Do City leave you cold?

There are a LOT of people in this thread falling over themselves to claim how little it matters to them. And yet if they get knocked out in the semifinal of the Champions League there will be absolutely tons of posts and posters celebrating it. So excuse me if I take all these claims with a massive punch of salt.
As for my views as a non Utd, non City fan, dominance can be boring but I don’t differentiate between the kind of dominance City have and the kind that Bayern have, or Juve had until recently. They all add an element of boringness. Utd’s golden age was also pretty boring for non Utd fans, although I guess at the time you lot all put that down to jealousy. Funny how the tables turn. To illustrate that point even further, imagine if all external financing was made illegal, leaving Utd as consistently by far the richest ream in the league, without there being any real chance of being overtaken (financially) in the next 20 years. How do you think all these Utd fans who describe themselves as ‘cold’ would react? Football fans are awful hypocrites, I bet if the glazers had turned out to be owners who pumped money in (rather than took it out) you’d be scrabbling to find ways to justify that.
 
adexkola said:
This is a philosophical question worth it's own thread...

What I find interesting in these discussions is that it is automatically taken as fact (and not a matter of personal opinion) that the more "fragility" or flaws there is in a team, in terms of tactics, personalities, management, etc... The more interesting said team is. And that City, by being more "perfect" than the rest, is inherently more boring because they have less of that fragility.

Case in point: the 18/19 title race between City and Liverpool. I have heard some call that race boring, in part because it just consisted of two teams winning until the final day. Definitely different from previous title races defined by slips and stumbles over the finish line, but full of so much quality and grit from the 2 contenders that I find it fascinating that it is found "boring".

One more related point: Guardiola is on record speaking of how he hates to see his teams engaged in matches that many fans would find interesting: matches with lots of transitions, end to end stuff, last gasp defending... And over the years his City team has become better at limiting those moments, because frankly, that's a very effective way of winning matches. But I don't think there is any manager on earth who desires to concede tons of transition opportunities just to make the game interesting for fans. I don't think Klopp in his title winning season, was secretly wishing their games was way more open to give opponents a chance and have the fans going crazy. But the mystique/romance (for non-United fans) of seeing Liverpool win their first PL trophy was enough to forgive the plenty of one ended games. With City, there isn't that mystique or romance. It's just this rich club (reprehensible source of wealth of course) that bought a bunch of great/good players, managed by a fraud/excellent coach respectively, depending on who you talk to... And when said coach is one of the best at making most games one way traffic, devoid of fast paced, brexit, 'ave it!!! football... beyond tactics there's little to keep you engaged.

So in a roundabout way, this thread makes sense.

I'd ask if people felt this way about Serie A football in the 80s/90s, but even with defensive football you had plenty of individual stars, and overarching stories that kept viewers hooked and engaged, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Prior to City in the last few years, I’ve never heard people talking about “fragility” being a desired quality in football. Even when Pep was at Barcelona, the talk was of people that didn’t like possession football, not that they were too good and lacked flaws so it was boring.

It’s just weird for me. I don’t think there’s any manager in world football who sends their team out there willingly to need to desperately cling on to a lead or claim a last minute win. If every manager could get their team to strangle the life out of their opposition and win every game comfortably they would.

However that’s on a manager level. From a fan level I have never once watched a sports team and said that this team does not display signs of fragility, so I am not interested in watching them. It’s just weird for me. You mentioned stuff that keep people engaged, but football for me is about the actual football. It’s not about the personalities or narratives or whatever. I enjoy the sport of football and watching good quality football.
 
At the moment it's cold and I don't hate City..... Actually cheer them on in most games as I don't want Liverpool getting too close.

The issues is that in 10 years they could easily overtake us on fan base. There must be an army of kids now growing up with City dominance and that will eventually translate in to fans.

What they are doing in and around there stadium is also very impressive. They are even starting to build a new arena for gigs etc. If we don't get some success soon, they will eventually go past us in all aspects.
 
I really don't have opinion on them play style wise since my interest in Premier League is just going down year after a year and is close to 0. I was more Manchester United fan than a Premier League fan or I could even say a football fan since I basically lost all interest in football since we turned to shit.

But to say that their success doesnt matter because they bought it etc is just ridiculous. I once shared that opinion that they are plastic and they don't matter but when u look the big picture United was always amongst the biggest spenders in the golden era and not one of the fans felt bad about it. Heck we are among the biggest spenders in recent years with not much returns in terms of success. It doesn't matter from where money comes or how much money they spended for that success, at the end of the day it only matters who lifts the throphy.

