:
There was no FFP when Chelsea were spending big and we never hid the fact that we were operating at a huge loss, at least in the beginning. But back then it was legit, no one ever said you can't spend your own money. I realize that City were less fortunate in a sense that the timing of their takeover didn't allow them as much time to establish themselves as a top club prior to FFP but it doesn't change the fact that they deliberately chose to break already established rules in order to get ahead. I mean, it's so blatant, how could anyone in their right mind to this day still believe they could possibly operate the way they did and generate their 'income'.
Click to expand...

City failed FFP because of moving of the goalposts and acceptable losses. yes they chose to break it blatantly, absolutely. We should have taken it to court and wiped it completely. I've always said we're pushing things but according to City and to UEFA everything is perfectly legit. Is that corruption at Uefa level? maybe. It was impossible for City to pass FFP because of the way the rules were sprung on us, then the acceptable losses and then the changes. We were never going to pass FFP, which is why we sacked Mancini when we did, we could quite easily have held on to him for 3 weeks to save £10m but there was little we could do.

The reality is City were fined for breaking FFP rules in 2014 and punished. The fact UEFA backed down suggests, City were the more likely winners in court and more confident in their numbers.

Since then we have broken zero rules according to the governing bodies, whether the FL stuff proves to be true or not, matters not a feck at this moment. To this point we've broken none. If it turns out we broke FFP rules I expect us to be fully punished. If it turns out we legit bribed someone, I won't acknowledge a single trophy we've won since 08.. not one. Until those are proven we are innocent, it really is that simple. I have yet to see a single email confirms what in der Spiegel and you would think they would at least post images publicly... but there is nothing only articles on a website.

Does that mean I think we are a club run by a bunch of lovely caring, kind people who want to win everything while stepping on no ones toes? Do I feck... I fully believe 99% of our boardroom would stab their own mother and step on her corpse to get further along. I just believe every other boardroom and club are the same, just not as rich.
 
padr81 said:
You'll never know how it felt, a struggle for you guys is 6th or 7th and the occasional trophy. Our struggles were League One. No LVG or even Moyes will feel like that.
Click to expand...

Playing for relegation keeping the (alan) ball in the corner 1996 must be one of my favourite PL relegation moments :D:lol:
 
As a Leicester fan I'd be more impressed with Manchester City and Chelsea if they won stuff with young players that they'd brought through the system, instead they poach our best players Kante and Mahrez.
Is there one of their regular players that comes from their youth system ?

United's spending has been vulgar to be honest not just on transfer fees but on wages … Sanchez in particular.

But in United's defence they have a history of bringing through their own youth players and maybe in Rashford they have the real deal just like they had with Scholes ( the most gifted midfield player the Premier League has ever seen ), Giggs, Beckham and to a lesser extent the Neville brothers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
City fan on BlueMoon

'Occurred to me that the UAE ambassador to Washington had his emails hacked and now us. Whoever is in charge of cyber-security in the UAE Intelligence Services needs to have their head chopped off. Assuming they already haven't of course.'

You know they're half serious as well.
 
ayushreddevil9 said:
Its not about what suits United. Stop skewing my views to suit your own. United, Arsenal, Liverpool and other tranditional big clubs were because of their football and performances from the past, a legacy which they built not on the basis of the support of their owners splashing money left and right. Some used youth academies and some were smart enough in the transfer market. They are reaping benefits of their past successes now and you think that's unfair?

Okay, there is no level playing field. So is it justified to bypass the FFP rules using all the shady sponsorship deals? All the recent leaks have just shown to how much extent clubs like City and PSG have gone to prevent themselves from facing any punishment. If you think that's justified then there's no point in arguing.

Let me put it this way, do you think city will continue to spend like this if the owner decided to sell up?
You are quoting up all these small clubs - its like me complaining about the billionaires around the world even though i didn't work hard enough like them to achieve that success.

The clubs that use their own money atleast respect FFP. Spurs have a sustainable source of income without being backed by a state and their revenues are rising on yearly basis without the owner money.
Click to expand...

There is no justification. It's a bit rich that all the noise is coming from fans of the blue blood clubs who kept numb about their undisturbed dominance, until the new money upstarts came along and fecked it up for them the sport.
 
ayushreddevil9 said:
Its not about what suits United. Stop skewing my views to suit your own. United, Arsenal, Liverpool and other tranditional big clubs were because of their football and performances from the past, a legacy which they built not on the basis of the support of their owners splashing money left and right. Some used youth academies and some were smart enough in the transfer market. They are reaping benefits of their past successes now and you think that's unfair?

