Bluemoon goes into Meltdown

Devil81

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
5,412
Let's never forget when Robinho thought he was flying in to sign for United and was then told it was City he was signing for.

He didn't even know there was a second team in Manchester
 

SER19

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
9,611
People might not like it but Aguero will not in time be remembered as one of the world greats. The reason being that he spent his career at Man City, an oil club. It is unfair and a few players transcend the levels but the real greats get remembered for amazing moments on the biggest stages in the biggest stadiums. Deep down, or not by looks of it, Aguero knows he'd have possibly become a global legend after a decade at Barca. Likewise Neymar at psg compared to if he stayed at barca or went elsewhere.

This isn't anti city sentiment, even Alan Shearer outside England isn't ever mentioned in the same breath as other greats and he's the all time top scorer. Its incredibly harsh but it's the way it is. Ig Aguero achieves something great in 2 years at barca it would cement a legacy far greater than his time in England which is incredible given that goal. There is simply no weight of history behind a plastic club
 

UNITED ACADEMY

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
8,857
Why are they mad and can’t accept the reality that their manager Pep is always being honest? Nothing to hide and Pep doesn’t need to lie but only speaks the truth. City is still nothing compares to United and Barca. You don’t build something to overcome the big boys in small amount of years, may be you will get there in 30-50 years, may be.
 

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
361
Supports
Hannover 96
Which one though?
The only one they get. They may stumble somewhere over access to some weird offshore bank account or whatever and be really happy they found it, but that has nothing to do with them playing for City.
 

Crustanoid

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
18,252
They love their girlfriend analogies over there. Here’s one from a while back which captures City fans perfectly.

So there’s three guys in a bar, regailing each other about how hot their wives/girlfriends are. Let’s call them United, Liverpool and Arsenal. In walks two fat ugly forty year old (and until half an hour ago) virgins. Let’s call these newcomers City and Chelsea. They’ve just paid £10000 to get their cherries popped. They try to join in the conversation, as if their recent conquests are comparable in any way. Everyone else in the bar laughs uncontrollably. The end.
 

OnlyTwoDaSilvas

Gullible
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
19,143
Location
The Mathews Bridge
Let's never forget when Robinho thought he was flying in to sign for United and was then told it was City he was signing for.

He didn't even know there was a second team in Manchester
Yaya Toure too

https://metro.co.uk/2016/05/05/yaya...nt-explained-it-was-the-team-in-blue-5862058/

‘When I was at Barcelona and initially approached by Manchester City I thought it was Manchester United that wanted me,’ admitted Toure.

‘My agent had to tell me it was the team in the blue shirts.

‘At the time Manchester United were putting Manchester City in the shadows. It was unbelievable. Manchester United is a big club and I respect that club a lot.
 

JebelSherif

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 31, 2021
Messages
47
Supports
Huddersfield Town
People might not like it but Aguero will not in time be remembered as one of the world greats. The reason being that he spent his career at Man City, an oil club. It is unfair and a few players transcend the levels but the real greats get remembered for amazing moments on the biggest stages in the biggest stadiums. Deep down, or not by looks of it, Aguero knows he'd have possibly become a global legend after a decade at Barca. Likewise Neymar at psg compared to if he stayed at barca or went elsewhere.

This isn't anti city sentiment, even Alan Shearer outside England isn't ever mentioned in the same breath as other greats and he's the all time top scorer. Its incredibly harsh but it's the way it is. Ig Aguero achieves something great in 2 years at barca it would cement a legacy far greater than his time in England which is incredible given that goal. There is simply no weight of history behind a plastic club
Look, I'm not a City fan, but I respectfully disagree with your posting.

First of all, Man Utd have a great history - the late 60's (also a golden time for the blue half too, except you went one better with the European Cup). But in the 1990s and into the nougties under Sir Alex Ferguson, was Utd's best period and I suppose it is becoming history, because of the struggles the club has gone through in the last 7 years. Man City are the top-dogs in Manchester now, they are making their history now (and not always successfully as we saw at the weekend). But because they have owners who put money into the club, whilst Man Utd's owners do the opposite, I see a lot of jealousy and rage and hence this accusation of not having 'history'. It is also 'jealousy' to go on about their transfer spending because a) when Sir Alex was running things Man Utd. were always in for the top players and paid top transfer fees e.g. Rio Ferdinand in 2000 18 million - thats 21 years ago and b) even in these difficult years Utd. have still spent big e.g. Pogba 89 million & Maguire 80 million - both significantly more expensive than the most Man City have paid: Ruben Dias @ 64 million.

I have to also say that the thing about Ageuro not being seen as a world great sounds like sour grapes to me. Perhaps you'd have preferred him to spend a decade at Barca rather than with the blue-half of Manchester! You have to remember that in the global media age in which we live, the most popular league is the premier league and for ten years he has been scoring goals and smashing records and his last kick finish in 2012 will never be forgotten. It is also, if I maybe a bit cheeky here, at nines years 'old', a bit of 'history'?

P.S. My team have history too, we won the top league 3 years running! Trouble was it was 1924, 1925 and 1926!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12OunceEpilogue
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,842
Location
Mobil Avenue station
Look, I'm not a City fan, but I respectfully disagree with your posting.

