City have limitless resources. They only haven't spent astronomically more on transfers than the other megaclubs because they haven't needed to. Whatever they need, they get. If they didn't already have the best coach they'd have gotten him. They get everything they need, when they need. That is the objection, and it is a serious one, no matter how good their football is (and of course it is good, the best in fact)
This is true but they do know when to say no. They pulled out of the Alexis Sanchez deal when the wages got too high. They pulled out of the Cucurella deal when the fee got too high, and depending on who you believe they also pulled out of signing Ronaldo.
Up until the Grealish transfer they'd consistently bought players for 40-60m but didn't get involved in the really high fees (70m+) that Chelsea and United were paying. In a list of the top 35 highest transfers of all time, City feature once.
Yes they spend a lot, we all know that. But they generally spend it well and a lot of their signings improve there.
Employing more scouts, more trainers, better equipment, better manager, better doctors, better analytics all costs more money.
It then saves money with transfers, and even then they have spent more than most.
The practice of falsifying their sponsorships to account for their expenditure is financial doping, plain and simple.
So are Arsenal not Employing more scouts, more trainers, using better equipment, have a better manager, use better doctors, better analytics compared to 88 other clubs in the league system ?
They don't need to falsify their income in order to spend an extortionate amount on those things.
Man City are backed by a literal Nation State. They have 100x the amount of funds available so it makes their 'success' a hollow one.
Man City have won the league 5 times out of the last 6 (including this year) and will likely have reached over 90 points in 4 of those seasons. 100 and 98 in two of them.
They don't need to falsify their income because they, along with Man Utd, spent the 90s ensuring they got a bigger piece of the pie than anybody else.
Don't pretend City are some dirty cheats, whilst the rest of the sky 4 (or 6) did it the honest way. They're all as dirty as each other, the only difference between City/Chelsea and Man Utd/Arsenal is the latter rigged the whole system in their favour, whilst the former overcame that with sheer spending power.
Why do you think FFP came in? It wasn't to protect the game, it was to protect the old big clubs from being outspent and superseded by new challengers.
Genuinely interested, how did United & Arsenal “rig the whole system in their favour”?
I think the point is they, and Liverpool, had so much more income than anyone else they heavily influenced the rules in the name of protecting the game, to stop anyone else doing a Chelsea.
They also clubbed together with Italian and Spanish "old money" to stop it internationally.
Not sure I totally agree with it but I can see the argument.
Well I for one love seeing Man City destroy and break the hearts of the scousers and the gooners whilst ensuring chelsea, spurs and whoever else struggle to win anything , long may it continue I’d probably be a lot different if I had a load of unbearable Man City fans piping up in my life but I don’t so carry on and I’ve never had a gripe with them or found a reason to hate them as with most clubs . 1985 and 48k at Maine Road for their promotion to the top flight against us , biggest crowd I’d been in in my life for a good few years after as well . This was when football crowds were in the doldrums , for the kids out there we probably averaged 5-6k back then in the second tier and Man Utd averaged 43k next best Liverpool who averaged below 35k and 14 of the top flight below 20k. Man City were in the third tier and averaged circa 30k as well late 90s and broke Gills fans hearts in the play offs (good)
Leicester was the greatest thing ever and stopping spurs from winning it and helping them come 3rd in a two horse race was the icing on the cake . but imagine if spurs or West Ham won it … no way not for me .
saying that one of my sons said oh so and so at school will pipe up now , some twat who’s a glory city fan , so they’ll be out there and get annoying for everyone at some point but nothing could be as annoying as a load of spurs , Chelsea, arsenal , West Ham etc fans piping up maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner …..
With Man City playing at a 'rich' point way above everyone else due to being owned by a Nation State, there is no longer competition at the top end of the English Football League.
You can point to individual seasons and pretend Man City are competing with people, but in the long run we're turning into the German League.
Sure Liverpool or Arsenal can have a good run for a year or two, but Man City will now always be on the top.
Well I for one love seeing Man City destroy and break the hearts of the scousers and the gooners whilst ensuring chelsea, spurs and whoever else struggle to win anything , long may it continue I’d probably be a lot different if I had a load of unbearable Man City fans piping up in my life but I don’t so carry on and I’ve never had a gripe with them or found a reason to hate them as with most clubs . 1985 and 48k at Maine Road for their promotion to the top flight against us , biggest crowd I’d been in in my life for a good few years after as well . This was when football crowds were in the doldrums , for the kids out there we probably averaged 5-6k back then in the second tier and Man Utd averaged 43k next best Liverpool who averaged below 35k and 14 of the top flight below 20k. Man City were in the third tier and averaged circa 30k as well late 90s and broke Gills fans hearts in the play offs (good)
Leicester was the greatest thing ever and stopping spurs from winning it and helping them come 3rd in a two horse race was the icing on the cake . but imagine if spurs or West Ham won it … no way not for me .
saying that one of my sons said oh so and so at school will pipe up now , some twat who’s a glory city fan , so they’ll be out there and get annoying for everyone at some point but nothing could be as annoying as a load of spurs , Chelsea, arsenal , West Ham etc fans piping up maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner …..
