City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches

[alexthelion]

Ha ha, “proven incorrect”. I know you want a monopoly on the truth, but it’s not yours to give. I’ve no idea what you think I’ve ignored but I reply to a ridiculous amount of messages on here. I’m sure I’ve missed some, and I’m sure I’ll continue to do so. At some point you’re just going to have to accept that without being flouncy. I fully accept that for your narrative to work I have to be some troll who is deliberately avoiding questions that you consider definitive. You can continue to push that narrative but it won’t make it any more true: I tell you what, I’ll have a trawl back through your multiple posts tomorrow and do my best to answer every one. Would that help you to acknowledge that I’m not trying to ignore you?

 

[alexthelion]

I can’t shift the goalposts ‘again’ as I never shifted them previously. Though you may have misunderstood something I said. I don’t feel responsible for that though.

Yes, acknowledging when wrong applies to all and everything of course!

 

[Bosws87]

Well that was lovely, terrible group of supporters would drive the game into the ground just to be number one.

Lack of self awareness is criminal.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Well that was lovely, terrible group of supporters would drive the game into the ground just to be number one.

Lack of self awareness is criminal.

Have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about in fairness.

 

[Solius]

City are purchased by Abu Dhabi in September 2008. Manchester City placed 9th the season prior. Abu Dhabi get to work buying players who wouldn't otherwise even look in City's direction. 9th place in 2007/'08 becomes 8th place in 2008/'09; the initial steps of the process take a while to bed in, as the old is replaced with the new. City's first big leap takes place the next season with 8th place bested by three positions. They finish the 2009/'10 season in 5th position. We're now in 2010/'11 and City have sacked Hughes and got their first big name coach in Roberto Mancini. They finish 3rd that season and are now a Champions League club. They've been a perennial fixture in the CL places ever since.

There are no cyclic ups or downs, no consequence for poor purchases where normal clubs are lumped with players whose value plummets who they then cannot get off their books because they cannot afford to pay up their contracts willy-nilly and no other club will take them on without subsidy. There is no fear or regard for any of the recognised norms clubs who are not state-owned are hamstrung by. City are a guaranteed lock for a CL place, thus taking it away from any legitimate contender who is then vying with the remainder for 'a go'. The established Old Order are hurt by this, but the remainder are absolutely crushed by it because they have to have more luck than ever before, or take on more financial risk than ever before to try and break this new status quo.

Meanwhile, of the Old Order, not one of them has been a lock in the CL positions as a perennial fixture since 2009/'10

Manchester United have missed out on the CL 5, going on 6 times (once this season concludes).

Liverpool have missed out on the CL 6 times.

Chelsea have missed out on the CL 4, going on 5 times (once this season concludes).

Arsenal have missed out on the CL 6 times.

This is the Old Order, look how many times these so-called behemoths have failed to qualify for the Champions League since City became an indubitable fixture in the competition. Whether you wish to count Chelsea or not, the point remains - Chelsea are more an example of a club with no hope forcing themselves into the conversation, but not overstepping the mark to the point they have broken football.

Now, as stated by numerous people and their painstaking efforts to make clear how damaging what City are doing is, it's not the clubs above who are the most put out by City, it's the teams below them who, without City's permanency would have had a chance to make their play for the top table. Spurs are going to have been the biggest fall guys, but now it's also the likes of Villa as they try and push through the glass ceiling to compete directly with the teams above (and not City).

There is no time in English football history where Old Orders (they used to be dynamic: Wolves, for example, used to be a big dog up to the conclusion of the 1950's) as there have been - or supposedly established - where those teams remained, perennially, at the helm. In fact, most are defined by golden periods followed by fallow times where they cannot compete for the league nor CL (or previously, the European Cup).

Great periods for these sides are attributed to great men doing unbelievably shrewd work within a financial remit that whilst at the higher end, was not obliterating those around them - the clubs ebbed and flowed with the passage of these managers. City are a faceless state, as @Regulus Arcturus Black stated, there is no way for them to fail because they will always have the best in class, will always replace the best with the best and there will never be a lull due to financial instability or uncertainty. In other words, completely and utterly artificial conditions, especially when contrasted with what history has told us about every one of the Old Order, who all, to a club, could/did/have slumped and have had to re-establish themselves once more years down the line.