First of all, Man Utd have a great history - the late 60's (also a golden time for the blue half too, except you went one better with the European Cup). But in the 1990s and into the nougties under Sir Alex Ferguson, was Utd's best period and I suppose it is becoming history, because of the struggles the club has gone through in the last 7 years. Man City are the top-dogs in Manchester now, they are making their history now (and not always successfully as we saw at the weekend). But because they have owners who put money into the club, whilst Man Utd's owners do the opposite, I see a lot of jealousy and rage and hence this accusation of not having 'history'. It is also 'jealousy' to go on about their transfer spending because a) when Sir Alex was running things Man Utd. were always in for the top players and paid top transfer fees e.g. Rio Ferdinand in 2000 18 million - thats 21 years ago and b) even in these difficult years Utd. have still spent big e.g. Pogba 89 million & Maguire 80 million - both significantly more expensive than the most Man City have paid: Ruben Dias @ 64 million.

I have to also say that the thing about Ageuro not being seen as a world great sounds like sour grapes to me. Perhaps you'd have preferred him to spend a decade at Barca rather than with the blue-half of Manchester! You have to remember that in the global media age in which we live, the most popular league is the premier league and for ten years he has been scoring goals and smashing records and his last kick finish in 2012 will never be forgotten. It is also, if I maybe a bit cheeky here, at nines years 'old', a bit of 'history'?

P.S. My team have history too, we won the top league 3 years running! Trouble was it was 1924, 1925 and 1926!
Good post, well reasoned, deserves a like IMO.
 

Noodle

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
142
Supports
Chelsea
Look, I'm not a City fan, but I respectfully disagree with your posting.

First of all, Man Utd have a great history - the late 60's (also a golden time for the blue half too, except you went one better with the European Cup). But in the 1990s and into the nougties under Sir Alex Ferguson, was Utd's best period and I suppose it is becoming history, because of the struggles the club has gone through in the last 7 years. Man City are the top-dogs in Manchester now, they are making their history now (and not always successfully as we saw at the weekend). But because they have owners who put money into the club, whilst Man Utd's owners do the opposite, I see a lot of jealousy and rage and hence this accusation of not having 'history'. It is also 'jealousy' to go on about their transfer spending because a) when Sir Alex was running things Man Utd. were always in for the top players and paid top transfer fees e.g. Rio Ferdinand in 2000 18 million - thats 21 years ago and b) even in these difficult years Utd. have still spent big e.g. Pogba 89 million & Maguire 80 million - both significantly more expensive than the most Man City have paid: Ruben Dias @ 64 million.

I have to also say that the thing about Ageuro not being seen as a world great sounds like sour grapes to me. Perhaps you'd have preferred him to spend a decade at Barca rather than with the blue-half of Manchester! You have to remember that in the global media age in which we live, the most popular league is the premier league and for ten years he has been scoring goals and smashing records and his last kick finish in 2012 will never be forgotten. It is also, if I maybe a bit cheeky here, at nines years 'old', a bit of 'history'?

P.S. My team have history too, we won the top league 3 years running! Trouble was it was 1924, 1925 and 1926!
I agree with you,

interesting concept, where does 'History' start for football fans? Is there a cut off that means it has to be more than X ago? pre cash injection? City, like it or not, are winning trophies, regardless of where the money has come from. History is being made, whether you think it's good or bad.

Chelsea were winning things in the late 90's and early 2000's and then it took off nearly 20 years ago. Yet even after 20 years we're still derided with the 'no history' claim. Of course Chelsea have history, it might not be as successful as some clubs going back 100 years but why does that matter? Does winning the FA Cup 100 years ago in a completely different footballing world bear the same relevance now?

I think it's a level of elitism from the traditional clubs, unwilling to accept the new status quo it gives them a way to distinguish themselves

Yes Liverpool and Utd's success was organic to begin with, Chelsea and City can't say that and i understand this part erks people, i get it but that doesn't change actual history does it?
 

Pow

Full Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
3,222
Location
Somewhere
Supports
Chelsea
I agree with you,

interesting concept, where does 'History' start for football fans? Is there a cut off that means it has to be more than X ago? pre cash injection? City, like it or not, are winning trophies, regardless of where the money has come from. History is being made, whether you think it's good or bad.

Chelsea were winning things in the late 90's and early 2000's and then it took off nearly 20 years ago. Yet even after 20 years we're still derided with the 'no history' claim. Of course Chelsea have history, it might not be as successful as some clubs going back 100 years but why does that matter? Does winning the FA Cup 100 years ago in a completely different footballing world bear the same relevance now?

I think it's a level of elitism from the traditional clubs, unwilling to accept the new status quo it gives them a way to distinguish themselves

Yes Liverpool and Utd's success was organic to begin with, Chelsea and City can't say that and i understand this part erks people, i get it but that doesn't change actual history does it?
Wasn't Liverpool success funded too
 

The Corinthian

Full Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
1,125
They love their girlfriend analogies over there. Here’s one from a while back which captures City fans perfectly.

So there’s three guys in a bar, regailing each other about how hot their wives/girlfriends are. Let’s call them United, Liverpool and Arsenal. In walks two fat ugly forty year old (and until half an hour ago) virgins. Let’s call these newcomers City and Chelsea. They’ve just paid £10000 to get their cherries popped. They try to join in the conversation, as if their recent conquests are comparable in any way. Everyone else in the bar laughs uncontrollably. The end.
:lol:

This fits perfectly.
 

VeevaVee

despite the protests, wears Ugg boots
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
43,417
Location
Manchester
I agree with you,

interesting concept, where does 'History' start for football fans? Is there a cut off that means it has to be more than X ago? pre cash injection? City, like it or not, are winning trophies, regardless of where the money has come from. History is being made, whether you think it's good or bad.