Looking at the bigger picture they are run in the way that it is much more attractive to a football fan and would have to be much more apriciated than our way of running the club.
They are investing in new stadium in which fans can enjoy, youth academy, good squad and the best manager. Everything that should spark joy from true football fan.
While our owners are more focused on business side of the club, ignoring fans opinions, stadium which is falling apart or true investments to youth academy or results on the pitch until they start to affect business side.

If I would be chosing from neutral perspective which club I should support as things stands it wouldn't be hard decision to make, which is sad for future of our club.
 
City leave my highly impressed. Having money is one thing. Doing what they have with him is another.
 
Absolutely not. They're a well run football club. United fans need to stfu about their spending. We've nearly matched it and are nowhere near. PSG is also has unlimited resources and are relatively shit. Barcelona matched their spending and were also shit.
 
NicolaSacco said:
There are a LOT of people in this thread falling over themselves to claim how little it matters to them. And yet if they get knocked out in the semifinal of the Champions League there will be absolutely tons of posts and posters celebrating it. So excuse me if I take all these claims with a massive punch of salt.
As for my views as a non Utd, non City fan, dominance can be boring but I don’t differentiate between the kind of dominance City have and the kind that Bayern have, or Juve had until recently. They all add an element of boringness. Utd’s golden age was also pretty boring for non Utd fans, although I guess at the time you lot all put that down to jealousy. Funny how the tables turn. To illustrate that point even further, imagine if all external financing was made illegal, leaving Utd as consistently by far the richest ream in the league, without there being any real chance of being overtaken (financially) in the next 20 years. How do you think all these Utd fans who describe themselves as ‘cold’ would react? Football fans are awful hypocrites, I bet if the glazers had turned out to be owners who pumped money in (rather than took it out) you’d be scrabbling to find ways to justify that.
Click to expand...

A fair comment.
 
City leave me cold because the colors of their uniform are those of a cartoon ice cube.
 
NicolaSacco said:
There are a LOT of people in this thread falling over themselves to claim how little it matters to them. And yet if they get knocked out in the semifinal of the Champions League there will be absolutely tons of posts and posters celebrating it. So excuse me if I take all these claims with a massive punch of salt.
As for my views as a non Utd, non City fan, dominance can be boring but I don’t differentiate between the kind of dominance City have and the kind that Bayern have, or Juve had until recently. They all add an element of boringness. Utd’s golden age was also pretty boring for non Utd fans, although I guess at the time you lot all put that down to jealousy. Funny how the tables turn. To illustrate that point even further, imagine if all external financing was made illegal, leaving Utd as consistently by far the richest ream in the league, without there being any real chance of being overtaken (financially) in the next 20 years. How do you think all these Utd fans who describe themselves as ‘cold’ would react? Football fans are awful hypocrites, I bet if the glazers had turned out to be owners who pumped money in (rather than took it out) you’d be scrabbling to find ways to justify that.
Click to expand...
Some of what you say makes sense and I agree, but regarding the bolded part, it‘s not necessarily an either/or situation.
In my case I think it‘s just selective ignorance. I don‘t take the time to think about them or get wound up by their success. They‘re nothing more than a score I look at. A bit like a google search. Is it what I was looking for? No? Then scroll on without a second thought. I know it wouldn‘t make me happy, in the same way I wouldn’t be happy following my ex-girlfriends‘ social media accounts.
On the other hand, when I read that they lost, I‘ll usually watch the highlights of that game. That does make me happy.

So, maybe you‘re right, maybe wrong, but at the end of the day, I think it‘s very human to avoid pain and seek pleasure. My way of coping is complete ignorance until I know that it‘s something about them that I‘d enjoy.

If they played in a different league and they didn‘t have an impact on anything related to United, I wouldn‘t watch them or look up their scores. A bit like Bayern and PSG. I don‘t really care about any of them unless our paths cross.
 
Gums said:
Some of what you say makes sense and I agree, but regarding the bolded part, it‘s not necessarily an either/or situation.
In my case I think it‘s just selective ignorance. I don‘t take the time to think about them or get wound up by their success. They‘re nothing more than a score I look at. A bit like a google search. Is it what I was looking for? No? Then scroll on without a second thought. I know it wouldn‘t make me happy, in the same way I wouldn’t be happy following my ex-girlfriends‘ social media accounts.
On the other hand, when I read that they lost, I‘ll usually watch the highlights of that game. That does make me happy.

So, maybe you‘re right, maybe wrong, but at the end of the day, I think it‘s very human to avoid pain and seek pleasure. My way of coping is complete ignorance until I know that it‘s something about them that I‘d enjoy.