Agreed, i've no issue with City's success because in my lifetime they were generally shit for most of it, went down to the 3rd tier and they still always got good crowds. It must've been torture for them having to watch their city rivals winning everything for 20+ years under Fergie, but they struck gold with Mansour and good luck to them.
Imagine us dicking around in the championship and league one whilst Millwall or Palace were winning the PL and champions league. That would not be fun.
Man City will be on top as long as Pep sticks around... Who replaces him there, will have massive, almost impossible shoes to fill.
Might be Arteta or Kompany with their links to the Etihad, but cant see anyone with the same type of impact.
The difference between City now and United when Fergie left, is that in his final title season Fergie arguably overachieved whereas the current City squad is clearly the best in the division AND has plenty of young and developing talent, so will be good for years.
Looking at the 12/13 United squad, they had some pretty average players in it. Tom Cleverley started 18 games!
With Man City playing at a 'rich' point way above everyone else due to being owned by a Nation State, there is no longer competition at the top end of the English Football League.
You can point to individual seasons and pretend Man City are competing with people, but in the long run we're turning into the German League.
Sure Liverpool or Arsenal can have a good run for a year or two, but Man City will now always be on the top.
I have to disagree, look at this season Arsenal have pushed them all the way until the last few games.
previous seasons Man City have had to win the last 10 games to win the title over Liverpool, they just seem to have the knack to win all the games following Christmas, which makes it hard/impossible you could argue for the teams challenging.
City have lost to teams like palars and others you won't expect, so competitively it's not really in the same breathe as PSG, it just happens to be they are the best team in the world and are having a period to dominate, although its been close at points.
Phil Jones is finally being released by Man Utd... Wonder if he'll simply retire now.
Has he actually played since he signed that massive deal?
13 games in 4 years apparently.
Half of me feels sorry for players like that as it must be very frustrating, but on the other hand he's had about £20m in wages in that time, so I can't feel that sorry for him.
Phil Jones is finally being released by Man Utd... Wonder if he'll simply retire now.
Fergie once said he’d be the best player they’ve ever produced.
Tbf he’s had some terrible injuries.
After a European game didn't he compare him to Duncan Edwards?
Before the horrific injury issues he has had I always felt he suffered from Phil Neville syndrome, which should probably be renamed Harry Maguire syndrome. Being one of the worst players in a great team often makes players look worse than being one of the better players in a worse team.
With Man City playing at a 'rich' point way above everyone else due to being owned by a Nation State, there is no longer competition at the top end of the English Football League.
You can point to individual seasons and pretend Man City are competing with people, but in the long run we're turning into the German League.
Sure Liverpool or Arsenal can have a good run for a year or two, but Man City will now always be on the top.
I have to disagree, look at this season Arsenal have pushed them all the way until the last few games.
previous seasons Man City have had to win the last 10 games to win the title over Liverpool, they just seem to have the knack to win all the games following Christmas, which makes it hard/impossible you could argue for the teams challenging.
City have lost to teams like palars and others you won't expect, so competitively it's not really in the same breathe as PSG, it just happens to be they are the best team in the world and are having a period to dominate, although its been close at points.
Like I said, point to a season here and there but it's all meaningless.
The greatest Arsenal team in 15 years ends up 10 points behind by the end. The greatest Liverpool side in 30 years can only beat them once.
Man City will win the Premier League for 9 of the next 10 years and it'll be 'exciting' for 8 months of every season I'm sure.
With Man City playing at a 'rich' point way above everyone else due to being owned by a Nation State, there is no longer competition at the top end of the English Football League.
You can point to individual seasons and pretend Man City are competing with people, but in the long run we're turning into the German League.
Sure Liverpool or Arsenal can have a good run for a year or two, but Man City will now always be on the top.
I have to disagree, look at this season Arsenal have pushed them all the way until the last few games.
previous seasons Man City have had to win the last 10 games to win the title over Liverpool, they just seem to have the knack to win all the games following Christmas, which makes it hard/impossible you could argue for the teams challenging.
City have lost to teams like palars and others you won't expect, so competitively it's not really in the same breathe as PSG, it just happens to be they are the best team in the world and are having a period to dominate, although its been close at points.
Like I said, point to a season here and there but it's all meaningless.
The greatest Arsenal team in 15 years ends up 10 points behind by the end. The greatest Liverpool side in 30 years can only beat them once.
Man City will win the Premier League for 9 of the next 10 years and it'll be 'exciting' for 8 months of every season I'm sure.
These things go in cycles though.