Chelsea were winning things in the late 90's and early 2000's and then it took off nearly 20 years ago. Yet even after 20 years we're still derided with the 'no history' claim. Of course Chelsea have history, it might not be as successful as some clubs going back 100 years but why does that matter? Does winning the FA Cup 100 years ago in a completely different footballing world bear the same relevance now?

I think it's a level of elitism from the traditional clubs, unwilling to accept the new status quo it gives them a way to distinguish themselves

Yes Liverpool and Utd's success was organic to begin with, Chelsea and City can't say that and i understand this part erks people, i get it but that doesn't change actual history does it?
Well said @noodlehair
 

SuperiorXI

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
8,199
Location
Manchester, England
They love their girlfriend analogies over there. Here’s one from a while back which captures City fans perfectly.

So there’s three guys in a bar, regailing each other about how hot their wives/girlfriends are. Let’s call them United, Liverpool and Arsenal. In walks two fat ugly forty year old (and until half an hour ago) virgins. Let’s call these newcomers City and Chelsea. They’ve just paid £10000 to get their cherries popped. They try to join in the conversation, as if their recent conquests are comparable in any way. Everyone else in the bar laughs uncontrollably. The end.
Perfect analogy.
 

WeePat

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
3,222
Supports
Chelsea
They love their girlfriend analogies over there. Here’s one from a while back which captures City fans perfectly.

So there’s three guys in a bar, regailing each other about how hot their wives/girlfriends are. Let’s call them United, Liverpool and Arsenal. In walks two fat ugly forty year old (and until half an hour ago) virgins. Let’s call these newcomers City and Chelsea. They’ve just paid £10000 to get their cherries popped. They try to join in the conversation, as if their recent conquests are comparable in any way. Everyone else in the bar laughs uncontrollably. The end.
20 years later, the two fat blokes have gotten in shape, they're now extremely successful and are dating from the same pool of girls as the other 3 blokes in the bar, does anybody in this story really give a shit about what the two blokes looked like two decades ago?
 

Camilo

Full Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
Messages
2,255
I agree with you,

interesting concept, where does 'History' start for football fans? Is there a cut off that means it has to be more than X ago? pre cash injection? City, like it or not, are winning trophies, regardless of where the money has come from. History is being made, whether you think it's good or bad.

Chelsea were winning things in the late 90's and early 2000's and then it took off nearly 20 years ago. Yet even after 20 years we're still derided with the 'no history' claim. Of course Chelsea have history, it might not be as successful as some clubs going back 100 years but why does that matter? Does winning the FA Cup 100 years ago in a completely different footballing world bear the same relevance now?

I think it's a level of elitism from the traditional clubs, unwilling to accept the new status quo it gives them a way to distinguish themselves

Yes Liverpool and Utd's success was organic to begin with, Chelsea and City can't say that and i understand this part erks people, i get it but that doesn't change actual history does it?
Totally agree with all this. United are the big club they are now not because they have history and won stuff 60 odd years ago, but because they won stuff when the money in football went crazy. There are plenty of historically great clubs who were having bad patches during the 90s, and they'll never catch back up without a big injection of cash.

It's more luck than history! And people will soon forget City were a smaller club, because we're very nearly at the point where, historically (for a lot of young supporters) City were winning the league.
 

SER19

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
9,611
Look, I'm not a City fan, but I respectfully disagree with your posting.

First of all, Man Utd have a great history - the late 60's (also a golden time for the blue half too, except you went one better with the European Cup). But in the 1990s and into the nougties under Sir Alex Ferguson, was Utd's best period and I suppose it is becoming history, because of the struggles the club has gone through in the last 7 years. Man City are the top-dogs in Manchester now, they are making their history now (and not always successfully as we saw at the weekend). But because they have owners who put money into the club, whilst Man Utd's owners do the opposite, I see a lot of jealousy and rage and hence this accusation of not having 'history'. It is also 'jealousy' to go on about their transfer spending because a) when Sir Alex was running things Man Utd. were always in for the top players and paid top transfer fees e.g. Rio Ferdinand in 2000 18 million - thats 21 years ago and b) even in these difficult years Utd. have still spent big e.g. Pogba 89 million & Maguire 80 million - both significantly more expensive than the most Man City have paid: Ruben Dias @ 64 million.

I have to also say that the thing about Ageuro not being seen as a world great sounds like sour grapes to me. Perhaps you'd have preferred him to spend a decade at Barca rather than with the blue-half of Manchester! You have to remember that in the global media age in which we live, the most popular league is the premier league and for ten years he has been scoring goals and smashing records and his last kick finish in 2012 will never be forgotten. It is also, if I maybe a bit cheeky here, at nines years 'old', a bit of 'history'?

P.S. My team have history too, we won the top league 3 years running! Trouble was it was 1924, 1925 and 1926!
A well reasoned reply but I still disagree. Despite winning 4 or 5 titles in a decade I would say with reasonable certainty that 5 or 10 years from now when picking the best Prem team of all time, leaving out city fans, no city players would make a team picked by 100 fans. Not saying some aren't worthy, but the club and their new Abu Dhabi stadium and pumping billions into guaranteed success just have no romance or weight behind them. Its not just about money which is an inevitable part of the game, but how they've come to be combined with what they lack. Shearer is a good example I've already given. Id be surprised if the average 20 year old fan on the continent even knows who he is. But they'd all or mostly be familiar with cantona, who had a much shorter span and scored far less.