It's clear that what some see as "Manchester United" is actually an infernal loathing of Alex Ferguson and the brilliance he ushered into the club, which immediately lost its way without him at the top. In the following 10 years, the cluelessness, and more importantly, the consequences of that cluelessness, have not only seen Manchester United fall back into the pack, but for most of the time, be behind them by some distance. The exact same thing befell Liverpool when Dalglish handed over to Souness and sent them flailing, not only off the top spot, but to be out of the running for the title for years. In very short order, both clubs went from halcyon periods with great players to an exodus and squads and managers who hadn't a prayer. This is how the Old Order works and what their pitfalls are. One or two bad managerial hires and they can fall like a house of cards because consequence for poor decisions then comes back to haunt them as a debt that needs paying in full. These old clubs don't just get to wipe the slate clean each season and go again with a brand new set of players if the bad buys don't work out. They are lumped with them and the general bar for the side will steadily diminish. Arsenal experienced exactly the same thing once Wenger stopped shitting gold. The stadium didn't help, but it wasn't their downfall, but it highlights another point and consequence: the either, or. By pouring money into the new stadium, they were going to be hamstrung for years. A conscious decision made to better their stadium meant less money could be pumped into the team, and anyone coming to manage them had to accept that. At City? Nope, we'll redevelop a portion of the city - yes, the literal city - whilst still hiring best in class across all facets on off and the pitch with no fallout whatsoever. Hmm... clearly the same playing field as what everyone else is uuming and ahhing from.

The worst thing of all is City didn't have to cheat as a state is going to be Borg-like in its assimilation by its very nature. It cannot be anything else, which is why it has no place in football, but that's besides the point as this is about cheating to achieve ends as hurriedly and as artificially as one can imagine.

As much as the Old Order could be despised by those who were not part of it, they were not infinite or unmovable. Every single one of them had sizeable lulls multiple times in their histories and provided opportunities for others to take their slice of the pie should they be so fortunate to go upwind at the time of a boon for the game. We'll never know what would have happened without City in the picture, but history tells us, quite clearly, that even the biggest of English clubs has never been too big to not fail, until now. With Ferguson's retirement, there was no guarantee status quo would have remained, but unlike in the past, where new players could gobble up space, things quickly became established in this new, most broken order where the winningest team's biggest concerns are in how to hide their wrongdoing. The footballing side of things, a total formality due to them having no consequences for anything that goes wrong.

Wonderful post.

 

[Beachryan]

Still no word from the 'netural' about the fact that City signed up to rules, then systematically broke those rules, lied about breaking them and now desperately trying to leverage the government to get them out of accountability for the violations.

This isn't a hard concept. FFP is not on trial here. Think of it like a speed limit in a perfectly safe, emtpy area with no schools. There very much is an argument the speed limit is not correct, but that doesn't matter if you get caught speeding.

 

[Bosws87]

Have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about in fairness.

Just a small game that happened yesterday.

long gave up trying to argue with their fans as stated cold hard evidence is ignored and they would happily run the sport into the ground to stay at the top.

I have no time for such a group of people.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

If you think I’ve ‘shifted the goalposts’ then that’s genuinely a reflection on your comprehension. I know my own view and I’ve thought the same consistently. Sorry it doesn’t make sense to you.

Also, sorry to the peeps who wrote War and Peace earlier, I’ll have a look tomorrow when I’m not arguing with an 8 year old about basic hygiene.

Oi, I'm not 8 years old. Low blow.

 

[fe33er]

115 charges FC out.

115ers*

 

[Reddevildans]

You don’t think that if you give these unlimited oil money to someone like Klopp, he probably wins everything as well?

How much of it is really Pep?

Quite significantly with pep imo. City may have a competent structure behind the scenes but ultimately its the manager ability to extract the best out of great and average players that does the trick. He's a level above klopp. Yes he's had loads of money to spend but that comes with added pressure doesn't it..and he's delivered everywhere. Klopp and United have also spent a fortune.

I can't wait till he leaves. I genuinely think we would indirectly benefit psychologically knowing he's not around. He's been our nemesis and usually gets the better of us.

 

[CoopersDream]

1 league title in 9 years. Nearly €1bn spent. Couple cups along the way but the overrating of Klopp is ridiculous.

Not really. It's a fair assessment. Maybe third behind Carlo as well but that's about it.

 

[Buchan]

City are purchased by Abu Dhabi in September 2008. Manchester City placed 9th the season prior. Abu Dhabi get to work buying players who wouldn't otherwise even look in City's direction. 9th place in 2007/'08 becomes 8th place in 2008/'09; the initial steps of the process take a while to bed in, as the old is replaced with the new. City's first big leap takes place the next season with 8th place bested by three positions. They finish the 2009/'10 season in 5th position. We're now in 2010/'11 and City have sacked Hughes and got their first big name coach in Roberto Mancini. They finish 3rd that season and are now a Champions League club. They've been a perennial fixture in the CL places ever since.

