Manchester City under Pep Guardiola | Pep on City v Liverpool ref: "He likes to be special"

rotherham_red said:
Not true. We've spent more last season and possibly the season before. But City and Chelsea before them outspent us and before Abramovitch, it was actually Liverpool who were the big spenders in the league.
Click to expand...

Not for 30 years but you had a financial domination between Liverpools 80's heyday and Chelsea's. It wasn't handed to you like it was to us at City or to Chelsea but you had it. Hell a fully enforced strict FFP would guarantee you probably 40 of the next 50 league titles, with Arsenal and Liverpool coming in behind you and would turn the prem into the Bundesliga, not a dig at you guys at all because you've earned your fanbase and commercial income etc.. but true nonetheless. You could spend during the 90s and pre-Roman what other clubs could only dream of. Hence the continuous breaking of the transfer record. What was really impressive is how you guys combined this with your class of 92 and took full advantage. I'll never know how Wenger put up the fight he did in the 90's and pre-Roman because Chelsea and our financial doping is the only thing that stops the league turning into a one horse race.

Can you imagine the league if Roman never arrived and you had a free run at every big player who wanted to come to England?

Btw, this is as I said not a criticism but more an admission of how well you guys were run even during your struggling years. The prem would be a one horse LaLiga or BL of that I've no doubt. As weird and all as it seems financail doping (I use that term as that is what alot refer to it as) has kept the premier league alive. City and Chelsea buying big has stopped the prem becoming that and allowed the Arsenals and the Liverpools to cling on to you.
 
RedPed said:
Feck me!! This is Arsenal we're talking about. He didn't have to do no such thing.....sitting on that famed huge cash reserve year in year out. How long have you been at the Emirates now?? Still shopping in the bargain bins! Obviously, a fair amount of the Gooners can't be blessed with great logic either to quote your own words. No wonder they're all pissed if your pitiful justification is anything to go by. That's why they were nearly killing each other a few years back.
Click to expand...

That's the boards strategic decisions and could be part of the loan agreement. I suggest reading up on what happened to Kroenke's other sporting franchises, they've all gone down hill since he took them over.
 
I just watched his interview, finally. God thats awkward. Felt a bit sorry for him purely assuming that there is something that he's pissed off with behind the scenes.
 
padr81 said:
Not for 30 years but you had a financial domination between Liverpools 80's heyday and Chelsea's. It wasn't handed to you like it was to us at City or to Chelsea but you had it. Hell a fully enforced strict FFP would guarantee you probably 40 of the next 50 league titles, with Arsenal and Liverpool coming in behind you and would turn the prem into the Bundesliga, not a dig at you guys at all because you've earned your fanbase and commercial income etc.. but true nonetheless. You could spend during the 90s and pre-Roman what other clubs could only dream of. Hence the continuous breaking of the transfer record. What was really impressive is how you guys combined this with your class of 92 and took full advantage. I'll never know how Wenger put up the fight he did in the 90's and pre-Roman because Chelsea and our financial doping is the only thing that stops the league turning into a one horse race.

Can you imagine the league if Roman never arrived and you had a free run at every big player who wanted to come to England?

Btw, this is as I said not a criticism but more an admission of how well you guys were run even during your struggling years. The prem would be a one horse LaLiga or BL of that I've no doubt. As weird and all as it seems financail doping (I use that term as that is what alot refer to it as) has kept the premier league alive. City and Chelsea buying big has stopped the prem becoming that and allowed the Arsenals and the Liverpools to cling on to you.
Click to expand...

Rag! :lol:
 
padr81 said:
Not for 30 years but you had a financial domination between Liverpools 80's heyday and Chelsea's. It wasn't handed to you like it was to us at City or to Chelsea but you had it. Hell a fully enforced strict FFP would guarantee you probably 40 of the next 50 league titles, with Arsenal and Liverpool coming in behind you and would turn the prem into the Bundesliga, not a dig at you guys at all because you've earned your fanbase and commercial income etc.. but true nonetheless. You could spend during the 90s and pre-Roman what other clubs could only dream of. Hence the continuous breaking of the transfer record. What was really impressive is how you guys combined this with your class of 92 and took full advantage. I'll never know how Wenger put up the fight he did in the 90's and pre-Roman because Chelsea and our financial doping is the only thing that stops the league turning into a one horse race.

