We should chase them because they're a good team. It's not about their ownership model and the supposed view it gives the world about the league, it's about the rest of the clubs rising to the challenge and becoming better teams.
Pep and City's dominance only good for the league | Theafonis discovers he's a City fan
- Thread starter Theafonis
- Start date
How can you chase a club with the wealth of a small country? Their owners dont care about profit and loss, City is simply something for them to spend money on. Of course it's about their ownership model, while United who are arguably the wealthiest club team in the world they are owned by people who look at the bottom line. PSG and City are the only 2 club clubs that don't have to until FFP rightly grow some balls and start handing down appropriate sanctions. Jose has made comments about PSG for a reason.
Are you not aware that both clubs have been sanctioned in the past? Both had to reduce their squad size for the Champions League. PSG were made to cut their 200m euro per year sponsorship from Qatar in half by UEFA and they are currently under investigation again. Can you clarify what you mean by "grow some balls" and "appropriate sanctions"? Feels like this forum could do with an FAQ on it given the number of times the topic is brought up and incorrect assumptions are made repeatedly.
This isn't a new situation. The very essence of creating the Premier League is to allow clubs to exploit their financial dominance, the majority of clubs couldn't compete then and can't now, nothing has changed
I don't agree with that the only teams I see buying success are Chelsea and City, injected by money that has came from owners. United and although I hate to say it Arsnal and Liverpool make massive amounts of money just being football clubs on the back of footballing success.
Yeah, you know what? Liverpool winning the Champions League this year would be another great blessing for us.
I can't argue with most of your post but the problem is the owners of United and the owners of City are 2 completely different beasts. I don't doubt United will spend money the problem is will the Glazer's be willing to compete at that level, I can't see them dumping £200m on a player anytime soon, we seen it in the summer. Fixing up on Morata and the flip flopping on Griezman, they are investors not bank rollers.
Yes. Massively so.
Which is why when they lose people need to again remember how crazy that Arsenal season was. Is almost as improbable as Leicesters season.
Agreed. They'd finally stop shouting 'Five Times' everywhere they go.
Yes, because Pires dived to keep that run going.
Ohhhhhhh strict sanctions those, I'd deduct league points personally.
Yeah tell a club like Tottenham who have done a great job in recent years, back in champions league topping a group with Dortmund and Real Madrid - yet have literally zero chance at competing with city in transfers, wages and if city come to poach one of their players- that city's oil revolution is good for British football.
Get real, the opportunities for most clubs to ever compete with buying a 200m defence and now adding to it because of injuries is pretty much zero. Likewise psg in France.
Get real, the opportunities for most clubs to ever compete with buying a 200m defence and now adding to it because of injuries is pretty much zero. Likewise psg in France.
Agree with that, its not about pep though i think for over a decade the best or say better managers were playing outside england so was the best players. With pep, klopp, conte, mourinho back in epl i think players would follow behind soon. 5 teams in knockout stage in ucl is a proof of it. Hope it also improves home grown players.
Oh yes, such a blessing in disguise, the oily lottery winning teams will dominate by spending zillions on players, transfer fees will become even more warped and inflated, as will players wages, this will filter down to more expensive ticket prices, Sky and BT bidding wars with higher tv subscriptions and we'll still only be limited to one premiership match on a Wednesday night.
The premiership will eventually turn into a two camel race.
Gee thanks City, we so needed this.
The only light at the end of the tunnel is that whatever City achieve, it will always be tainted by the money despite their protestations and their sad "thank you Sheik Mansour" banners, and Pep will get bored and move on to PSG, the next stage of his Bankrolled Footballing Genius World Tour.
The premiership will eventually turn into a two camel race.
Gee thanks City, we so needed this.
The only light at the end of the tunnel is that whatever City achieve, it will always be tainted by the money despite their protestations and their sad "thank you Sheik Mansour" banners, and Pep will get bored and move on to PSG, the next stage of his Bankrolled Footballing Genius World Tour.
True.
The bottom club in the Premier League gets £100m in prize money. That doesn't happen in any other league, and is why we have competitive teams right through the table.
I object to the bizzare and quite frankly disturbing notion put forward in the original post.
