Watching the highlights on MOTD & a Liverpool supporter is shown very clearly & in full view & would be easy to identify,standing waving a red flare about...wot a numpty,might not be back at Anfield for awhile...
Liverpool gave us the illusion that there was some competition this year. Good on them. Based on what I have read (I'm open to a counter point on this) I like the way their owner, John W Henry, goes about his business.
Meanwhile, four of the last five domestic trophies have gone to the richest club on the planet, for the sake of improving our opinion of a country that locks up people for being gay. The Man City owner is the deputy Prime Minister of a country of which Human Rights Watch says: "The government arbitrarily detains and forcibly disappears individuals who criticize authorities."
He and his people have citizens removed from their lives, and either murdered or locked up, for speaking out against his regime (among lots of other things), and he spends a ton of money in our country to make us not care. And given the tone of this thread (the idea of Charlton fans saying "well done" is cringe-inducing to me), it seems to be working!
Until Oasis came along the only other City fan I was aware of was Bernard Manning. Never met one in the flesh. Heard a Scouser on the radio saying that if it had been two points for a win still then Liverpool would have won the title. Desperate or what? Keep hearing it was the best Prem season ever apparently. How can it be when Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs and Utd collected something like 20 points between them from a possible 60 from their last 5 games. A two horse race is only marginally better than a 1 horse one.
Can they now claim to be the best English club side ever?
Ok they didn't win the champions league, ok they didn't go a season unbeaten like Arsenal, but 64 wins and 198 points across 2 seasons, a probable domestic treble, 5 trophies in 2 seasons............they're surely the best?
You need to factor in the financial resources before making bold claims like that
Yes but it's all relative. Even clubs like Wolves, Palace and Leicester can spend 20-30m on players these days.
Back in the days when United used to spend 30m+ on the likes of Rio, Rooney, Veron etc, other clubs were spending 5-10m, so it's not like bigger clubs back then didn't have financial advantages.
Plus yes City have spent a lot but they spent it wisely. United spent 400m under Mourinho and where's it got them? Liverpool spent 150m on a keeper and a centre back.
Can they now claim to be the best English club side ever?
Ok they didn't win the champions league, ok they didn't go a season unbeaten like Arsenal, but 64 wins and 198 points across 2 seasons, a probable domestic treble, 5 trophies in 2 seasons............they're surely the best?
Yes they can.
But that claim will continue to be made by Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and, of course, Sheffield Wednesday.
They'll all be wrong, of course. The only reliable way to determine it is by the number of FA Cup Finals reached. But only since the War. And you need to stop counting when one team reaches two. Obviously.
You need to factor in the financial resources before making bold claims like that
Yes but it's all relative. Even clubs like Wolves, Palace and Leicester can spend 20-30m on players these days.
Back in the days when United used to spend 30m+ on the likes of Rio, Rooney, Veron etc, other clubs were spending 5-10m, so it's not like bigger clubs back then didn't have financial advantages.
Plus yes City have spent a lot but they spent it wisely. United spent 400m under Mourinho and where's it got them? Liverpool spent 150m on a keeper and a centre back.
This doesn’t scratch the surface. What Palace can spend is still a fraction compared to City. It’s not a relative scale because City are not being financed by the TV deals. Further, those TV deals are being restructured, and are about to make the difference between Palace and us equal to the difference between Palace and the top six.
The bottom 14 teams of the Prem are going to be cut loose. I can’t remember the exact stats, but on the Guardian football weekly someone explained the distribution of points this year (and possession stats) indicate a complete lack of competition when the top six face the rest.
The comparison to United makes more sense. But still, all we’re saying there is “well done to one of the richest men in the world for being a good businessman”.
Liverpool supporters will cite the net spend based on transfers out (Suarez, Coutinho), although that in itself can often be misnomer. Liverpool are well backed by Henry, but he’s a sports team owner who has a history of wisely investing in order to punch above his weight.
Has anyone in the media called Liverpool bottlers yet for bottling a 7pt lead at Christmas?
Just wondering on behalf of a team from North London like?!
It has been pointed out that Liverpool are the third team in the last decade or so to be top at Christmas, but not win the Premier League. The other two teams are Liverpool and Liverpool.
So, maybe serial bottling doesn't get much publicity.
I hated Liverpool for a very long time, but I feel that after watching Manchester United win the league repeatedly and having an almost 30 year barren spell, they have finally paid for their sins.
In 157 years time I might agree Uboat.
Ha ha, effing ha. Delighted that Liverpool failed again, sadly I think they'll beat Spurs in the other final, but I hope not.