Can you imagine the league if Roman never arrived and you had a free run at every big player who wanted to come to England?

Btw, this is as I said not a criticism but more an admission of how well you guys were run even during your struggling years. The prem would be a one horse LaLiga or BL of that I've no doubt. As weird and all as it seems financail doping (I use that term as that is what alot refer to it as) has kept the premier league alive. City and Chelsea buying big has stopped the prem becoming that and allowed the Arsenals and the Liverpools to cling on to you.
Click to expand...

Good post, we're fortunate not to have a Bayern type situation in the PL. Looking back it's a pity what happened to Leeds as they are historically a big club but were run into the ground by Ridsdale.
 
padr81 said:
of the next 50 league titles,
Click to expand...
WackyWengerWorld said:
Good post, we're fortunate not to have a Bayern type situation in the PL. Looking back it's a pity what happened to Leeds as they are historically a big club but were run into the ground by Ridsdale.
Click to expand...

Yup thats why you guys done so well to hang in there. Better safe than sorry. I still worry someday the Sheik will walk away from City because we are still not ready. I think Chelsea could probably survive without Roman but we'd be Portsmouth, we need another 4 or 5 years to get things right.

Ridsdale just tried to throw money he didn't have at catching United but to huge detriment to the club. Off topic I suppose but when you look at all the big clubs gone over mismanagement its kind of sad. Leeds, Villa, Forest, than in Italy the Milan clubs, Valencia in Spain. Then you have clubs who weren't run bad but just in the wrong league at the wrong time and money has passed them by like Ajax, PSV, Red Star etc...

The big clubs and league have got too powerful.
 
What do people make of Pep telling Spanish media that city are a small club liking them to Villarreal saying their second tier compared to Utd And Arsenal etc?

While somewhat funny I think he is trying to big up himself making it out to be a challenge taking this small club up against the giants rubbish but omitting how they have more money to spend than anyone else
 
lsd said:
What do people make of Pep telling Spanish media that city are a small club liking them to Villarreal saying their second tier compared to Utd And Arsenal etc?

While somewhat funny I think he is trying to big up himself making it out to be a challenge taking this small club up against the giants rubbish but omitting how they have more money to spend than anyone else
Click to expand...

As a City fan the guy is not saying anything thats not true so I can live with it. Some of our support have got carried away but imho we need time to be a big club. Rome wasn't built in a day. One the field we're probably only bettered by Europes finest, we've got probably the best facilities in the world but I think we have to be honest and say in England alone United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and maybe even Spurs are still bigger than us globaly as are the Celtics, Ajax etc.. although we are making inroads it takes decades not years to build a dynasty.

We also have it tough in that earning new fans it tougher now than the 90's because the premier league is already global and supporters usually follow in parents footsteps and lots of families have their clubs.

Take Ireland for example - 40-50 year olds are mainly Liverpool with United ranking high but you also see lots of Arsenal, Everton, Spurs and the odd Forest and Leeds shirts. 20-40's is dominated by United with Arsenal, Liverpool and maybe Spurs and a sudden influx of Chelsea. I don't think its a coincidence. I coach under10's and after United and liverpool now I would say City shirts seem to be almost on a par with Arsenal and Chelsea. People gravitate towards who is successful when they are young and stick for life. City have a long time to wait to earn the fanbase of the others.
Of course Manchester will be different, and Everton shirts will dwarf City shirts in Liverpool etc... but in area's without succesful clubs or outside of England thats how its shaping up.

I think we've made great strides as a club but have to be realistic we are not a club of the stature of the big boys to your average Joe and although we are making strides we need to keep pushing and being succesful in the medium to long term to grow.
 
lsd said:
What do people make of Pep telling Spanish media that city are a small club liking them to Villarreal saying their second tier compared to Utd And Arsenal etc?