Excuse me while I search for a toilet to puke in.
Excuse me while I search for a toilet to puke in.
Last edited:
What would really be great is if Burnley beat us to top four. A lesson in how to build a top four squad on the cheap would be priceless for us. Fingers crossed.
Don't understand this fetishization of going unbeaten in the league. Topping 100 points is what should really have you worried
I'm not going to state that it's good for English football but it's certainly good for me at the moment. However, regarding that first paragraph cry me a river. You do realise that Tottenham have a multi-billionaire owner themselves in Joe Lewis don't you? That he chooses not to invest any of his own money into the club and expects every other fooker to foot the bill for their new stadium isn't City's fault. In fact, looking at what Lewis is worth and when he bought into Spurs, he could've easily invested the same amount into Tottenham that Mansour has into City and put that plan into motion before Abramovich and Mansour pitched up at Chelsea and City respectively. And if he'd invested that money in all aspects of the club as City's owner has done, it could be Spurs that are now 11 points clear at the top of the league with Guardiola at the helm, and that long-term investment strategy could've seen Lewis make his money back and foot a large chunk of their new stadium bill into the bargain - instead of rinsing the fans for the next God knows how many years as Arsenal have done and are still doing. Instead, they're staring down the barrel of a £1 billion bill (and rising) which amounts to just about the biggest mortgage in the history of football. So please spare me the hard luck story of those paupers over at Spurs and their multi-billionaire owner who just happens to be a tax exile in the Bahamas
You will need to do that anyway. Their smugness will be unbearable. They already think they have the best business people, sell out every game and their finances are all legit. Put unbeaten season and/or champions league on top of that.
Why?
Agreed, disaster if City get that telegram from the Queen before us.
We're only in December. Let's wait and see. Injuries can take a toll and form take a dip in the spring.
But there's no doubt that they're setting up something special. We need to raise our game and be better in the transfer market to match them. It's not going to be easy to compete with the natural gas/oil financed clubs though. The transfer market will only get more complicated with PSG/Qatar and City spending.
But there's no doubt that they're setting up something special. We need to raise our game and be better in the transfer market to match them. It's not going to be easy to compete with the natural gas/oil financed clubs though. The transfer market will only get more complicated with PSG/Qatar and City spending.
No it's not good for the league, a plastic petrol club dominating is bad for the league and for football. They may as well be called Abu Dhabi FC, and for all Pep's "genius" he still spent upwards of 400m pounds on a side that needed very little renovation as is. Clubs like PSG and City are bad for the sport and you cannot seriously think that this is a good thing, because with their endless cash this is only going to get worse.
I'm not going to state that it's good for English football but it's certainly good for me at the moment. However, regarding that first paragraph cry me a river. You do realise that Tottenham have a multi-billionaire owner themselves in Joe Lewis don't you? That he chooses not to invest any of his own money into the club and expects every other fooker to foot the bill for their new stadium isn't City's fault. In fact, looking at what Lewis is worth and when he bought into Spurs, he could've easily invested the same amount into Tottenham that Mansour has into City and put that plan into motion before Abramovich and Mansour pitched up at Chelsea and City respectively. And if he'd invested that money in all aspects of the club as City's owner has done, it could be Spurs that are now 11 points clear at the top of the league with Guardiola at the helm, and that long-term investment strategy could've seen Lewis make his money back and foot a large chunk of their new stadium bill into the bargain - instead of rinsing the fans for the next God knows how many years as Arsenal have done and are still doing. Instead, they're staring down the barrel of a £1 billion bill (and rising) which amounts to just about the biggest mortgage in the history of football. So please spare me the hard luck story of those paupers over at Spurs and their multi-billionaire owner who just happens to be a tax exile in the Bahamas
I'm not having a go at you specifically but that post is so saturated with smugness it's the type of thing that would have driven city fans mental about ten years ago.
You're missing the point. Spurs owner or any other English league owner could not have invested like that- city's owners have completely moved the goalposts as to what's realistic. They *could* have, the same way i *could* spend a shit load more on recreational things. But it's not realistic. If you want to pretend like pretty much any club in England could be where city are if the owners only opened their purse strings and the managers bought better players then by all means go ahead, but it's rubbish to think so. If I were you I'd be enjoying a great season too - but wouldn't be acting like it's a level playing field.