Aguero scoring 200 goals at the nou camp is simply going to be received differently (not diminishing it) to him doing it at Oil Fc,by many people.

This is a very eloquent article that puts things better than I can. Its from an overseas paper and reflects what i mean

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ir...d-they-re-paying-the-price-1.3897613?mode=amp
 
Last edited:

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Look, I'm not a City fan, but I respectfully disagree with your posting.

First of all, Man Utd have a great history - the late 60's (also a golden time for the blue half too, except you went one better with the European Cup). But in the 1990s and into the nougties under Sir Alex Ferguson, was Utd's best period and I suppose it is becoming history, because of the struggles the club has gone through in the last 7 years. Man City are the top-dogs in Manchester now, they are making their history now (and not always successfully as we saw at the weekend). But because they have owners who put money into the club, whilst Man Utd's owners do the opposite, I see a lot of jealousy and rage and hence this accusation of not having 'history'. It is also 'jealousy' to go on about their transfer spending because a) when Sir Alex was running things Man Utd. were always in for the top players and paid top transfer fees e.g. Rio Ferdinand in 2000 18 million - thats 21 years ago and b) even in these difficult years Utd. have still spent big e.g. Pogba 89 million & Maguire 80 million - both significantly more expensive than the most Man City have paid: Ruben Dias @ 64 million.

I have to also say that the thing about Ageuro not being seen as a world great sounds like sour grapes to me. Perhaps you'd have preferred him to spend a decade at Barca rather than with the blue-half of Manchester! You have to remember that in the global media age in which we live, the most popular league is the premier league and for ten years he has been scoring goals and smashing records and his last kick finish in 2012 will never be forgotten. It is also, if I maybe a bit cheeky here, at nines years 'old', a bit of 'history'?

P.S. My team have history too, we won the top league 3 years running! Trouble was it was 1924, 1925 and 1926!
That was Leeds, United signed Ferdinand in 2002 for £30m but despite being the richest club in the world at the time that was United's entire transfer budget blown on one player. A year later in 2003 Chelsea spent £150m on players and have continued to spend similar amounts these days they're spunking £200m+ in transfer windows, same with City a few years later right up to the present day. We never got anywhere near that level of spending under Ferguson, so you can't compare United's spending to City or Chelsea's it's just on another level that no club that isn't financially doped can compete with.
 

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
943
Supports
Anything anti-Dipper
That was Leeds, United signed Ferdinand in 2002 for £30m but despite being the richest club in the world at the time that was United's entire transfer budget blown on one player. A year later in 2003 Chelsea spent £150m on players and have continued to spend similar amounts these days they're spunking £200m+ in transfer windows, same with City a few years later right up to the present day. We never got anywhere near that level of spending under Ferguson, so you can't compare United's spending to City or Chelsea's it's just on another level that no club that isn't financially doped can compete with.
Chelsea went crazy in the early years of RA because they needed to play catch up. Once they got there they eased off, that is why they're 4th/5th on the ten year net spend list in the PL.

To be honest, I don't get why so many fans get so caught up with spending of other clubs, especially if their clubs also spend serious dollar (Utd are 2nd in the ten year list for instance.)

For me, people either need to accept spending as we see it, or have to push for a hard salary cap that is applicable to all teams equally. Having teams like Utd, Real, Barca, Juve, Milan, Inter etc plead poverty/complain that others spending is unfair is really rich as one of the main reasons for it is that in the 90s when football went stratospheric with money, they hovered a lot of it up and spent like crazy. As a result other clubs had two options: a) accept the new order or b) get a rich owner and try to buy their way in.

Personally, I really cannot see how people feel that they should've just accepted option a.
 

MoskvaRed

Full Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
4,076
Look, I'm not a City fan, but I respectfully disagree with your posting.

First of all, Man Utd have a great history - the late 60's (also a golden time for the blue half too, except you went one better with the European Cup). But in the 1990s and into the nougties under Sir Alex Ferguson, was Utd's best period and I suppose it is becoming history, because of the struggles the club has gone through in the last 7 years. Man City are the top-dogs in Manchester now, they are making their history now (and not always successfully as we saw at the weekend). But because they have owners who put money into the club, whilst Man Utd's owners do the opposite, I see a lot of jealousy and rage and hence this accusation of not having 'history'. It is also 'jealousy' to go on about their transfer spending because a) when Sir Alex was running things Man Utd. were always in for the top players and paid top transfer fees e.g. Rio Ferdinand in 2000 18 million - thats 21 years ago and b) even in these difficult years Utd. have still spent big e.g. Pogba 89 million & Maguire 80 million - both significantly more expensive than the most Man City have paid: Ruben Dias @ 64 million.

I have to also say that the thing about Ageuro not being seen as a world great sounds like sour grapes to me. Perhaps you'd have preferred him to spend a decade at Barca rather than with the blue-half of Manchester! You have to remember that in the global media age in which we live, the most popular league is the premier league and for ten years he has been scoring goals and smashing records and his last kick finish in 2012 will never be forgotten. It is also, if I maybe a bit cheeky here, at nines years 'old', a bit of 'history'?

P.S. My team have history too, we won the top league 3 years running! Trouble was it was 1924, 1925 and 1926!
You make some good points, although I don’t think Aguero is going to be ranked right at the top due to his failure to make an impact either in the Champions League or at international level. Domestically, though, he has been one of the league’s best ever strikers.