At some point in the next 2-3 years at least a couple of the following will happen (maybe more) and they'll suffer a downturn: Guardiola will leave when his contract is up, De Bruyne/Gundogan/Walker will become too old and leave, Haaland will move to Real Madrid, PL will find them guilty of certain charges.
Pep leaving is probably going to be the most significant, will be very hard for whoever the next manager is to carry that success on. On top of that you have Newcastle who will continue to get better with all the Saudi money and if the Qatari's take over Man U their spending will be crazy.
I honestly don't care if Man City win it the next 20 years in a row, makes no difference to me as a Charlton fan, never really understood the argument that our top tier is better then Spain, Germany etc because we have a handful of teams allowed to possibly win it when they have one or two.
99% of clubs are still locked out of ever being able to be the best team in country by the system that is designed to protect certain clubs from long term competition because they have an apparent god given right to outspend everyone else thanks to selling a few million more shirts in China.
I'm just glad it's not Arsenal or Utd winning the league every year. There was a time when it seemed like UTD would be champions for eternity, but cycles of success happen. Thank god I was born in 83 so don't remember the 15 years of Liverpool cleaning up. Another decade and itl be someone else smashing it one way or another.
Comments
They also clubbed together with Italian and Spanish "old money" to stop it internationally.
Not sure I totally agree with it but I can see the argument.
I’d probably be a lot different if I had a load of unbearable Man City fans piping up in my life but I don’t so carry on and I’ve never had a gripe with them or found a reason to hate them as with most clubs .
1985 and 48k at Maine Road for their promotion to the top flight against us , biggest crowd I’d been in in my life for a good few years after as well . This was when football crowds were in the doldrums , for the kids out there we probably averaged 5-6k back then in the second tier and Man Utd averaged 43k next best Liverpool who averaged below 35k and 14 of the top flight below 20k.
Man City were in the third tier and averaged circa 30k as well late 90s and broke Gills fans hearts in the play offs (good)
Leicester was the greatest thing ever and stopping spurs from winning it and helping them come 3rd in a two horse race was the icing on the cake .
but imagine if spurs or West Ham won it … no way not for me .
saying that one of my sons said oh so and so at school will pipe up now , some twat who’s a glory city fan , so they’ll be out there and get annoying for everyone at some point but nothing could be as annoying as a load of spurs , Chelsea, arsenal , West Ham etc fans piping up
maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner …..
With Man City playing at a 'rich' point way above everyone else due to being owned by a Nation State, there is no longer competition at the top end of the English Football League.
You can point to individual seasons and pretend Man City are competing with people, but in the long run we're turning into the German League.
Sure Liverpool or Arsenal can have a good run for a year or two, but Man City will now always be on the top.
Might be Arteta or Kompany with their links to the Etihad, but cant see anyone with the same type of impact.
Imagine us dicking around in the championship and league one whilst Millwall or Palace were winning the PL and champions league. That would not be fun.
Looking at the 12/13 United squad, they had some pretty average players in it. Tom Cleverley started 18 games!
previous seasons Man City have had to win the last 10 games to win the title over Liverpool, they just seem to have the knack to win all the games following Christmas, which makes it hard/impossible you could argue for the teams challenging.
City have lost to teams like palars and others you won't expect, so competitively it's not really in the same breathe as PSG, it just happens to be they are the best team in the world and are having a period to dominate, although its been close at points.
Half of me feels sorry for players like that as it must be very frustrating, but on the other hand he's had about £20m in wages in that time, so I can't feel that sorry for him.
Tbf he’s had some terrible injuries.
Before the horrific injury issues he has had I always felt he suffered from Phil Neville syndrome, which should probably be renamed Harry Maguire syndrome. Being one of the worst players in a great team often makes players look worse than being one of the better players in a worse team.
The greatest Arsenal team in 15 years ends up 10 points behind by the end. The greatest Liverpool side in 30 years can only beat them once.
Man City will win the Premier League for 9 of the next 10 years and it'll be 'exciting' for 8 months of every season I'm sure.
At some point in the next 2-3 years at least a couple of the following will happen (maybe more) and they'll suffer a downturn: Guardiola will leave when his contract is up, De Bruyne/Gundogan/Walker will become too old and leave, Haaland will move to Real Madrid, PL will find them guilty of certain charges.
Pep leaving is probably going to be the most significant, will be very hard for whoever the next manager is to carry that success on. On top of that you have Newcastle who will continue to get better with all the Saudi money and if the Qatari's take over Man U their spending will be crazy.
99% of clubs are still locked out of ever being able to be the best team in country by the system that is designed to protect certain clubs from long term competition because they have an apparent god given right to outspend everyone else thanks to selling a few million more shirts in China.
Had you in the first half didnt I...
Cos we're shit Al.
Title decided
Newcastle | Man Utd have the Champions League pretty much decided.
Leicester might as well be down if they lose on Monday
Leaves us with Leeds or Everton for the drop
Shame as at one point, we looked like we could go into the Final Day with pretty much everything to play for