There are no cyclic ups or downs, no consequence for poor purchases where normal clubs are lumped with players whose value plummets who they then cannot get off their books because they cannot afford to pay up their contracts willy-nilly and no other club will take them on without subsidy. There is no fear or regard for any of the recognised norms clubs who are not state-owned are hamstrung by. City are a guaranteed lock for a CL place, thus taking it away from any legitimate contender who is then vying with the remainder for 'a go'. The established Old Order are hurt by this, but the remainder are absolutely crushed by it because they have to have more luck than ever before, or take on more financial risk than ever before to try and break this new status quo.

Meanwhile, of the Old Order, not one of them has been a lock in the CL positions as a perennial fixture since 2009/'10

Manchester United have missed out on the CL 5, going on 6 times (once this season concludes).

Liverpool have missed out on the CL 6 times.

Chelsea have missed out on the CL 4, going on 5 times (once this season concludes).

Arsenal have missed out on the CL 6 times.

This is the Old Order, look how many times these so-called behemoths have failed to qualify for the Champions League since City became an indubitable fixture in the competition. Whether you wish to count Chelsea or not, the point remains - Chelsea are more an example of a club with no hope forcing themselves into the conversation, but not overstepping the mark to the point they have broken football.

Now, as stated by numerous people and their painstaking efforts to make clear how damaging what City are doing is, it's not the clubs above who are the most put out by City, it's the teams below them who, without City's permanency would have had a chance to make their play for the top table. Spurs are going to have been the biggest fall guys, but now it's also the likes of Villa as they try and push through the glass ceiling to compete directly with the teams above (and not City).

There is no time in English football history where Old Orders (they used to be dynamic: Wolves, for example, used to be a big dog up to the conclusion of the 1950's) as there have been - or supposedly established - where those teams remained, perennially, at the helm. In fact, most are defined by golden periods followed by fallow times where they cannot compete for the league nor CL (or previously, the European Cup).

Great periods for these sides are attributed to great men doing unbelievably shrewd work within a financial remit that whilst at the higher end, was not obliterating those around them - the clubs ebbed and flowed with the passage of these managers. City are a faceless state, as @Regulus Arcturus Black stated, there is no way for them to fail because they will always have the best in class, will always replace the best with the best and there will never be a lull due to financial instability or uncertainty. In other words, completely and utterly artificial conditions, especially when contrasted with what history has told us about every one of the Old Order, who all, to a club, could/did/have slumped and have had to re-establish themselves once more years down the line.

It's clear that what some see as "Manchester United" is actually an infernal loathing of Alex Ferguson and the brilliance he ushered into the club, which immediately lost its way without him at the top. In the following 10 years, the cluelessness, and more importantly, the consequences of that cluelessness, have not only seen Manchester United fall back into the pack, but for most of the time, be behind them by some distance. The exact same thing befell Liverpool when Dalglish handed over to Souness and sent them flailing, not only off the top spot, but to be out of the running for the title for years. In very short order, both clubs went from halcyon periods with great players to an exodus and squads and managers who hadn't a prayer. This is how the Old Order works and what their pitfalls are. One or two bad managerial hires and they can fall like a house of cards because consequence for poor decisions then comes back to haunt them as a debt that needs paying in full. These old clubs don't just get to wipe the slate clean each season and go again with a brand new set of players if the bad buys don't work out. They are lumped with them and the general bar for the side will steadily diminish. Arsenal experienced exactly the same thing once Wenger stopped shitting gold. The stadium didn't help, but it wasn't their downfall, but it highlights another point and consequence: the either, or. By pouring money into the new stadium, they were going to be hamstrung for years. A conscious decision made to better their stadium meant less money could be pumped into the team, and anyone coming to manage them had to accept that. At City? Nope, we'll redevelop a portion of the city - yes, the literal city - whilst still hiring best in class across all facets on off and the pitch with no fallout whatsoever. Hmm... clearly the same playing field as what everyone else is uuming and ahhing from.

The worst thing of all is City didn't have to cheat as a state is going to be Borg-like in its assimilation by its very nature. It cannot be anything else, which is why it has no place in football, but that's besides the point as this is about cheating to achieve ends as hurriedly and as artificially as one can imagine.

As much as the Old Order could be despised by those who were not part of it, they were not infinite or unmovable. Every single one of them had sizeable lulls multiple times in their histories and provided opportunities for others to take their slice of the pie should they be so fortunate to go upwind at the time of a boon for the game. We'll never know what would have happened without City in the picture, but history tells us, quite clearly, that even the biggest of English clubs has never been too big to not fail, until now. With Ferguson's retirement, there was no guarantee status quo would have remained, but unlike in the past, where new players could gobble up space, things quickly became established in this new, most broken order where the winningest team's biggest concerns are in how to hide their wrongdoing. The footballing side of things, a total formality due to them having no consequences for anything that goes wrong.