While somewhat funny I think he is trying to big up himself making it out to be a challenge taking this small club up against the giants rubbish but omitting how they have more money to spend than anyone else
Click to expand...
the lowering of expectations has begun. Excellent
 
stevieg4ever said:
How have you reached that conclusion? Not possible unless you have a very narrow definition of 'big club'.
They have won the league twice in the last five seasons
They have won 3 domestic cups during the same period as well
They regularly play in the Champions League
They have a new and impressive stadium that averaged 54,000 last season
They have some top players in their ranks
They have one of the most recognised managers from the modern era leading them

They have an average to non-existent history though, I'll give you that.
Click to expand...

They don't have history and they don't have a big club mentality. That can come with time, but until then they will never compare with Barcelona, Bayern, Madrid, Milan, Juventus, United, Liverpool and others.
 
sammsky1 said:
Was Pep trolling everyone or is he genuinely having a melt down?
Click to expand...

No he isn't melting down, he has always shown disdain for journalists and he is a sore loser. They didn't lost against Burnley but he definitely didn't like the performance.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
Our manager had to sell his best players year on year, without having a transfer budget in order to pay off a stadium debt. You've generally spent more than anyone else in the league for the last 30 years. Expectations are obviously different, unless you're not great with either logic or in fact knowing anything, ie the Wenger outers.
Click to expand...

This is something that is said a lot, but is it really true? For post length I will use the first 10 years of premier league era spends (1) + net spends (2) of United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, City, Tottenham, and a few other teams who could be considered relevant towards the top of the league over the years, all in £ of course. I will be using the Transferleague site, which I cannot vouch for as 100% accurate but they generally are on point. This may be a long post!

92/93 season

United - (1) 2.3m (2) 215k
Arsenal - (1) 4.1m (2) 2.1m
Liverpool - (1) 5.375m (2) 3.075m
Chelsea - (1) 4.935m (2) 160k
City - (1) 3.4m (2) 2.75m
Spurs - (1) 3.35m (2) 850k
Blackburn - (1) 8.19m (2) 6.26m
Aston Villa - (1) 4.4m (2) 4.1m
Newcastle* - (1) 5.285m (2) 3.965m
Leeds - (1) 5.87m (2) 3.845m

93/94 season

United - (1) 3.85m (2) 2.85m
Arsenal - (1) 3.65m (2) 1.75m
Liverpool - (1) 1.9m (2) 1.1m
Chelsea - (1) 6.225m (2) 4.485m
City - (1) 8.2m (2) 5.75m
Spurs - (1) 3.45m (2) 350k
Blackburn - (1) 13.65m (2) 12.1m
Aston Villa - (1) 1.235m (2) -2.495m
Newcastle - (1) 4.78m (2) 2.64m
Leeds - (1) 5.175m (2) -1.575m

94/95 season

United - (1) 8.25m (2) -3.98m
Arsenal - (1) 6.34m (2) 3.04m
Liverpool - (1) 17.1m (2) 14.6m
Chelsea - (1) 2.75m (2) 650k
City - (1) 30k (2) -2.22m
Spurs - (1) 12m (2) 6.735m
Blackburn - (1) 1.8m (2) 270k
Aston Villa - (1) 14.6m (2) 8.8m
Newcastle - (1) 13.65m (2) 3.885m
Leeds - (1) 3.925m (2) 3.175m

95/96 season

United - (1) 8.75m (2) 2.9m
Arsenal - (1) 12.25m (2) 10.5m
Liverpool - (1) 4.5m (2) 3m
Chelsea - (1) 9.75m (2) 6.025m
City - (1) 8.75m (2) 3.59m
Spurs - (1) 700k (2) -7.225m
Blackburn - (1) 5.75m (2) -14.825m
Aston Villa - (1) 0 (2) -670k
Newcastle - (1) 33.03m (2) 32.28m
Leeds - (1) 9.8m (2) 3.3m

96/97 season

United - (1) 5m (2) 500k
Arsenal - (1) 20.25m (2) 10.13m
Liverpool - (1) 14.35m (2) 4.65m
Chelsea - (1) 10.8m (2) 6.485m
City* - (1) 4.95m (2) 950k
Spurs - (1) 9.425m (2) 4.775m
Blackburn - (1) 8.5m (2) 6.75m
Aston Villa - (1) 14m (2) 10.95m
Newcastle - (1) 5.2m (2) -5.1m
Leeds - (1) 14.5m (2) 13.925m