One other point to bear in mind regarding United fans‘ attitude to City. For years, City fans disparaged United as a souless corporate monster and even spread the ridiculous claim that everyone in Manchester supported City. It’s amusing to see how fans of the homespun club of Eddie Large and Curly Watts adjusted almost overnight to the club’s new identity as a heavily financially-doped, sport washing vehicle.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
7,409
Look, I'm not a City fan, but I respectfully disagree with your posting.

First of all, Man Utd have a great history - the late 60's (also a golden time for the blue half too, except you went one better with the European Cup). But in the 1990s and into the nougties under Sir Alex Ferguson, was Utd's best period and I suppose it is becoming history, because of the struggles the club has gone through in the last 7 years. Man City are the top-dogs in Manchester now, they are making their history now (and not always successfully as we saw at the weekend). But because they have owners who put money into the club, whilst Man Utd's owners do the opposite, I see a lot of jealousy and rage and hence this accusation of not having 'history'. It is also 'jealousy' to go on about their transfer spending because a) when Sir Alex was running things Man Utd. were always in for the top players and paid top transfer fees e.g. Rio Ferdinand in 2000 18 million - thats 21 years ago and b) even in these difficult years Utd. have still spent big e.g. Pogba 89 million & Maguire 80 million - both significantly more expensive than the most Man City have paid: Ruben Dias @ 64 million.

I have to also say that the thing about Ageuro not being seen as a world great sounds like sour grapes to me. Perhaps you'd have preferred him to spend a decade at Barca rather than with the blue-half of Manchester! You have to remember that in the global media age in which we live, the most popular league is the premier league and for ten years he has been scoring goals and smashing records and his last kick finish in 2012 will never be forgotten. It is also, if I maybe a bit cheeky here, at nines years 'old', a bit of 'history'?

P.S. My team have history too, we won the top league 3 years running! Trouble was it was 1924, 1925 and 1926!
I'd also add in, no players seem to really care about a club's history anyway - it's more for fans to argue with other fans but it has no bearing on the future. City should be treated with contempt because of who their owners are, not because they pump money into the club and are successful. Aguero is a PL great and will go into the PL Hall of Fame.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Chelsea went crazy in the early years of RA because they needed to play catch up. Once they got there they eased off, that is why they're 4th/5th on the ten year net spend list in the PL.

To be honest, I don't get why so many fans get so caught up with spending of other clubs, especially if their clubs also spend serious dollar (Utd are 2nd in the ten year list for instance.)

For me, people either need to accept spending as we see it, or have to push for a hard salary cap that is applicable to all teams equally. Having teams like Utd, Real, Barca, Juve, Milan, Inter etc plead poverty/complain that others spending is unfair is really rich as one of the main reasons for it is that in the 90s when football went stratospheric with money, they hovered a lot of it up and spent like crazy. As a result other clubs had two options: a) accept the new order or b) get a rich owner and try to buy their way in.

Personally, I really cannot see how people feel that they should've just accepted option a.
So you think the only two options are/were accept you'll never be able to compete or just wait to be bought out by a Russian Oligarch or a middle eastern state intent on beginning a sportswashing project?

Also when exactly did United spend like crazy in the 90's? Pretty sure I read last week we only the biggest spenders in the PL in 2 of Ferguson's 21 Premier League Seasons. 98/99 and 02/03

United were successful in the 90's and 00's because of good business management (mostly pre Glazers), a sound transfer policy that included calculated risks (despite a very restrictive wage structure) and a successful academy. Not because we spent way more than every other team.
 

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
943
Supports
Anything anti-Dipper
So you think the only two options are/were accept you'll never be able to compete or just wait to be bought out by a Russian Oligarch or a middle eastern state intent on beginning a sportswashing project?

Also when exactly did United spend like crazy in the 90's? Pretty sure I read last week we only the biggest spenders in the PL in 2 of Ferguson's 21 Premier League Seasons. 98/99 and 02/03

United were successful in the 90's and 00's because of good business management (mostly pre Glazers), a sound transfer policy that included calculated risks (despite a very restrictive wage structure) and a successful academy. Not because we spent way more than every other team.
Well clubs if you go down a FFP route cannot compete 'naturally' anymore as the big boys come in and strip them as soon as they put a decent team together. Look at Monaco 17, Ajax 19 etc. So the choice is get a benefactor or accept you place in the food chain. This was also happening in the 90s/00s look at West Ham for instance with the Rio, Defoe, Lampard, Cole, Johnson crop etc.

Only way around it is a hard cap and none of the big boys will sign up to that.
 

JebelSherif

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 31, 2021
Messages
47
Supports
Huddersfield Town
A well reasoned reply but I still disagree. Despite winning 4 or 5 titles in a decade I would say with reasonable certainty that 5 or 10 years from now when picking the best Prem team of all time, leaving out city fans, no city players would make a team picked by 100 fans. Not saying some aren't worthy, but the club and their new Abu Dhabi stadium and pumping billions into guaranteed success just have no romance or weight behind them. Its not just about money which is an inevitable part of the game, but how they've come to be combined with what they lack. Shearer is a good example I've already given. Id be surprised if the average 20 year old fan on the continent even knows who he is. But they'd all or mostly be familiar with cantona, who had a much shorter span and scored far less.

Aguero scoring 200 goals at the nou camp is simply going to be received differently (not diminishing it) to him doing it at Oil Fc,by many people.