Marvellous.

 

[Heardy]

City are purchased by Abu Dhabi in September 2008. Manchester City placed 9th the season prior. Abu Dhabi get to work buying players who wouldn't otherwise even look in City's direction. 9th place in 2007/'08 becomes 8th place in 2008/'09; the initial steps of the process take a while to bed in, as the old is replaced with the new. City's first big leap takes place the next season with 8th place bested by three positions. They finish the 2009/'10 season in 5th position. We're now in 2010/'11 and City have sacked Hughes and got their first big name coach in Roberto Mancini. They finish 3rd that season and are now a Champions League club. They've been a perennial fixture in the CL places ever since.

There are no cyclic ups or downs, no consequence for poor purchases where normal clubs are lumped with players whose value plummets who they then cannot get off their books because they cannot afford to pay up their contracts willy-nilly and no other club will take them on without subsidy. There is no fear or regard for any of the recognised norms clubs who are not state-owned are hamstrung by. City are a guaranteed lock for a CL place, thus taking it away from any legitimate contender who is then vying with the remainder for 'a go'. The established Old Order are hurt by this, but the remainder are absolutely crushed by it because they have to have more luck than ever before, or take on more financial risk than ever before to try and break this new status quo.

Meanwhile, of the Old Order, not one of them has been a lock in the CL positions as a perennial fixture since 2009/'10

Manchester United have missed out on the CL 5, going on 6 times (once this season concludes).

Liverpool have missed out on the CL 6 times.

Chelsea have missed out on the CL 4, going on 5 times (once this season concludes).

Arsenal have missed out on the CL 6 times.

This is the Old Order, look how many times these so-called behemoths have failed to qualify for the Champions League since City became an indubitable fixture in the competition. Whether you wish to count Chelsea or not, the point remains - Chelsea are more an example of a club with no hope forcing themselves into the conversation, but not overstepping the mark to the point they have broken football.

Now, as stated by numerous people and their painstaking efforts to make clear how damaging what City are doing is, it's not the clubs above who are the most put out by City, it's the teams below them who, without City's permanency would have had a chance to make their play for the top table. Spurs are going to have been the biggest fall guys, but now it's also the likes of Villa as they try and push through the glass ceiling to compete directly with the teams above (and not City).

There is no time in English football history where Old Orders (they used to be dynamic: Wolves, for example, used to be a big dog up to the conclusion of the 1950's) as there have been - or supposedly established - where those teams remained, perennially, at the helm. In fact, most are defined by golden periods followed by fallow times where they cannot compete for the league nor CL (or previously, the European Cup).

Great periods for these sides are attributed to great men doing unbelievably shrewd work within a financial remit that whilst at the higher end, was not obliterating those around them - the clubs ebbed and flowed with the passage of these managers. City are a faceless state, as @Regulus Arcturus Black stated, there is no way for them to fail because they will always have the best in class, will always replace the best with the best and there will never be a lull due to financial instability or uncertainty. In other words, completely and utterly artificial conditions, especially when contrasted with what history has told us about every one of the Old Order, who all, to a club, could/did/have slumped and have had to re-establish themselves once more years down the line.

It's clear that what some see as "Manchester United" is actually an infernal loathing of Alex Ferguson and the brilliance he ushered into the club, which immediately lost its way without him at the top. In the following 10 years, the cluelessness, and more importantly, the consequences of that cluelessness, have not only seen Manchester United fall back into the pack, but for most of the time, be behind them by some distance. The exact same thing befell Liverpool when Dalglish handed over to Souness and sent them flailing, not only off the top spot, but to be out of the running for the title for years. In very short order, both clubs went from halcyon periods with great players to an exodus and squads and managers who hadn't a prayer. This is how the Old Order works and what their pitfalls are. One or two bad managerial hires and they can fall like a house of cards because consequence for poor decisions then comes back to haunt them as a debt that needs paying in full. These old clubs don't just get to wipe the slate clean each season and go again with a brand new set of players if the bad buys don't work out. They are lumped with them and the general bar for the side will steadily diminish. Arsenal experienced exactly the same thing once Wenger stopped shitting gold. The stadium didn't help, but it wasn't their downfall, but it highlights another point and consequence: the either, or. By pouring money into the new stadium, they were going to be hamstrung for years. A conscious decision made to better their stadium meant less money could be pumped into the team, and anyone coming to manage them had to accept that. At City? Nope, we'll redevelop a portion of the city - yes, the literal city - whilst still hiring best in class across all facets on off and the pitch with no fallout whatsoever. Hmm... clearly the same playing field as what everyone else is uuming and ahhing from.