97/98 season

United - (1) 6.15m (2) -2.525m
Arsenal - (1) 800k (2) 50k
Liverpool - (1) 4.95m (2) 3.2m
Chelsea - (1) 14.9m (2) 9.9m
City* - (1) 7.5m (2) 1.25m
Spurs - (1) 13.5m (2) 13.145m
Blackburn - (1) 14.275m (2) -7.155m
Aston Villa - (1) 7.35m (2) 1.28m
Newcastle - (1) 22.37m (2) 5.77m
Leeds - (1) 4.4m (2) 500k

98/99 season

United - (1) 27.75m (2) 25.95m
Arsenal - (1) 13.8m (2) 8.93m
Liverpool - (1) 12.05m (2) 7m
Chelsea - (1) 330k (2) -1.67m
City* - (1) 1.48m (2) -498k
Spurs - (1) 8.025m (2) 7.71m
Blackburn - (1) 29m (2) 17.325m
Aston Villa - (1) 22.925m (2) 6.325m
Newcastle - (1) 22.55m (2) 8m
Leeds - (1) 6.15m (2) 5.95m

99/00 season

United - (1) 17.8m (2) 16.05m
Arsenal - (1) 22.85m (2) -6.18m
Liverpool - (1) 35.85m (2) 26.6m
Chelsea - (1) 45.1m (2) 37.15m
City* - (1) 7.45m (2) 6.7m
Spurs - (1) 21.45m (2) 19.635m
Newcastle - (1) 24.8m (2) 9.6m
Leeds - (1) 28.31m (2) 9.185m

00/01 season

United - (1) 0m (2) -8.3m
Arsenal - (1) 35m (2) 3.3m
Liverpool - (1) 18.5m (2) 6.2m
Chelsea - (1) 26.7 (2) -2.6m
City - (1) 13.25m (2) 9.71m
Spurs - (1) 5m (2) -1.925m
Newcastle - (1) 13.05m (2) -4.1m
Leeds - (1) 41m (2) 31.9m

01/02 season

United - (1) 57m (2) 29.3m
Arsenal - (1) 15.25m (2) 10.6m
Liverpool - (1) 30.85m (2) 12.36m
Chelsea - (1) 15m (2) 8.36m
City* - (1) 32.7m (2) 28.9m
Spurs - (1) 13.5m (2) 8m
Newcastle - (1) 29m (2) 28.6m
Leeds - (1) 18m (2) 17.78m

Totals for teams that are listen for all 10 years

United - (1) 136.85m (2) 59.96m
Arsenal - (1) 134.29m (2) 44.22m
Liverpool - (1) 145.425m (2) 81.785m
Chelsea - (1) 136.49m (2) 68.945m
City - (1) 87.71m (2) 56.872m
Spurs - (1) 90.4m (2) 52.05m
Newcastle - (1) 174.515m (2) 85.54m
Leeds - (1) 137.13m (2) 87.985m

Obviously that's just a 10 year sample from when football started, but have we really spent all those years outspending everyone?

*Team not in the premier league that year
 
Kentonio said:
Just watched the foul for the first time, anyone who claims that isn't a red is an idiot.
Click to expand...
They will. Dont you worry about that. They tried to say Aguero challenge on Luiz wasnt that bad i remember, and Rojo v Everton was one of the worst in recent yrs. Theyre tools
 
sebsheep said:
This is something that is said a lot, but is it really true? For post length I will use the first 10 years of premier league era spends (1) + net spends (2) of United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, City, Tottenham, and a few other teams who could be considered relevant towards the top of the league over the years, all in £ of course. I will be using the Transferleague site, which I cannot vouch for as 100% accurate but they generally are on point. This may be a long post!