If they played in a different league and they didn‘t have an impact on anything related to United, I wouldn‘t watch them or look up their scores. A bit like Bayern and PSG. I don‘t really care about any of them unless our paths cross.
Click to expand...

This is very true actually, I’ve not seen Norwich win a game in about a decade!
 
I was randomly readiing some media when it mentions we are no longer the top selling shirt sellers in this country, never mind the world. Thats dated 2 years old as well! Now think about that and the fact Newcastle will be as big or bigger than City in 3-4 years and that leaves you cold!
Link
 
Yes. One of the most underwhelming "unstoppable" teams in history. Without the terrifying aura of 87-90 Milan or 19-20 Bayern, or the kinetic magnificence of 08-11 Barca or 98-99 Man Utd.

And still underachievers in the UCL.

Madrid 16-18 was equally boring, other than the supergoals of CR/Bale.
 
What leaves me cold is the fact I see them going absolutely nowhere, they are like Chelsea were when Abramovich came in but on steroids. League wise at least, I don’t think it will be too long before they get a CL anyway.

Newcastle within 5 years will be their biggest challenger in my opinion and where that leaves us I’m afraid is in many, many years of title winning exile.

This seems the way football is going and it may take us (or anyone else) being bought out by owners with unlimited resources and also employing top football people to run the club before it changes.

As dramatic as it sounds I would not be surprised to see them get to 21 titles before us.
 
Amir said:
City leave my highly impressed. Having money is one thing. Doing what they have with him is another.
Click to expand...
Aside from the cheating part, yes agreed. But that's like praising Charles Ponzi for his business success.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Aside from the cheating part, yes agreed. But that's like praising Charles Ponzi for his business success.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

It's an impressive con job.

Actually, it isn't even that impressive as a con job - it was never that difficult to pull off given the circumstances.

It's not a bad con job, you could say.

A half decent con job.

Kind of sums up City. Leave me cold? More like leave me lukewarm, like a cup of piss.
 
Amir said:
The may be cheating to get the money. They are not cheating when they are using it so well to create an incredible team.
Click to expand...
If a business does well but breaks the law, do the authorities assess how well they've used that money before deciding to punish them?
 
tomaldinho1 said:
If a business does well but breaks the law, do the authorities assess how well they've used that money before deciding to punish them?
Click to expand...

I'm not the authorities. I'm a football fan. I have no deep knowledge of how they do things behind the scene. I see how they play football and win games. It's brilliant. I'm not gonna judge Pep and his players on something they have no connection to.
 
Amir said:
I'm not the authorities. I'm a football fan. I have no deep knowledge of how they do things behind the scene. I see how they play football and win games. It's brilliant. I'm not gonna judge Pep and his players on something they have no connection to.
Click to expand...
No connection to aside from buying the manager and players you are praising... right.
 
Great team, great manager consistently one of the top 5 in Europe our local rivals, but honestly i've never cared less about how good City are or even how much they win.

if City won it for the next 5 years straight in the process keeping Liverpool at bay i wouldn't even flinch, couldn't care less about their achievements its all been tainted and means very little to anyone apart from their supporters.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
No connection to aside from buying the manager and players you are praising... right.
Click to expand...

It's not their fault or their reponsibility. So I have no problem appreciating what they are capable if. The money helped a lot, but it wasn't a guarentee.
 
Cloud7 said:
You mentioned stuff that keep people engaged, but football for me is about the actual football. It’s not about the personalities or narratives or whatever. I enjoy the sport of football and watching good quality football.
Click to expand...

We are in total agreement, I'm saying that for a good amount of football fans, it's not enough.

Unless they are just lying and just hate the nouveau-riche nature of City's success. You know, in comparison to all those innocent blue-blood clubs who "earned" their success (and then drew up the ladders behind them). Notice the lack of disdain for AC Milan despite their history?

Anyway, I digress.
 
Amir said:
It's not their fault or their reponsibility. So I have no problem appreciating what they are capable if. The money helped a lot, but it wasn't a guarentee.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it is their fault or responsibility, it's possible to praise Pep and the players but also understand how the club got to where it is, is not impressive. The period of time they cheated in is the hardest part of growing a football club, essentially bridging the gap into the CL places in order to access that huge income stream every season, they skipped that entirely by circumventing FFP.