The worst thing of all is City didn't have to cheat as a state is going to be Borg-like in its assimilation by its very nature. It cannot be anything else, which is why it has no place in football, but that's besides the point as this is about cheating to achieve ends as hurriedly and as artificially as one can imagine.

As much as the Old Order could be despised by those who were not part of it, they were not infinite or unmovable. Every single one of them had sizeable lulls multiple times in their histories and provided opportunities for others to take their slice of the pie should they be so fortunate to go upwind at the time of a boon for the game. We'll never know what would have happened without City in the picture, but history tells us, quite clearly, that even the biggest of English clubs has never been too big to not fail, until now. With Ferguson's retirement, there was no guarantee status quo would have remained, but unlike in the past, where new players could gobble up space, things quickly became established in this new, most broken order where the winningest team's biggest concerns are in how to hide their wrongdoing. The footballing side of things, a total formality due to them having no consequences for anything that goes wrong.

Everyone should take the time to read this - sensational post!!

POTY contender.

 

[Greyfog]

Calm down and take it up the ar*se till Pep leaves. Back to some normality then

 

[Ayoba]

City are purchased by Abu Dhabi in September 2008. Manchester City placed 9th the season prior. Abu Dhabi get to work buying players who wouldn't otherwise even look in City's direction. 9th place in 2007/'08 becomes 8th place in 2008/'09; the initial steps of the process take a while to bed in, as the old is replaced with the new. City's first big leap takes place the next season with 8th place bested by three positions. They finish the 2009/'10 season in 5th position. We're now in 2010/'11 and City have sacked Hughes and got their first big name coach in Roberto Mancini. They finish 3rd that season and are now a Champions League club. They've been a perennial fixture in the CL places ever since.

There are no cyclic ups or downs, no consequence for poor purchases where normal clubs are lumped with players whose value plummets who they then cannot get off their books because they cannot afford to pay up their contracts willy-nilly and no other club will take them on without subsidy. There is no fear or regard for any of the recognised norms clubs who are not state-owned are hamstrung by. City are a guaranteed lock for a CL place, thus taking it away from any legitimate contender who is then vying with the remainder for 'a go'. The established Old Order are hurt by this, but the remainder are absolutely crushed by it because they have to have more luck than ever before, or take on more financial risk than ever before to try and break this new status quo.

Meanwhile, of the Old Order, not one of them has been a lock in the CL positions as a perennial fixture since 2009/'10

Manchester United have missed out on the CL 5, going on 6 times (once this season concludes).

Liverpool have missed out on the CL 6 times.

Chelsea have missed out on the CL 4, going on 5 times (once this season concludes).

Arsenal have missed out on the CL 6 times.

This is the Old Order, look how many times these so-called behemoths have failed to qualify for the Champions League since City became an indubitable fixture in the competition. Whether you wish to count Chelsea or not, the point remains - Chelsea are more an example of a club with no hope forcing themselves into the conversation, but not overstepping the mark to the point they have broken football.

Now, as stated by numerous people and their painstaking efforts to make clear how damaging what City are doing is, it's not the clubs above who are the most put out by City, it's the teams below them who, without City's permanency would have had a chance to make their play for the top table. Spurs are going to have been the biggest fall guys, but now it's also the likes of Villa as they try and push through the glass ceiling to compete directly with the teams above (and not City).

There is no time in English football history where Old Orders (they used to be dynamic: Wolves, for example, used to be a big dog up to the conclusion of the 1950's) as there have been - or supposedly established - where those teams remained, perennially, at the helm. In fact, most are defined by golden periods followed by fallow times where they cannot compete for the league nor CL (or previously, the European Cup).

Great periods for these sides are attributed to great men doing unbelievably shrewd work within a financial remit that whilst at the higher end, was not obliterating those around them - the clubs ebbed and flowed with the passage of these managers. City are a faceless state, as @Regulus Arcturus Black stated, there is no way for them to fail because they will always have the best in class, will always replace the best with the best and there will never be a lull due to financial instability or uncertainty. In other words, completely and utterly artificial conditions, especially when contrasted with what history has told us about every one of the Old Order, who all, to a club, could/did/have slumped and have had to re-establish themselves once more years down the line.