92/93 season

United - (1) 2.3m (2) 215k
Arsenal - (1) 4.1m (2) 2.1m
Liverpool - (1) 5.375m (2) 3.075m
Chelsea - (1) 4.935m (2) 160k
City - (1) 3.4m (2) 2.75m
Spurs - (1) 3.35m (2) 850k
Blackburn - (1) 8.19m (2) 6.26m
Aston Villa - (1) 4.4m (2) 4.1m
Newcastle* - (1) 5.285m (2) 3.965m
Leeds - (1) 5.87m (2) 3.845m

93/94 season

United - (1) 3.85m (2) 2.85m
Arsenal - (1) 3.65m (2) 1.75m
Liverpool - (1) 1.9m (2) 1.1m
Chelsea - (1) 6.225m (2) 4.485m
City - (1) 8.2m (2) 5.75m
Spurs - (1) 3.45m (2) 350k
Blackburn - (1) 13.65m (2) 12.1m
Aston Villa - (1) 1.235m (2) -2.495m
Newcastle - (1) 4.78m (2) 2.64m
Leeds - (1) 5.175m (2) -1.575m

94/95 season

United - (1) 8.25m (2) -3.98m
Arsenal - (1) 6.34m (2) 3.04m
Liverpool - (1) 17.1m (2) 14.6m
Chelsea - (1) 2.75m (2) 650k
City - (1) 30k (2) -2.22m
Spurs - (1) 12m (2) 6.735m
Blackburn - (1) 1.8m (2) 270k
Aston Villa - (1) 14.6m (2) 8.8m
Newcastle - (1) 13.65m (2) 3.885m
Leeds - (1) 3.925m (2) 3.175m

95/96 season

United - (1) 8.75m (2) 2.9m
Arsenal - (1) 12.25m (2) 10.5m
Liverpool - (1) 4.5m (2) 3m
Chelsea - (1) 9.75m (2) 6.025m
City - (1) 8.75m (2) 3.59m
Spurs - (1) 700k (2) -7.225m
Blackburn - (1) 5.75m (2) -14.825m
Aston Villa - (1) 0 (2) -670k
Newcastle - (1) 33.03m (2) 32.28m
Leeds - (1) 9.8m (2) 3.3m

96/97 season

United - (1) 5m (2) 500k
Arsenal - (1) 20.25m (2) 10.13m
Liverpool - (1) 14.35m (2) 4.65m
Chelsea - (1) 10.8m (2) 6.485m
City* - (1) 4.95m (2) 950k
Spurs - (1) 9.425m (2) 4.775m
Blackburn - (1) 8.5m (2) 6.75m
Aston Villa - (1) 14m (2) 10.95m
Newcastle - (1) 5.2m (2) -5.1m
Leeds - (1) 14.5m (2) 13.925m

97/98 season

United - (1) 6.15m (2) -2.525m
Arsenal - (1) 800k (2) 50k
Liverpool - (1) 4.95m (2) 3.2m
Chelsea - (1) 14.9m (2) 9.9m
City* - (1) 7.5m (2) 1.25m
Spurs - (1) 13.5m (2) 13.145m
Blackburn - (1) 14.275m (2) -7.155m
Aston Villa - (1) 7.35m (2) 1.28m
Newcastle - (1) 22.37m (2) 5.77m
Leeds - (1) 4.4m (2) 500k

98/99 season

United - (1) 27.75m (2) 25.95m
Arsenal - (1) 13.8m (2) 8.93m
Liverpool - (1) 12.05m (2) 7m
Chelsea - (1) 330k (2) -1.67m
City* - (1) 1.48m (2) -498k
Spurs - (1) 8.025m (2) 7.71m
Blackburn - (1) 29m (2) 17.325m
Aston Villa - (1) 22.925m (2) 6.325m
Newcastle - (1) 22.55m (2) 8m
Leeds - (1) 6.15m (2) 5.95m

99/00 season

United - (1) 17.8m (2) 16.05m
Arsenal - (1) 22.85m (2) -6.18m
Liverpool - (1) 35.85m (2) 26.6m
Chelsea - (1) 45.1m (2) 37.15m
City* - (1) 7.45m (2) 6.7m
Spurs - (1) 21.45m (2) 19.635m
Newcastle - (1) 24.8m (2) 9.6m
Leeds - (1) 28.31m (2) 9.185m

00/01 season

United - (1) 0m (2) -8.3m
Arsenal - (1) 35m (2) 3.3m
Liverpool - (1) 18.5m (2) 6.2m
Chelsea - (1) 26.7 (2) -2.6m
City - (1) 13.25m (2) 9.71m
Spurs - (1) 5m (2) -1.925m
Newcastle - (1) 13.05m (2) -4.1m
Leeds - (1) 41m (2) 31.9m