You said 'City leave me highly impressed' but there's not a huge amount to be impressed by if you're talking about the actual club/strategy. Ironically I'd argue they had a poor strategy which made them grow impatient and, ultimately, cheat (essentially the ego driven move of picking United's local rival to make a statement but not factoring in City didn't have the fanbase or revenue to actually grow as they'd hoped/support their spending).

adexkola said:
Good analogy, if City consistently defrauded investors FFP and spent their hard earned money on trinkets in the form of De Bruyne and co...
Click to expand...
Fixed for you
 
My attitude towards them is of mild dislike. I don't really feel any intense rivalry with them because their wins and trophies don't really count.
 
adexkola said:
We are in total agreement, I'm saying that for a good amount of football fans, it's not enough.

Unless they are just lying and just hate the nouveau-riche nature of City's success. You know, in comparison to all those innocent blue-blood clubs who "earned" their success (and then drew up the ladders behind them). Notice the lack of disdain for AC Milan despite their history?

Anyway, I digress.
Click to expand...
Yep. Very few would have given a flying feck if it was Liverpool instead of City in 2008 or Arsenal instead of us in 2003 and if say Celtic and Rangers started spending their way into UCL contention the whole of the UK would be loving it. No one gave a feck when the likes of Wigan did the equivalent in the lower league's and brought their way to the PL because they stopped short of making sustained challenges on the elite.

People claiming their outrage is anything other than upset that the status quo are being challenged is hilarious.
 
Orion. said:
I’m in an absolute minority (potentially the only one), but I’m pre-Abu Dhabi City fan who despises what we’ve become; the inevitability of outcome has killed any passion I had for the games, and the style in which the Pep-era success has been ‘achieved’ bores the life out of me.

Guardiola’s acquired so many mercurial individual footballers, and yet somehow managed to zombify them into nothing more than conforming cogs of his anti-competitive machine; Grealish is the latest one undergoing the lobotomy to neutralise the innate qualities that made him special in the first place.

Pep’s the most insecure coach in football history; only takes jobs at clubs that win by default, stockpiles unprecedented squad depth to further stack the odds in his favour yet is still so paranoid that he has to play dull, risk-averse football. If he really backs his methods, he wouldn’t need the resources he’s had everywhere he’s been, and he’d take a job that’d give him the platform upon which to overachieve for once, and legitimise his philosophy.

Most City fans deify him as if he dragged the club up from division 2 himself, when in reality he’s simply had the job without the shackles of FFP that Mancini and Pellegrini had to work with; if we’d given them the depth of quality Guardiola’s had they’d have delivered just as much domestic success, probably more in Europe and in a far more spontaneous, entertaining manner too.
Click to expand...

great post and a different perspective
 
adexkola said:
Good analogy, if City consistently defrauded investors and spent their hard earned money on trinkets in the form of De Bruyne and co...
Click to expand...

It's a grand story, yeah? City's owners were shrewd, attracted the right sponsors at the right time - sponsors that coughed up top dollar legitimately, paying market price - roughly - for what they got.

City's owners then used the top dollar gained to enhance the team - meaning, strengthening the football side, buying the right players, etc. And that led to success on the pitch. Which, in turn, boosted the value of the football club, attracting more sponsors, making existing sponsors throw more money in, etc.

This was carried on - step by step - until they reached the point where they were able to field a team capable of challenging for the biggest prizes.

Right?

Obviously not right.

Hence the Ponzi analogy - which, granted, isn't 100% fitting. But the point is obvious enough: he didn't score because he made brilliant business decisions within the context of...actual business decisions. It was something else. Something most people aren't likely to praise if they know the nature of it.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
It's a grand story, yeah? City's owners were shrewd, attracted the right sponsors at the right time - sponsors that coughed up top dollar legitimately, paying market price - roughly - for what they got.
Click to expand...

You're talking to someone who has never and will ever see this framework of financial sponsorship as "legitimate" . I personally don't give a feck about whether the sponsors paid "market value", because that implies that before the oil clubs came along, it took a reasonable amount of effort to find success that way without getting poached for talent, or playing in leagues where non big clubs get awarded slim amounts of money (hello La Liga)

And it's important to realize that FFP only got stood up totally in 2015. And while City and other clubs probably violated the rules since then, the angst against the nature of the oil clubs' rise didn't stem from them "violating the rules" cause there were no rules. It came from the sense of "it being unfair and unearned" which for me has been always been an irrational and biased standard, one that was nowhere to be found before the newcomers came up on the block.

That people can simultaneously rail against the oil clubs and have no concern for creating a fairer, more even playing ground such that any well managed club can have a great shot at success regardless of wealth... The hypocrisy is hilarious, if anything, to distract from how annoyingly nonsensical the high ground on this issue has been.

So Ponzi? Nah.