It's clear that what some see as "Manchester United" is actually an infernal loathing of Alex Ferguson and the brilliance he ushered into the club, which immediately lost its way without him at the top. In the following 10 years, the cluelessness, and more importantly, the consequences of that cluelessness, have not only seen Manchester United fall back into the pack, but for most of the time, be behind them by some distance. The exact same thing befell Liverpool when Dalglish handed over to Souness and sent them flailing, not only off the top spot, but to be out of the running for the title for years. In very short order, both clubs went from halcyon periods with great players to an exodus and squads and managers who hadn't a prayer. This is how the Old Order works and what their pitfalls are. One or two bad managerial hires and they can fall like a house of cards because consequence for poor decisions then comes back to haunt them as a debt that needs paying in full. These old clubs don't just get to wipe the slate clean each season and go again with a brand new set of players if the bad buys don't work out. They are lumped with them and the general bar for the side will steadily diminish. Arsenal experienced exactly the same thing once Wenger stopped shitting gold. The stadium didn't help, but it wasn't their downfall, but it highlights another point and consequence: the either, or. By pouring money into the new stadium, they were going to be hamstrung for years. A conscious decision made to better their stadium meant less money could be pumped into the team, and anyone coming to manage them had to accept that. At City? Nope, we'll redevelop a portion of the city - yes, the literal city - whilst still hiring best in class across all facets on off and the pitch with no fallout whatsoever. Hmm... clearly the same playing field as what everyone else is uuming and ahhing from.

The worst thing of all is City didn't have to cheat as a state is going to be Borg-like in its assimilation by its very nature. It cannot be anything else, which is why it has no place in football, but that's besides the point as this is about cheating to achieve ends as hurriedly and as artificially as one can imagine.

As much as the Old Order could be despised by those who were not part of it, they were not infinite or unmovable. Every single one of them had sizeable lulls multiple times in their histories and provided opportunities for others to take their slice of the pie should they be so fortunate to go upwind at the time of a boon for the game. We'll never know what would have happened without City in the picture, but history tells us, quite clearly, that even the biggest of English clubs has never been too big to not fail, until now. With Ferguson's retirement, there was no guarantee status quo would have remained, but unlike in the past, where new players could gobble up space, things quickly became established in this new, most broken order where the winningest team's biggest concerns are in how to hide their wrongdoing. The footballing side of things, a total formality due to them having no consequences for anything that goes wrong.

Bravo

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Calm down and take it up the ar*se till Pep leaves. Back to some normality then

There might be a drop in level to an extent but they're too well organised for it to go to shit.

 

[Posh Red]

Eh?

I showed you the damn video yesterday that proves that absolutely wasn’t the case.

The Prem started in 92 and Liverpool/Blackburn spent the most until 99-00, then United took top spot with Liverpool close behind (hardly surprising as we’d just had the most successful spell in our history) and in 2003 Chelsea took over until City came in 2008.

How many times do people need to tell you this man? A few more hundred?

Conveniently ignored question 2 I see.

I would give up at this point. That poster isn’t interested in having a proper discussion.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Calm down and take it up the ar*se till Pep leaves. Back to some normality then

No chance of normality.

The GDP of Abu Dhabi is 230bn dollars, the biggest club in the league operating through it’s own business only have revenues of $825m.

The Abu Dhabi football project might have a year or two blip, but they’ll be the dominant side unless FFP hits them hard. Loosening of FFP might make it a two horse race with the Saudis though.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I just don't understand people that hang on to a particular point, or support a particular manager or player ad infinitum.

Seems like a particularly childish thing to do.

Surely, you get to a point where you have to think, you have a different viewpoint to me, agree to differ and move on.

Amadeus ended up getting banned, some bloke in the Pep thread has his tongue permanently up Pep's arse. This guy going on and on about City's unbridled wealth not having a detrimental effect on the league.

feck off the lot of you.

 

[adexkola]

Surely, you get to a point where you have to think, you have a different viewpoint to me, agree to differ and move on.

I mean that applies to both sides

 

[OldSchoolManc]

How can anyone that think Man City domination is a good thing for football? They have circumvented the rules that all other teams have largely abided by and made it a boring procession every season with predictable outcomes.
No other team can possibly keep up with their bottomless pit spending

 

[Sassy Colin]

I mean that applies to both sides

A lot of it is people taking the piss, WUMing & making people spouting drivel look foolish, when they don't even realise they're being taken the piss out of, being WUMed or making themselves look foolish.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I would give up at this point. That poster isn’t interested in having a proper discussion.

Nicola died on the way back to their home planet.

 

[Greyfog]

With them not dominating the Champions League, will Europe care that much about how City got to dine with the big boys?

They will see it as an English problem. Brexit means Brexit.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I just don't understand people that hang on to a particular point, or support a particular manager or player ad infinitum.

Seems like a particularly childish thing to do.

Surely, you get to a point where you have to think, you have a different viewpoint to me, agree to differ and move on.

There’s a viewpoint “I’m alright with state ownership, anyone should be able to do as they please”. Anyone is fine with that viewpoint.

Then there’s nonsense claims that can be proven factually incorrect. Such as United always outspending their rivals or that the gap to United can’t be massively closed by organic growth.