United are arguably the only team that can compete - but there's a whole host of other issues that need settling down after three post ferguson disaster years.
City themselves are proof that the only team that could compete with them at the moment would be one that also landed an unlimited fund a few years back. If Southampton had been bought by the guys brother Southampton would be fighting for top spot.
How the feck is this good for the premier league, I really can't stand the Guardiola and City wankfest, It's doing my head in to be honest, Some of our fans need to get their head out of their arses regarding them as well, You're meant to be United fans for feck sake.
Why would City's achievement be greater than Arsenal's? Stronger league now (although going by 11 points ahead, I'd say the league is weaker)?
I didn't watch Arsenal back then, only knew about their incredible achievement once it happened. Dive or no dive. Going unbeaten an entire season is pretty incredible.
Because getting 100 points is a much more meaningful record than going unbeaten
it needed loads of renovation, it was one of the oldest most bloated squads in the league hence releasing 10 senior players at the end of last season and I reckon at the end of this season Kompany, Toure and Hart who will all be 31+ will have to go, then the season after we'll have to replace Silva, Fernandinho and probably Aguero if he doesn't go this summer, but at least we're in a position now for the next 4 or 5 seasons where we can get by with only purchasing 3 or 4 players whilst letting the older players go.
That's debatable. Being 'invincible' has more sex appeal.
Guardiola spent 100s millions improving a squad that already had Silva, de Bruyne, Kompany etc etc. At the end of the day, they're just a very good team that's going to win the league and that's no special achievement. Nor can they take any credit for raising English clubs performances in the CL.
There's nothing smug about what I posted - if you want smug then have a look at some of the shite Glaston posts on here. It's a fact that there are multi-billionaire owners of clubs who choose not to invest money into their clubs and expect the cash to come from elsewhere. What would've driven me mental ten years ago isn't not having a rich owner full stop, but actually having a rich owner who was not only a tight twat, but someone who didn't re-invest all the money generated by the club back into it. Which is what Arsenal do (more than Spurs), and it takes the piss. You laud Spurs but I bet you wouldn't want to see United run that way (although I'm sure some United fans wouldn't mind having Pochettino as their manager).
For all the money City have spent, we've made mistakes since the takeover and haven't come close to hitting the kind of form we're in now so it's not just about the money anyway. It's also about using that money to make the right choices in terms of management and playing staff as well.
When all is said and done, I'm a football fan and I have no say in who runs or owns the club. We had 20 years of Peter Swales turning us from one of the top 3 clubs in the country to the biggest laughing stock in English football. Oh, and I never said anything about it being a level playing field. It never has been and never will be but don't go expecting me to give much of a toss. After all, I've witnessed both extremes - having watched City play on over 100 football grounds and for much of that time we were dog shit but I don't recall much if any sympathy coming our way. Not that I wanted any because as wank as we were on the pitch, there's a lot more to supporting a football team than what happens on the football field, and I've got a lifetime of memories off it which I wouldn't swap for the world.
Last edited:
This is a very good point tbh when everything is considered.
The idea behind that kinda investment is also to build a consistent winning team which City has failed to do so far. Money makes everything easier obviously but some work still needs to be put in.
City are yet to spend as much on a single player as we did on Pogba or Lukaku. Or even Di María. City aren't PSG, let's not conflate the two clubs.
You're overstating it. He still inherited top quality KDB, Silva, Aguero, Sterling, Kompany, and Fernandinho. The only areas that were really needing overhaul were your fullbacks, a little turnover in other areas was required but for 400m+ it's not hard to plug the gaps in a squad that was already considered among the top 2 best in the league with Chelsea.
I still think your point about other owners is way too short sighted. They do spend a fortune. Most teams are heavily backed but a line has to be drawn somewhere and it happens that city's line is way further away than most teams. By smug this is what I meant, you're currently in a position where you can (and it suits) criticise the policies of all the other clubs however well run. You simply can't expect that other owners, just because they are incredibly wealthy to chase after a runaway train like city.
Obviously talent and a good manager has a huge part with just how well city are performing right now, but it all comes back to one single decisive turning point in their history. To assume that clubs like Tottenham should be doing what city themselves simply would not be doing had they not been lucky represents denial to me.
If the show was on another foot and city were a top 8 club backed well, reaping tv money, but arsensl had the backing of an oil country and were streets ahead in points despite your own team actually improving at a really good rate there's is a zero percent chance that any worthwhile number of city fans would be so pragmatic about it all.
While I recognise how well they are doing I will think before I give them credit where it's not due and I certainly won't in a million years see them as any sort of good influence on football
(For example at what point do they look within and bring up a young prospect to fill a gap for a few weeks. Planning on going spending another small fortune in January instead is hardly something to respect)
They spent £50 million on kyle walker i think its fair to say they will spend anything
Similarly, we spent 75m on Romelu fecking Lukaku, it's fair to say the Glazers will spend anything.
Pep is not bringing anything new, other than successfully managing the egos of a lot of expensively acquired talent.
He is reaping the rewards of City spending money to his plan even before he started working for them, by having his background staff working there before he arrived.
Wenger brought new training methods and focus on diet - fair play
Mourinho brought a different tactical approach -
Pep has brought a friend with deep pockets or has taken over an existing team of winners wherever he goes. Unless of course he is bringing his own attitudes to Nandrolone or more exotic supplements?
Spending an unsustainable amount of money on foreign talent, not giving opportunities to young players despite trying to hoard them from other teams is a business model we have seen before. It will deliver some short lived success and then something will crack the facade and it will all come down in a shower of recriminations.
The Middle-eastern business model is to gather together big shiny brands that emphasise how influential the moghul at the heart of it is. Each brand enjoys a brief period in the sun while they are the newest toy, but soon they get replaced by the newest toy and the bean counters take over who naturally start making more rational financial decisions, because ultimately they know the source of their money is running out and these are the final decades of that income source.
So if City go and win everything this year, then maybe that is a good outcome in the long run, because as soon as the gloss starts to fade, then City will become a tier 2 or Tier 3 investment in the Sheikh's eyes and they will try and do an Elon Musk in some other field before the oil runs out in 2030
He is reaping the rewards of City spending money to his plan even before he started working for them, by having his background staff working there before he arrived.
Wenger brought new training methods and focus on diet - fair play
Mourinho brought a different tactical approach -
Pep has brought a friend with deep pockets or has taken over an existing team of winners wherever he goes. Unless of course he is bringing his own attitudes to Nandrolone or more exotic supplements?
Spending an unsustainable amount of money on foreign talent, not giving opportunities to young players despite trying to hoard them from other teams is a business model we have seen before. It will deliver some short lived success and then something will crack the facade and it will all come down in a shower of recriminations.
The Middle-eastern business model is to gather together big shiny brands that emphasise how influential the moghul at the heart of it is. Each brand enjoys a brief period in the sun while they are the newest toy, but soon they get replaced by the newest toy and the bean counters take over who naturally start making more rational financial decisions, because ultimately they know the source of their money is running out and these are the final decades of that income source.
So if City go and win everything this year, then maybe that is a good outcome in the long run, because as soon as the gloss starts to fade, then City will become a tier 2 or Tier 3 investment in the Sheikh's eyes and they will try and do an Elon Musk in some other field before the oil runs out in 2030
I'll bet in an alternative universe where City had Mourinho and us Pep some of the replies on here would be very different. Unbeaten, breaking records, 15 consecutive wins, champagne football (de bruyne and aguero are great, but the latter one doesn't even always have a place in his team and he is getting these results playing the likes of otamendi and sterling for example whom we have ridiculed in the past with the rest of the swuad consisting of good players but hardly worldbeaters) with our nearest and dearest rival 11 points behind when we're not even halfway of the season yet.
Yeah I'd probably bet a million euros on it that there would be zero of this "hah, pep is not even that good" stuff.
Yeah I'd probably bet a million euros on it that there would be zero of this "hah, pep is not even that good" stuff.