Not that we aren't distracting from the theme of this thread anyways.
 
adexkola said:
You're talking to someone who has never and will ever see this framework of financial sponsorship as "legitimate" . I personally don't give a feck about whether the sponsors paid "market value", because that implies that before the oil clubs came along, it took a reasonable amount of effort to find success that way without getting poached for talent, or playing in leagues where non big clubs get awarded slim amounts of money (hello La Liga)

And it's important to realize that FFP only got stood up totally in 2015. And while City and other clubs probably violated the rules since then, the angst against the nature of the oil clubs' rise didn't stem from them "violating the rules" cause there were no rules. It came from the sense of "it being unfair and unearned" which for me has been always been an irrational and biased standard, one that was nowhere to be found before the newcomers came up on the block.

That people can simultaneously rail against the oil clubs and have no concern for creating a fairer, more even playing ground such that any well managed club can have a great shot at success regardless of wealth... The hypocrisy is hilarious, if anything, to distract from how annoyingly nonsensical the high ground on this issue has been.

So Ponzi? Nah.

Not that we aren't distracting from the theme of this thread anyways.
Click to expand...
I was assuming people weren't so literal and would know City aren't actually running a Ponzi scheme... the metaphor is simply that it is praising success based on crooked foundations.
 
They're proof that you can throw ridiculous money at any old club and make it successful. There will be more like them in the future, probably Newcastle are soon to follow. As for on the pitch, I've never really enjoyed posession football, its dull, and although I've only watched them against us they've done nothing to change my mind on that.
 
It must be odd for them. Despite the trophies brought in and bought with the oil money, they are not gaining fans. This is as good as it will be for them. They have the best manager of the recent times, but he will depart soon. Many of their players went there only because of him. Without Pep, they will have to compete with the other oil clubs on equal footing. Their football will get progressively worse and stagnated. Their reputation won't get better. They have the Mendy issue hanging over them, in addition to the various activities of their owners. Their fan base will only get smaller from here on out. Too bad for them.
 
Come on, their haul of PL titles is Fergie-esque. Nearly every two years a title. Other clubs need to play their best season ever to be able to compete with them. In terms of competitivenes in the PL, City are terrifying.
 
UweBein said:
Come on, their haul of PL titles is Fergie-esque. Nearly every two years a title. Other clubs need to play their best season ever to be able to compete with them. In terms of competitivenes in the PL, City Pep is terrifying.
Click to expand...
Don't forget, this City team finished level on points with LVG's side that went on that December run back in 2014. Once Pep fecks off, they will return to the realm of mortals.
 
Caesar2290 said:
Don't forget, this City team finished level on points with LVG's side that went on that December run back in 2014. Once Pep fecks off, they will return to the realm of mortals.
Click to expand...
So, they will win the title every three years which will be still great for them.
 
I’ve had this problem with Guardiola’s teams generally. Even his Barca team; while clearly a technical marvel; just didn’t do it for me.

I think the key is the lack of jeopardy. 65-70% possession. Very rarely do they fall behind in games. Only losing 1-2 games a season and getting 97-100pts every year. They are too good and it makes it uninteresting.

I’m sure opposition fans hated Utd winning the league all the time but we would lose 5-6 games a season. Most of our titles were won with less than 90pts and often by fine margins over Arsenal, Newcastle, Chelsea and City. Despite our ‘dominance’ most teams probably felt they had a chance of beating us at their ground. Old Trafford we were pretty dominant tbf.

Entertainment is generally found in not knowing the outcome and City are too predictable in that sense.
 
The thing that surprises me in this thread, (and perhaps it shouldn’t) is how genuinely unaware so many fans are that what is happening with City in terms of dominance is the same as what happened with Utd, only over a far longer period 7 of the first 9 Premier Leagues, between 1993 and 2001. Then a brief gap then 5 out of of 7 between 2007 and 2013. I can assure you that that was pretty damn boring for all non Utd fans but I’m pretty sure I don’t remember single Utd fan giving a flying feck!
 
NicolaSacco said:
The thing that surprises me in this thread, (and perhaps it shouldn’t) is how genuinely unaware so many fans are that what is happening with City in terms of dominance is the same as what happened with Utd, only over a far longer period 7 of the first 9 Premier Leagues, between 1993 and 2001. Then a brief gap then 5 out of of 7 between 2007 and 2013. I can assure you that that was pretty damn boring for all non Utd fans but I’m pretty sure I don’t remember single Utd fan giving a flying feck!
Click to expand...

Yeah, people want their club to dominate but they don't want to get dominated.

Nobody ever will complain about their club dominating a league, because winning is fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.