And then there’s an underlying daft as feck opinion that:

“State ownership is good as it stops United, FFP is just to protect the old guard and I think a state entity with 230 billion in GDP vs the next top team with 746 million revenue is more fair than United 746 m revenue v Spurs 631m revenue”.

 

[Irwin99]

If you took City out of the league it actually looks quite competitive, especially top 4 with even Aston Villa having a very real chance of getting fourth place this season.

As someone else commented, United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs have had some truly disastrous seasons in the past ten years, all slipping out of the CL places, never consistently remaining there. It'd actually be a fun league without 115 charges FC.

 

[adexkola]

I would give up at this point. That poster isn’t interested in having a proper discussion.

People have lives outside of here.

Glaston is busy at the moment but should be back soon to answer some of the questions I asked him...

 

[Posh Red]

People have lives outside of here.

Glaston is busy at the moment but should be back soon to answer some of the questions I asked him...

I was referring to his evasive discussion approach.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

People have lives outside of here.

Glaston is busy at the moment but should be back soon to answer some of the questions I asked him...

 

[SER19]

If you took City out of the league it actually looks quite competitive, especially top 4 with even Aston Villa having a very real chance of getting fourth place this season.

As someone else commented, United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs have had some truly disastrous seasons in the past ten years, all slipping out of the CL places, never consistently remaining there. It'd actually be a fun league without 115 charges FC.

City fans keep ignoring this. They like to pretend they've upset some sort of cabal of clubs but really every other club goes through natural sporting highs and lows. Theyre cheats and have ruined the league, and English footballs integrity - its that simple. Dirty, poisonous cheats

 

[adexkola]

If you took City out of the league it actually looks quite competitive, especially top 4 with even Aston Villa having a very real chance of getting fourth place this season.

As someone else commented, United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs have had some truly disastrous seasons in the past ten years, all slipping out of the CL places, never consistently remaining there. It'd actually be a fun league without 115 charges FC.

So we are relying on incompetence from the top teams to keep the league competitive and fun? Was financial injections for City ok as long as they had Hughes and Mancini and Pellegrini in place?

I've made this point earlier but we will see this similar level of dominance from United if Sir Jim has got his team spot on from the CEO to the head coach. It will be accepted by many because "earned money la" but there'll be the same result.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

City are purchased by Abu Dhabi in September 2008. Manchester City placed 9th the season prior. Abu Dhabi get to work buying players who wouldn't otherwise even look in City's direction. 9th place in 2007/'08 becomes 8th place in 2008/'09; the initial steps of the process take a while to bed in, as the old is replaced with the new. City's first big leap takes place the next season with 8th place bested by three positions. They finish the 2009/'10 season in 5th position. We're now in 2010/'11 and City have sacked Hughes and got their first big name coach in Roberto Mancini. They finish 3rd that season and are now a Champions League club. They've been a perennial fixture in the CL places ever since.

There are no cyclic ups or downs, no consequence for poor purchases where normal clubs are lumped with players whose value plummets who they then cannot get off their books because they cannot afford to pay up their contracts willy-nilly and no other club will take them on without subsidy. There is no fear or regard for any of the recognised norms clubs who are not state-owned are hamstrung by. City are a guaranteed lock for a CL place, thus taking it away from any legitimate contender who is then vying with the remainder for 'a go'. The established Old Order are hurt by this, but the remainder are absolutely crushed by it because they have to have more luck than ever before, or take on more financial risk than ever before to try and break this new status quo.

Meanwhile, of the Old Order, not one of them has been a lock in the CL positions as a perennial fixture since 2009/'10

Manchester United have missed out on the CL 5, going on 6 times (once this season concludes).

Liverpool have missed out on the CL 6 times.

Chelsea have missed out on the CL 4, going on 5 times (once this season concludes).

Arsenal have missed out on the CL 6 times.

This is the Old Order, look how many times these so-called behemoths have failed to qualify for the Champions League since City became an indubitable fixture in the competition. Whether you wish to count Chelsea or not, the point remains - Chelsea are more an example of a club with no hope forcing themselves into the conversation, but not overstepping the mark to the point they have broken football.

Now, as stated by numerous people and their painstaking efforts to make clear how damaging what City are doing is, it's not the clubs above who are the most put out by City, it's the teams below them who, without City's permanency would have had a chance to make their play for the top table. Spurs are going to have been the biggest fall guys, but now it's also the likes of Villa as they try and push through the glass ceiling to compete directly with the teams above (and not City).

There is no time in English football history where Old Orders (they used to be dynamic: Wolves, for example, used to be a big dog up to the conclusion of the 1950's) as there have been - or supposedly established - where those teams remained, perennially, at the helm. In fact, most are defined by golden periods followed by fallow times where they cannot compete for the league nor CL (or previously, the European Cup).