01/02 season

United - (1) 57m (2) 29.3m
Arsenal - (1) 15.25m (2) 10.6m
Liverpool - (1) 30.85m (2) 12.36m
Chelsea - (1) 15m (2) 8.36m
City* - (1) 32.7m (2) 28.9m
Spurs - (1) 13.5m (2) 8m
Newcastle - (1) 29m (2) 28.6m
Leeds - (1) 18m (2) 17.78m

Totals for teams that are listen for all 10 years

United - (1) 136.85m (2) 59.96m
Arsenal - (1) 134.29m (2) 44.22m
Liverpool - (1) 145.425m (2) 81.785m
Chelsea - (1) 136.49m (2) 68.945m
City - (1) 87.71m (2) 56.872m
Spurs - (1) 90.4m (2) 52.05m
Newcastle - (1) 174.515m (2) 85.54m
Leeds - (1) 137.13m (2) 87.985m

Obviously that's just a 10 year sample from when football started, but have we really spent all those years outspending everyone?

*Team not in the premier league that year
Click to expand...

No quoting facts now mate. Can't be having that.
 
padr81 said:
Not for 30 years but you had a financial domination between Liverpools 80's heyday and Chelsea's. It wasn't handed to you like it was to us at City or to Chelsea but you had it. Hell a fully enforced strict FFP would guarantee you probably 40 of the next 50 league titles, with Arsenal and Liverpool coming in behind you and would turn the prem into the Bundesliga, not a dig at you guys at all because you've earned your fanbase and commercial income etc.. but true nonetheless. You could spend during the 90s and pre-Roman what other clubs could only dream of. Hence the continuous breaking of the transfer record. What was really impressive is how you guys combined this with your class of 92 and took full advantage. I'll never know how Wenger put up the fight he did in the 90's and pre-Roman because Chelsea and our financial doping is the only thing that stops the league turning into a one horse race.

Can you imagine the league if Roman never arrived and you had a free run at every big player who wanted to come to England?

Btw, this is as I said not a criticism but more an admission of how well you guys were run even during your struggling years. The prem would be a one horse LaLiga or BL of that I've no doubt. As weird and all as it seems financail doping (I use that term as that is what alot refer to it as) has kept the premier league alive. City and Chelsea buying big has stopped the prem becoming that and allowed the Arsenals and the Liverpools to cling on to you.
Click to expand...
It is how I feel too, and why I thought that FFP was a pile of shit which needed to be binned.

I want to win, but to also be an interesting challenge. Spending far more than any other team in the league (Bayern) and then easily winning would lose some of the charm of winning.
 
serghei said:
They don't have history and they don't have a big club mentality. That can come with time, but until then they will never compare with Barcelona, Bayern, Madrid, Milan, Juventus, United, Liverpool and others.
Click to expand...

I totally agree that City don't have the history of winning titles that the other clubs you mention have but history is, well history and doesn't just include winning titles. City do have a long history, indeed longer than FC Barcelona.
 
Polite Poster said:
I totally agree that City don't have the history of winning titles that the other clubs you mention have but history is, well history and doesn't just include winning titles. City do have a long history, indeed longer than FC Barcelona.
Click to expand...
When people talk about a club having history they don't mean the club was around in the past, they mean history of success.
 
Schmiznurf said:
When people talk about a club having history they don't mean the club was around in the past, they mean history of success.
Click to expand...

People should say what they mean and not expect people to guess. I know there are posters from all over the world on this site and many may assume that City were founded in 2008 rather than 1880.

I hear all the time that 'City have no history' which is not true in either sense. We have a very long history (in the historical sense) and have won trophies throughout that history (just not as many as the teams quoted who have enjoyed lengthy periods of domination)
 
Polite Poster said:
People should say what they mean and not expect people to guess. I know there are posters from all over the world on this site and many may assume that City were founded in 2008 rather than 1880.

I hear all the time that 'City have no history' which is not true in either sense. We have a very long history (in the historical sense) and have won trophies throughout that history (just not as many as the teams quoted who have enjoyed lengthy periods of domination)
Click to expand...
That's how it has been for years with sports teams though, I can't remember a time when someone saying a club or team has no history meant they were founded recently, it's been about not having a history of success for a long time.