Plastic scousers are everywhere, their "global brand" was achieved by having far, far, far more coverage between the start of MOTD and the advent of Sky than anyone else by a country mile, and consequently far more income. The 25 year love in was sickening, and I don't forget.
All the city fans I know - and I know quite a few - are humbled and grateful for their success (and they are from Manchester), they are no more to blame for their owners than we are for the rat. They have genuinely seen hard times - not like their also-ran neighbours, whose Basingstoke fan club claim that because they continued to support them for the single season they were in (and won) the second tier in the seventies, they are some kind of super-fans.
Every club that has consistently won things in my lifetime, has done so because they were one of the richest, for whatever reason.
You need to factor in the financial resources before making bold claims like that
Do you though? Every team plays in the context of their time. The context of our current time is that hundreds of millions of pounds are being thrown around across the league, even by the real cloggers in the league. City signed one first team player this season for £61m. Liverpool spent £164m to drag themselves up to the level of City, and it very nearly worked. It's not like Liverpool scoured the Wirral to compete against City's dominance. Chelsea spent £123m on two first team players and it sort of worked, they qualified for the Champions League and made two finals. Leicester spent £103m to finish 9th. Brighton spent £77.5m to barely survive relegation. Fulham spent £100m to suck something awful and return immediately to the Championship. There are exactly zero teams in the Premier League who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and competed using the players available to them nearby. Within this context of insane spending, City have put together a team that plays incredible football, and has a playing style so well designed and drilled that they can play an average attacking midfielder at left back and still win 14 games in a row. They are an insanely good team stocked with some of the best players in the world playing the best football of their careers, who have held the title against the strongest title challenge in Premier League history. The fact that they were very expensively assembled in an era of expensively assembled squads doesn't change that fact
I mean, sure, they're very good and would probably rip apart Utd '99 or Arsenal '04 given how the game has quickened even since then, but it's still a humbug from me - in an age of ludicrous spending, they're basically wielding a blank cheque and using it whenever they need
idk, City fans (and fans of other clubs who now also support City, cough) blathering on about how they're the greatest team to ever grace the EPL are becoming much, much more of an irritant than Liverpool fans ever have been, at least in my lifetime. they have an almost limitless cash supply, of course they're going to be amazing. they can sign whoever they want and cherry-pick whoever's currently the best manager. they make all sorts of 'more than a club' gestures but at the root of it they're funded by blood, sorry, oil money and slave, sorry, cheap labour. plus they've become a really boring story. yes the fairy godmother decided to make them the best club in england. can she piss off now please? or at least tone it down?
Pretty much this. A fantastic football team to watch and a great manager, but a very murky background on the level and source of funding.
You know how Laporte wasn't so great against Spurs in the CL? Let's see if City can resist splashing out 70m+ on a centre-back this summer. Their only first-team signing, I hear you cry! Yeah, but the only one they need. (I think they'll nab a striker as well)
I hated Liverpool for a very long time, but I feel that after watching Manchester United win the league repeatedly and having an almost 30 year barren spell, they have finally paid for their sins.
All the city fans I know - and I know quite a few - are humbled and grateful for their success (and they are from Manchester)
I tutor children. In ten years' time, what you said will definitively not be true of adult City fans.
City had already done the bulk of the spending work before this season though. They didn't need to add much to a squad that got 100 points last time
Yes, of course, as I said they're a very expensively assembled squad. The point though is that while their squad is the most expensive one out there, they're hardly the only team throwing hundreds of millions of quid at their squad. Man Utd have spent £609m (not counting their insane wage bill) on finishing 32 (THIRTY TWO) points behind City and well out of the Champions League places. City have had to spend more in a shorter period to catch up with teams who have money for a lot longer (in the PL era Man Utd have broken the transfer record four times, once in 2016, Liverpool and Arsenal once each, the same number as City, which was in 2008) and in so doing they've put together a truly brilliant squad. You need money to put together a brilliant squad, but money alone doesn't make a squad good. The football they play is incredible and consistent, and I don't think you can find a better PL team than this one
I hated Liverpool for a very long time, but I feel that after watching Manchester United win the league repeatedly and having an almost 30 year barren spell, they have finally paid for their sins.
All the city fans I know - and I know quite a few - are humbled and grateful for their success (and they are from Manchester)
I tutor children. In ten years' time, what you said will definitively not be true of adult City fans.