This is a very eloquent article that puts things better than I can. Its from an overseas paper and reflects what i mean

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/english-soccer/ken-early-city-s-domination-has-been-bought-and-they-re-paying-the-price-1.3897613?mode=amp
A bold prediction (the bit I made bold) because in 5 years time Phil Foden will be 26, in 10 years 31 and according to Pep he is better than Messi was when he was coming through.

Let us see what happens shall we?
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Well clubs if you go down a FFP route cannot compete 'naturally' anymore as the big boys come in and strip them as soon as they put a decent team together. Look at Monaco 17, Ajax 19 etc. So the choice is get a benefactor or accept you place in the food chain. This was also happening in the 90s/00s look at West Ham for instance with the Rio, Defoe, Lampard, Cole, Johnson crop etc.
Monaco was stripped mostly by City and PSG, West Ham lost Cole and Johnson to Roman backed Chelsea. Financially doped clubs with unlimited resources have made things worse for clubs aspiring to compete for the top prizes. The either or scenario you described of not trying and/or waiting for a billionaire wasn't a thing pre Roman in 2003.

Sadly now with City, Chelsea and PSG inflating the market to such an extent hoping for some nefarious regime to take you over probably is the only to make it to the top these days. In the past other clubs could and regularly did spend more than the richest club in England (United). Now United still the richest English club on paper (and even Real/Barca) can't match the sugar daddy clubs spending so what hope does the rest of the footballing pyramid have?

There are only so many billionaires and middle eastern states in the market for a sportwashing project.

Only way around it is a hard cap and none of the big boys will sign up to that.
Pointless, the likes of City and PSG are probably already paying players a second salary under the table. They'd sign up and then just ignore it and break the rules as they did with FFP.
 

Leroy The Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
14,725
Location
London
Monaco was stripped mostly by City and PSG, West Ham lost Cole and Johnson to Roman backed Chelsea. Financially doped clubs with unlimited resources have made things worse for clubs aspiring to compete for the top prizes. The either or scenario you described of not trying and/or waiting for a billionaire wasn't a thing pre Roman in 2003.

Sadly now with City, Chelsea and PSG inflating the market to such an extent hoping for some nefarious regime to take you over probably is the only to make it to the top these days. In the past other clubs could and regularly did spend more than the richest club in England (United). Now United still the richest English club on paper (and even Real/Barca) can't match the sugar daddy clubs spending so what hope does the rest of the footballing pyramid have?

There are only so many billionaires and middle eastern states in the market for a sportwashing project.



Pointless, the likes of City and PSG are probably already paying players a second salary under the table. They'd sign up and then just ignore it and break the rules as they did with FFP.
A great point that is routinely missed by those who blabber on about how clubs can only compete via the means of state backing.
As if the consequence of them buying off talent from a specific club means nothing. I’d add Arsenal to that list too, Nasri, Adebayor etc. Chelsea and city have been able to take the likes of Sterling, Walker, Torres off other top PL clubs at their peak. Something nobody else in England can do, we were only able to sign Sanchez and Rvp because their contracts were expiring.

Making out oil money has been for the good of the game is the most disingenuous argument for years.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
A great point that is routinely missed by those who blabber on about how clubs can only compete via the means of state backing.
As if the consequence of them buying off talent from a specific club means nothing. I’d add Arsenal to that list too, Nasri, Adebayor etc. Chelsea and city have been able to take the likes of Sterling, Walker, Torres off other top PL clubs at their peak. Something nobody else in England can do, we were only able to sign Sanchez and Rvp because their contracts were expiring.

Making out oil money has been for the good of the game is the most disingenuous argument for years.
Some people just don't see it yet. The worst part of the argument for me is when people say they're only spending like United or other clubs did in the past which is absolute nonsense. No club pre Roman was able to spend £150-250m in a single window. And even some of the worlds biggest clubs like Barca and Real can only do similar by getting themselves into mountains of debt trying to keep up.
 

AdamColeBebe

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Messages
104
Supports
Man Utd
Let's never forget when Robinho thought he was flying in to sign for United and was then told it was City he was signing for.

He didn't even know there was a second team in Manchester
Is that actually true?
 

Offsideagain

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
979
Location
Cheshire
Look, I'm not a City fan, but I respectfully disagree with your posting.

First of all, Man Utd have a great history - the late 60's (also a golden time for the blue half too, except you went one better with the European Cup). But in the 1990s and into the nougties under Sir Alex Ferguson, was Utd's best period and I suppose it is becoming history, because of the struggles the club has gone through in the last 7 years. Man City are the top-dogs in Manchester now, they are making their history now (and not always successfully as we saw at the weekend). But because they have owners who put money into the club, whilst Man Utd's owners do the opposite, I see a lot of jealousy and rage and hence this accusation of not having 'history'. It is also 'jealousy' to go on about their transfer spending because a) when Sir Alex was running things Man Utd. were always in for the top players and paid top transfer fees e.g. Rio Ferdinand in 2000 18 million - thats 21 years ago and b) even in these difficult years Utd. have still spent big e.g. Pogba 89 million & Maguire 80 million - both significantly more expensive than the most Man City have paid: Ruben Dias @ 64 million.

I have to also say that the thing about Ageuro not being seen as a world great sounds like sour grapes to me. Perhaps you'd have preferred him to spend a decade at Barca rather than with the blue-half of Manchester! You have to remember that in the global media age in which we live, the most popular league is the premier league and for ten years he has been scoring goals and smashing records and his last kick finish in 2012 will never be forgotten. It is also, if I maybe a bit cheeky here, at nines years 'old', a bit of 'history'?