Okay, there is no level playing field. So is it justified to bypass the FFP rules using all the shady sponsorship deals? All the recent leaks have just shown to how much extent clubs like City and PSG have gone to prevent themselves from facing any punishment. If you think that's justified then there's no point in arguing.

Let me put it this way, do you think city will continue to spend like this if the owner decided to sell up?
You are quoting up all these small clubs - its like me complaining about the billionaires around the world even though i didn't work hard enough like them to achieve that success.

The clubs that use their own money atleast respect FFP. Spurs have a sustainable source of income without being backed by a state and their revenues are rising on yearly basis without the owner money.
Click to expand...

Traditional big clubs, City won their first trophy before United. City had the English attendance record for years before Spurs moved to Wembley. When we won our first league title you had a might two...
When we won our first trophy you were on the verge of going bust but were saved by of all things a sugar daddy in the early 1900s. The first in England I believe. So you were a small club who benefited from a wealthy owner flexing financial muscle.... sounds familiar.

Do Sunderland and Preston NE have a right to dismiss United achievements as lets face it, they were the traditional biggest clubs and a sugar daddy came along and saved your arses? Its all perspective really isn't it.
When did you become a traditional big club? What year to be specific? When did you become a traditional big club and Preston stop being one?

I've never said its ok to bypass FFP but as of yet you are quoting articles on a website.. Uefa, City, Fifa are all pretty clear in no wrong doing. When we did break FFP we were punished accordingly (all those ethical clubs were happy to take there share of a fine rather than stand up for their beliefs). Why we failed FFP has been discussed and explained many time. Are we breaking the rules? possibly, if its proven we should be punished accordingly, absolutely. What we should have done was brought FFP down for the false crock if shite it was when it came in, instead we signed a deal with Uefa to protect their little plan to stop other clubs from doing a City. That was the day we turned our back on other smaller poorer clubs. Denied them the chance to ever do what we have.

I'm not quoting small clubs.. this is exactly your problem. United were once one of those small clubs and Preston, Arsenal, Sunderland, Villa etc... the traditional big clubs. So again should we dismiss all of your achievements because you had a rich benefactor in 1910? Because without it you wouldn't exist and who knows one of those clubs might have your current position. In 1950 Huddersfield had 3 titles to your 2? Are they a traditionally bigger club?

You had your benefactor and that helped propel you to what you are. Arsenal were once know as the bank of England. Liverpool are probably the only hugely successful club who can make a case for not having a rich benefactor help push them to the top with their own generated money.
 
Ok, this is a longshot in which i don't believe but is there any chance for this? They cheated. And they cheated big. Because of that they bought wc players with whom they won PL. And because of that we ended second with 81 points which would be enough in "normal" season to be a champion. So any chance for Seria A scenario? They lose title and we get it?
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Ok, this is a longshot in which i don't believe but is there any chance for this? They cheated. And they cheated big. Because of that they bought wc players with whom they won PL. And because of that we ended second with 81 points which would be enough in "normal" season to be a champion. So any chance for Seria A scenario? They lose title and we get it?
Click to expand...
81 points champion is not a "normal" season
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Ok, this is a longshot in which i don't believe but is there any chance for this? They cheated. And they cheated big. Because of that they bought wc players with whom they won PL. And because of that we ended second with 81 points which would be enough in "normal" season to be a champion. So any chance for Seria A scenario? They lose title and we get it?
Click to expand...

Doubtful anything will happen from the ''leaks'' and if it does, I would probably be a suspension in the form of European football. Unless of course they were convicted of match fixing like Juventus. Did they match fix? Highly doubtful.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Ok, this is a longshot in which i don't believe but is there any chance for this? They cheated. And they cheated big. Because of that they bought wc players with whom they won PL. And because of that we ended second with 81 points which would be enough in "normal" season to be a champion. So any chance for Seria A scenario? They lose title and we get it?
Click to expand...

No, because they haven't broken Premier League rules
 
Regarding Sterling penalty, the one he got for tripping on his own feet, st Pep said they don't like scoring irregular goals.
Oh I don't know Pep you could have missed it on purpose. Crazy I know.
 
Their record against the top 6 since the start of last season reads: 11 wins, 2 losses and 1 draw - 34 pts from 14 games.

That is, if they played only top 6 teams all season and continued to win pts at the same rate, they'd win 92 pts.

In terms of league form alone, they are doing better than Barca 09-11, without having the same individual quality at that (and arguably the quality of the greatest PL sides too).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.