You know how Laporte wasn't so great against Spurs in the CL? Let's see if City can resist splashing out 70m+ on a centre-back this summer. Their only first-team signing, I hear you cry! Yeah, but the only one they need. (I think they'll nab a striker as well)
They'll definitely buy a midfielder to cover/eventually replace Fernandinho plus Gundogan might not stay.
You know how Laporte wasn't so great against Spurs in the CL? Let's see if City can resist splashing out 70m+ on a centre-back this summer. Their only first-team signing, I hear you cry! Yeah, but the only one they need. (I think they'll nab a striker as well)
They'll definitely buy a midfielder to cover/eventually replace Fernandinho plus Gundogan might not stay.
Declan Rice probably. Add another young striker as back up and they are going to be hard to back against next season.
Dont get this stick City are getting for spending money...Since the day dot the only exception being a few, the richest clubs who spend millions win the major trophies...Its now City's turn for a few years.
Comments
Meanwhile, four of the last five domestic trophies have gone to the richest club on the planet, for the sake of improving our opinion of a country that locks up people for being gay. The Man City owner is the deputy Prime Minister of a country of which Human Rights Watch says: "The government arbitrarily detains and forcibly disappears individuals who criticize authorities."
He and his people have citizens removed from their lives, and either murdered or locked up, for speaking out against his regime (among lots of other things), and he spends a ton of money in our country to make us not care. And given the tone of this thread (the idea of Charlton fans saying "well done" is cringe-inducing to me), it seems to be working!
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/united-arab-emirates.
Heard a Scouser on the radio saying that if it had been two points for a win still then Liverpool would have won the title. Desperate or what?
Keep hearing it was the best Prem season ever apparently. How can it be when Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs and Utd collected something like 20 points between them from a possible 60 from their last 5 games. A two horse race is only marginally better than a 1 horse one.
Ok they didn't win the champions league, ok they didn't go a season unbeaten like Arsenal, but 64 wins and 198 points across 2 seasons, a probable domestic treble, 5 trophies in 2 seasons............they're surely the best?
Yes it will be
Back in the days when United used to spend 30m+ on the likes of Rio, Rooney, Veron etc, other clubs were spending 5-10m, so it's not like bigger clubs back then didn't have financial advantages.
Plus yes City have spent a lot but they spent it wisely. United spent 400m under Mourinho and where's it got them? Liverpool spent 150m on a keeper and a centre back.
But that claim will continue to be made by Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and, of course, Sheffield Wednesday.
They'll all be wrong, of course. The only reliable way to determine it is by the number of FA Cup Finals reached. But only since the War. And you need to stop counting when one team reaches two. Obviously.
This doesn’t scratch the surface. What Palace can spend is still a fraction compared to City. It’s not a relative scale because City are not being financed by the TV deals. Further, those TV deals are being restructured, and are about to make the difference between Palace and us equal to the difference between Palace and the top six.
The bottom 14 teams of the Prem are going to be cut loose. I can’t remember the exact stats, but on the Guardian football weekly someone explained the distribution of points this year (and possession stats) indicate a complete lack of competition when the top six face the rest.
The comparison to United makes more sense. But still, all we’re saying there is “well done to one of the richest men in the world for being a good businessman”.
Liverpool supporters will cite the net spend based on transfers out (Suarez, Coutinho), although that in itself can often be misnomer. Liverpool are well backed by Henry, but he’s a sports team owner who has a history of wisely investing in order to punch above his weight.
Proper ‘tier 1’ clubs. Man City and Chelsea are tier 2 in my eyes
Just wondering on behalf of a team from North London like?!
So, maybe serial bottling doesn't get much publicity.
However, well done City.
Ha ha, effing ha. Delighted that Liverpool failed again, sadly I think they'll beat Spurs in the other final, but I hope not.
Plastic scousers are everywhere, their "global brand" was achieved by having far, far, far more coverage between the start of MOTD and the advent of Sky than anyone else by a country mile, and consequently far more income. The 25 year love in was sickening, and I don't forget.
All the city fans I know - and I know quite a few - are humbled and grateful for their success (and they are from Manchester), they are no more to blame for their owners than we are for the rat. They have genuinely seen hard times - not like their also-ran neighbours, whose Basingstoke fan club claim that because they continued to support them for the single season they were in (and won) the second tier in the seventies, they are some kind of super-fans.
Every club that has consistently won things in my lifetime, has done so because they were one of the richest, for whatever reason.
So yes - congratulations Manchester City.
Pretty much this. A fantastic football team to watch and a great manager, but a very murky background on the level and source of funding.
Add another young striker as back up and they are going to be hard to back against next season.