P.S. My team have history too, we won the top league 3 years running! Trouble was it was 1924, 1925 and 1926!
First of all, Robinho thought he had signed for Chelsea and Sparky had to correct him. Second, United history didn’t start in the 60’s or was earlier. Third City are owned by a regime that is dodgy and very ‘smart’ if not sly when it comes to rules. The City Football group are buying up nothing clubs all over the place to circumvent FFP rules. Remember Lampard signing for New York City who immediately ‘loaned’ him to Man City. That kept a transfer fee and wages of Man City’s books. They have done the same trick in Australia. Look at the ‘sponsorship’ Etihad Airways bought the naming rights for the stadium in a £500m ten year deal when £2m was thought to be a lot. Etihad Airways haven’t made a profit yet or if they have it’s tiny. As they are owned by a relative of Sheik Mansour, it does break FFP. They have been found out twice for breaking the rules but have got off lightly because UEFA are shit scared of litigation which would cost millions but City would do it as they have the money. Raheem Sterling and co take the knee for Black Lives Matter but don’t give a monkeys about political prisoners held without trial in Abu Dhabi. Finally, as part of the deal to get saint Guardiola ( banned twice for drug taking in his playing days) his brother Pere apparently owns part of Girona. Pere is also an agent and it is supposed to be against the rules for agents to own clubs. City also loan players to Girona which must please the other clubs in La Liga. In summary, dodgy, dodgy club and owners.
 

JebelSherif

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 31, 2021
Messages
47
Supports
Huddersfield Town
First of all, Robinho thought he had signed for Chelsea and Sparky had to correct him. Second, United history didn’t start in the 60’s or was earlier. Third City are owned by a regime that is dodgy and very ‘smart’ if not sly when it comes to rules. The City Football group are buying up nothing clubs all over the place to circumvent FFP rules. Remember Lampard signing for New York City who immediately ‘loaned’ him to Man City. That kept a transfer fee and wages of Man City’s books. They have done the same trick in Australia. Look at the ‘sponsorship’ Etihad Airways bought the naming rights for the stadium in a £500m ten year deal when £2m was thought to be a lot. Etihad Airways haven’t made a profit yet or if they have it’s tiny. As they are owned by a relative of Sheik Mansour, it does break FFP. They have been found out twice for breaking the rules but have got off lightly because UEFA are shit scared of litigation which would cost millions but City would do it as they have the money. Raheem Sterling and co take the knee for Black Lives Matter but don’t give a monkeys about political prisoners held without trial in Abu Dhabi. Finally, as part of the deal to get saint Guardiola ( banned twice for drug taking in his playing days) his brother Pere apparently owns part of Girona. Pere is also an agent and it is supposed to be against the rules for agents to own clubs. City also loan players to Girona which must please the other clubs in La Liga. In summary, dodgy, dodgy club and owners.
Help! my head is hurting... have you quoted me and sent this to me in error, because I made no mention of Robinho going anywhere (but to be fair it is a well known conspiracy theory that he was signing for Utd. not City when he got off the plane - I don't know where the Chelsea thing comes from).

If you want me to address your other points, I will have a go, but first, can I check, are you talking to me? (Taxi driver lol)
 

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
943
Supports
Anything anti-Dipper
Monaco was stripped mostly by City and PSG, West Ham lost Cole and Johnson to Roman backed Chelsea. Financially doped clubs with unlimited resources have made things worse for clubs aspiring to compete for the top prizes. The either or scenario you described of not trying and/or waiting for a billionaire wasn't a thing pre Roman in 2003.

Sadly now with City, Chelsea and PSG inflating the market to such an extent hoping for some nefarious regime to take you over probably is the only to make it to the top these days. In the past other clubs could and regularly did spend more than the richest club in England (United). Now United still the richest English club on paper (and even Real/Barca) can't match the sugar daddy clubs spending so what hope does the rest of the footballing pyramid have?

There are only so many billionaires and middle eastern states in the market for a sportwashing project.



Pointless, the likes of City and PSG are probably already paying players a second salary under the table. They'd sign up and then just ignore it and break the rules as they did with FFP.
Teams gets stripped regardless. In Germany, all the teams get stripped by Bayern, Ajax 19 got stripped equally by the top European teams. Portugese teams typically get stripped by Real and Barca. Spanish league teams get stripped by Real/Barca or English clubs if they hold them off (Bilbao do this.)

As for West Ham, the main damage was done by selling Rio and Lampard as that set the blueprint, however they went to pre-Roman Chelsea and Leeds.

I am amazed people don't recognise the shift that happened when Silvo B took over Milan. That really was the start of the big money in football (coupled with TV) and the concentration of wealth into the top teams from that era.

Let's put it this way, if Chelsea, City or PSG didn't get money pumped into them, do you think anyone would've broken into the top echelons of European football? For me the answer is no, if they hadn't done that Utd would probably by be PL 27 or more and the the CL would be even more concentrated than it is.

I get as a Utd fan, why this isn't liked. However, as a football fan principally it is more interesting to have this competition.
 

led_scholes

Full Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Messages
845
Totally agree with all this. United are the big club they are now not because they have history and won stuff 60 odd years ago, but because they won stuff when the money in football went crazy. There are plenty of historically great clubs who were having bad patches during the 90s, and they'll never catch back up without a big injection of cash.