I honestly don't see that anyone would think it meant they were newly formed either.
 
Schmiznurf said:
That's how it has been for years with sports teams though, I can't remember a time when someone saying a club or team has no history meant they were founded recently, it's been about not having a history of success for a long time.

I honestly don't see that anyone would think it meant they were newly formed either.
Click to expand...

You may be correct but I'm not sue it will stop me correcting people :lol:
 
sebsheep said:
This is something that is said a lot, but is it really true? For post length I will use the first 10 years of premier league era spends (1) + net spends (2) of United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, City, Tottenham, and a few other teams who could be considered relevant towards the top of the league over the years, all in £ of course. I will be using the Transferleague site, which I cannot vouch for as 100% accurate but they generally are on point. This may be a long post!

92/93 season

United - (1) 2.3m (2) 215k
Arsenal - (1) 4.1m (2) 2.1m
Liverpool - (1) 5.375m (2) 3.075m
Chelsea - (1) 4.935m (2) 160k
City - (1) 3.4m (2) 2.75m
Spurs - (1) 3.35m (2) 850k
Blackburn - (1) 8.19m (2) 6.26m
Aston Villa - (1) 4.4m (2) 4.1m
Newcastle* - (1) 5.285m (2) 3.965m
Leeds - (1) 5.87m (2) 3.845m

93/94 season

United - (1) 3.85m (2) 2.85m
Arsenal - (1) 3.65m (2) 1.75m
Liverpool - (1) 1.9m (2) 1.1m
Chelsea - (1) 6.225m (2) 4.485m
City - (1) 8.2m (2) 5.75m
Spurs - (1) 3.45m (2) 350k
Blackburn - (1) 13.65m (2) 12.1m
Aston Villa - (1) 1.235m (2) -2.495m
Newcastle - (1) 4.78m (2) 2.64m
Leeds - (1) 5.175m (2) -1.575m

94/95 season

United - (1) 8.25m (2) -3.98m
Arsenal - (1) 6.34m (2) 3.04m
Liverpool - (1) 17.1m (2) 14.6m
Chelsea - (1) 2.75m (2) 650k
City - (1) 30k (2) -2.22m
Spurs - (1) 12m (2) 6.735m
Blackburn - (1) 1.8m (2) 270k
Aston Villa - (1) 14.6m (2) 8.8m
Newcastle - (1) 13.65m (2) 3.885m
Leeds - (1) 3.925m (2) 3.175m

95/96 season

United - (1) 8.75m (2) 2.9m
Arsenal - (1) 12.25m (2) 10.5m
Liverpool - (1) 4.5m (2) 3m
Chelsea - (1) 9.75m (2) 6.025m
City - (1) 8.75m (2) 3.59m
Spurs - (1) 700k (2) -7.225m
Blackburn - (1) 5.75m (2) -14.825m
Aston Villa - (1) 0 (2) -670k
Newcastle - (1) 33.03m (2) 32.28m
Leeds - (1) 9.8m (2) 3.3m

96/97 season

United - (1) 5m (2) 500k
Arsenal - (1) 20.25m (2) 10.13m
Liverpool - (1) 14.35m (2) 4.65m
Chelsea - (1) 10.8m (2) 6.485m
City* - (1) 4.95m (2) 950k
Spurs - (1) 9.425m (2) 4.775m
Blackburn - (1) 8.5m (2) 6.75m
Aston Villa - (1) 14m (2) 10.95m
Newcastle - (1) 5.2m (2) -5.1m
Leeds - (1) 14.5m (2) 13.925m

97/98 season

United - (1) 6.15m (2) -2.525m
Arsenal - (1) 800k (2) 50k
Liverpool - (1) 4.95m (2) 3.2m
Chelsea - (1) 14.9m (2) 9.9m
City* - (1) 7.5m (2) 1.25m
Spurs - (1) 13.5m (2) 13.145m
Blackburn - (1) 14.275m (2) -7.155m
Aston Villa - (1) 7.35m (2) 1.28m
Newcastle - (1) 22.37m (2) 5.77m
Leeds - (1) 4.4m (2) 500k

98/99 season

United - (1) 27.75m (2) 25.95m
Arsenal - (1) 13.8m (2) 8.93m
Liverpool - (1) 12.05m (2) 7m
Chelsea - (1) 330k (2) -1.67m
City* - (1) 1.48m (2) -498k
Spurs - (1) 8.025m (2) 7.71m
Blackburn - (1) 29m (2) 17.325m
Aston Villa - (1) 22.925m (2) 6.325m
Newcastle - (1) 22.55m (2) 8m
Leeds - (1) 6.15m (2) 5.95m

99/00 season

United - (1) 17.8m (2) 16.05m
Arsenal - (1) 22.85m (2) -6.18m
Liverpool - (1) 35.85m (2) 26.6m
Chelsea - (1) 45.1m (2) 37.15m
City* - (1) 7.45m (2) 6.7m
Spurs - (1) 21.45m (2) 19.635m
Newcastle - (1) 24.8m (2) 9.6m
Leeds - (1) 28.31m (2) 9.185m

00/01 season

United - (1) 0m (2) -8.3m
Arsenal - (1) 35m (2) 3.3m
Liverpool - (1) 18.5m (2) 6.2m
Chelsea - (1) 26.7 (2) -2.6m
City - (1) 13.25m (2) 9.71m
Spurs - (1) 5m (2) -1.925m
Newcastle - (1) 13.05m (2) -4.1m
Leeds - (1) 41m (2) 31.9m

01/02 season

United - (1) 57m (2) 29.3m
Arsenal - (1) 15.25m (2) 10.6m
Liverpool - (1) 30.85m (2) 12.36m
Chelsea - (1) 15m (2) 8.36m
City* - (1) 32.7m (2) 28.9m
Spurs - (1) 13.5m (2) 8m
Newcastle - (1) 29m (2) 28.6m
Leeds - (1) 18m (2) 17.78m

Totals for teams that are listen for all 10 years

United - (1) 136.85m (2) 59.96m
Arsenal - (1) 134.29m (2) 44.22m
Liverpool - (1) 145.425m (2) 81.785m
Chelsea - (1) 136.49m (2) 68.945m
City - (1) 87.71m (2) 56.872m
Spurs - (1) 90.4m (2) 52.05m
Newcastle - (1) 174.515m (2) 85.54m
Leeds - (1) 137.13m (2) 87.985m

Obviously that's just a 10 year sample from when football started, but have we really spent all those years outspending everyone?

*Team not in the premier league that year
Click to expand...

Looking at that thats actually quite impressive by United.
 
::sonny:: said:
Click to expand...


To the Bluemoon thread, pick up some popcorn on the way!

“We don’t have the history with this shirt, of Barcelona, Juventus, Munich or Manchester United. Not their titles,” said Guardiola, according to the Daily Mirror.

“It’s about being in Europe and over the next decade to be there [in the Champions League] every year. That’s more important to this club than winning one title, believe me, more than that.

“We have to convince people at this amazing club that they are good. They are good. And the fans as well. They have to believe they are good, the club is good, the players are good.”
Click to expand...
 
kidbob said:
No quoting facts now mate. Can't be having that.
Click to expand...

Haha well it obviously doesn't cover all expenditures like wages and such but the idea we were outspending everyone is something that is constantly thrown about as a fact, when really there isn't much difference between us and a lot of the teams. Newcastle are great though :lol:
 
Polite Poster said:
I totally agree that City don't have the history of winning titles that the other clubs you mention have but history is, well history and doesn't just include winning titles. City do have a long history, indeed longer than FC Barcelona.
Click to expand...

When I say history I don't mean simply the years a club is active. I mean a history of actually being a big club. Porto and Benfica are bigger clubs than City. Not better teams, but bigger clubs.
 
serghei said:
When I say history I don't mean simply the years a club is active. I mean a history of actually being a big club. Porto and Benfica are bigger clubs than City. Not better teams, but bigger clubs.
Click to expand...
They are under criteria of number and stature of titles won, attendance, proportion of fans to population etc that's for sure but they also live with the knowledge that a United, City, Real etc will just cherry pick their best players whenever they develop them.
They fulfill their business model really well and credit to them for that but the Portuguese League will never afford them the opportunity to move up the food chain.

City have made pretty good progress post takeover and with a fair wind behind them this should continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.