Great periods for these sides are attributed to great men doing unbelievably shrewd work within a financial remit that whilst at the higher end, was not obliterating those around them - the clubs ebbed and flowed with the passage of these managers. City are a faceless state, as @Regulus Arcturus Black stated, there is no way for them to fail because they will always have the best in class, will always replace the best with the best and there will never be a lull due to financial instability or uncertainty. In other words, completely and utterly artificial conditions, especially when contrasted with what history has told us about every one of the Old Order, who all, to a club, could/did/have slumped and have had to re-establish themselves once more years down the line.

It's clear that what some see as "Manchester United" is actually an infernal loathing of Alex Ferguson and the brilliance he ushered into the club, which immediately lost its way without him at the top. In the following 10 years, the cluelessness, and more importantly, the consequences of that cluelessness, have not only seen Manchester United fall back into the pack, but for most of the time, be behind them by some distance. The exact same thing befell Liverpool when Dalglish handed over to Souness and sent them flailing, not only off the top spot, but to be out of the running for the title for years. In very short order, both clubs went from halcyon periods with great players to an exodus and squads and managers who hadn't a prayer. This is how the Old Order works and what their pitfalls are. One or two bad managerial hires and they can fall like a house of cards because consequence for poor decisions then comes back to haunt them as a debt that needs paying in full. These old clubs don't just get to wipe the slate clean each season and go again with a brand new set of players if the bad buys don't work out. They are lumped with them and the general bar for the side will steadily diminish. Arsenal experienced exactly the same thing once Wenger stopped shitting gold. The stadium didn't help, but it wasn't their downfall, but it highlights another point and consequence: the either, or. By pouring money into the new stadium, they were going to be hamstrung for years. A conscious decision made to better their stadium meant less money could be pumped into the team, and anyone coming to manage them had to accept that. At City? Nope, we'll redevelop a portion of the city - yes, the literal city - whilst still hiring best in class across all facets on off and the pitch with no fallout whatsoever. Hmm... clearly the same playing field as what everyone else is uuming and ahhing from.

The worst thing of all is City didn't have to cheat as a state is going to be Borg-like in its assimilation by its very nature. It cannot be anything else, which is why it has no place in football, but that's besides the point as this is about cheating to achieve ends as hurriedly and as artificially as one can imagine.

As much as the Old Order could be despised by those who were not part of it, they were not infinite or unmovable. Every single one of them had sizeable lulls multiple times in their histories and provided opportunities for others to take their slice of the pie should they be so fortunate to go upwind at the time of a boon for the game. We'll never know what would have happened without City in the picture, but history tells us, quite clearly, that even the biggest of English clubs has never been too big to not fail, until now. With Ferguson's retirement, there was no guarantee status quo would have remained, but unlike in the past, where new players could gobble up space, things quickly became established in this new, most broken order where the winningest team's biggest concerns are in how to hide their wrongdoing. The footballing side of things, a total formality due to them having no consequences for anything that goes wrong.

I'm sending this to my (one) City-supporting chum, but it should be sent to The Athletic so they can finally understand what the real issue is. Great post.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Nicola died on the way back to their home planet.

RIP Poochie.

 

[Irwin99]

So we are relying on incompetence from the top teams to keep the league competitive and fun? Was financial injections for City ok as long as they had Hughes and Mancini and Pellegrini in place?

I've made this point earlier but we will see this similar level of dominance from United if Sir Jim has got his team spot on from the CEO to the head coach. It will be accepted by many because "earned money la" but there'll be the same result.

Not necessarily incompetence but just the natural cycles of teams that need to rebuild and the decisions, both good and bad, that go along with this. Heck, even Fergie had to go three years without the title in the early 00s when Beckham left, Keane got older, and he waited for Rooney and Ronaldo to mature. There wasn't any cheating involved there, just natural progression and some smart signings (VDS, Park, Carrick).

 

[RuudTom83]

More so than ever, we are hearing a lot of discourse around City and there 115 charges.

Probably because they have won the CL and also with Everton and Forest getting their punishments.

It’s nice to see! discredits everything they win!

 

[RoyH1]

I'm sending this to my (one) City-supporting chum, but it should be sent to The Athletic so they can finally understand what the real issue is. Great post.

The Athletic shills big, big time for City. Makes wonder if maybe they are partially owned by someone in the UAE.

 

[alexthelion]

Glaston is busy at the moment but should be back soon to answer some of the questions I asked him...

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

So we are relying on incompetence from the top teams to keep the league competitive and fun?

What are we relying on now? Abu Dhabi getting bored?

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

The Athletic shills big, big time for City. Makes wonder if maybe they are partially owned by someone in the UAE.

They're owned by The New York Times

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date