It's more luck than history! And people will soon forget City were a smaller club, because we're very nearly at the point where, historically (for a lot of young supporters) City were winning the league.
United was a huge club globally before the 90s due to Busby babies, Best, Law and Charlton and never reached the lows of City. Even before Fergie era, the gap between City and the rest (Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester) was immense. And still is in terms of how these clubs are viewed. It will take 2 decades before they will be "accepted" as a true big club. It is almost 20 years since Roman took over Chelsea and many still considered them as just an oil club, and Chelsea was already established as a semi-big club, even before Roman.
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Tameside
Look, I'm not a City fan, but I respectfully disagree with your posting.

First of all, Man Utd have a great history - the late 60's (also a golden time for the blue half too, except you went one better with the European Cup). But in the 1990s and into the nougties under Sir Alex Ferguson, was Utd's best period and I suppose it is becoming history, because of the struggles the club has gone through in the last 7 years. Man City are the top-dogs in Manchester now, they are making their history now (and not always successfully as we saw at the weekend). But because they have owners who put money into the club, whilst Man Utd's owners do the opposite, I see a lot of jealousy and rage and hence this accusation of not having 'history'. It is also 'jealousy' to go on about their transfer spending because a) when Sir Alex was running things Man Utd. were always in for the top players and paid top transfer fees e.g. Rio Ferdinand in 2000 18 million - thats 21 years ago and b) even in these difficult years Utd. have still spent big e.g. Pogba 89 million & Maguire 80 million - both significantly more expensive than the most Man City have paid: Ruben Dias @ 64 million.

I have to also say that the thing about Ageuro not being seen as a world great sounds like sour grapes to me. Perhaps you'd have preferred him to spend a decade at Barca rather than with the blue-half of Manchester! You have to remember that in the global media age in which we live, the most popular league is the premier league and for ten years he has been scoring goals and smashing records and his last kick finish in 2012 will never be forgotten. It is also, if I maybe a bit cheeky here, at nines years 'old', a bit of 'history'?

P.S. My team have history too, we won the top league 3 years running! Trouble was it was 1924, 1925 and 1926!
You make some fair points, but what people often forget is that for every signing of a player like Ferdinand, we were selling academy players to other PL and Championship players for decent sums, and we were often only signing one high-priced player per season. In 2002/03, the season we signed Ferdinand, we were outspent by a side coming up from the Championship. Manchester City, as it happens. When we bought Hargreaves, Nani and Anderson in 2007/08, we were again outspent by a pre-oil money Manchester City. People forget that because, while they finished the season with a 8-1 hammering by Middlesbrough, we won the PL and CL with those players.

While City haven't spent as much as us in transfer fees on individual players, they have spent more by buying multiple players and paying more in wages. In 2016/17 when we signed Pogba for £89m, City's most expensive signing may only have cost £47.5m (Stones), but they still outspent us by £60m! In 2019/20, when we bought Maguire, they again spent about £10m more than us on players. People just don't seem to realise this.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Teams gets stripped regardless. In Germany, all the teams get stripped by Bayern, Ajax 19 got stripped equally by the top European teams. Portugese teams typically get stripped by Real and Barca. Spanish league teams get stripped by Real/Barca or English clubs if they hold them off (Bilbao do this.)

As for West Ham, the main damage was done by selling Rio and Lampard as that set the blueprint, however they went to pre-Roman Chelsea and Leeds.

I am amazed people don't recognise the shift that happened when Silvo B took over Milan. That really was the start of the big money in football (coupled with TV) and the concentration of wealth into the top teams from that era.

Let's put it this way, if Chelsea, City or PSG didn't get money pumped into them, do you think anyone would've broken into the top echelons of European football? For me the answer is no, if they hadn't done that Utd would probably by be PL 27 or more and the the CL would be even more concentrated than it is.

I get as a Utd fan, why this isn't liked. However, as a football fan principally it is more interesting to have this competition.
Those 3 clubs specifically who knows but there was nothing stopping any of them or any other club from hiring the right manager, making smart signings and investing in their academies and producing top talents to compete with the best. You know the way teams used to get to the top for over a century. It's not as if Chelsea were a tiny club that had never won anything pre Roman either. Sorry mate but this idea that the only way to become a top team and club pre 2003 was to get bought by a billionaire is nonsense. As I said it's probably only the case now ironically because of the 3 financially doped clubs inflating the market to such an extent that virtually no club can keep up with them.

United would have had a down turn post Fergie even if City and Chelsea weren't around as we've been in a mess. It simply would have been other clubs winning the league, the fact City and Chelsea have won the league in 6 of the 8 seasons post Fergie says it all. Liverpool only managed to win one by hiring the right manager, making smart signings and producing some top players from their academy. Despite being one of the worlds biggest clubs that's the only way they can compete with City. What hope does any other club have?

I am amazed people don't recognise the shift that happened when Silvo B took over Milan. That really was the start of the big money in football (coupled with TV) and the concentration of wealth into the top teams from that era.
The Champions League has lead to the concentration of wealth in a few clubs in each league over the last 30 years. And the Champions League of course has been shaped over the last 2 decades by big clubs strong arming UEFA into more and more concessions that generate money for them so UEFA can stave off the threat of a breakaway Super League. A Super League which teams like Real, Juve, Barca, United and Liverpool have wanted because FFP has failed (and was never effective) and they can't compete financially with the bottomless pits of wealth flowing from Gas/Oil rich nation states.
 
Last edited: