Still.. they are the best team in England having won all the domestic trophies, but Liverpool/Spurs are the best team in Europe 
FA Cup Final (slaughter)
- Thread starter Full bodied red
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I see what you mean. Gill and Ferguson left the same year, so I don't think Gill was as involved in choosing a successor as he would have been. It was the combination of Gill and SAF leaving at once that compounded our post-Ferguson hangover. 6 years and counting...
So we also did the treble in 94 and 2008. The treble treble.
Absolute negligence. Gill should have stayed another year when he found out Fergus9n was leaving as well.
It does not make sense not too count it. It is two competitive teams fighting for a trophy. Signals the start of the new season.
In hindsight yes, but he couldn't have predicted the chaos that followed...
It’s a friendly and is treated by such by the teams that participate in it.
City made six subs in this seasons Shield ffs.
tit, should be banned from attending games for life.
For that? Jesus, you're severe.
Along with the other 20,000?
You were right
Charity Shield??? FFS it's an exhibition match.
Very salty for a Spurs fan. Excellent
Thanks to City we'll not be starting our next season early!!
1 - Its not a cheap blow and there is no need for Spurs to do it. Imagine the outcry if City started using some of the racist shit thrown at our owners as a defence mechanism. Its wrong. It is what it is and in this day and age the club should be moving on from it instead of entrenching themselves in it.
2 & 3 - You can say that till you're blue in the fact but until it happens you are just Villarreal MkII. I'd love your club to prove me wrong on this and achieve sustainable success but I also know its not possible. But the fact you think Spurs have a master plan thats superior to other clubs is naive. Plans go out the window when players eventually want out for trophies. Dortmund, Atletico are/were miles ahead of where you are now in terms of doing it the right way but the trophies dried up very, very quickly in far less competitive leagues. I actually hope you win the CL as it will add some time to your project before the inevitable happens.
Liverpool have learned lately, its spend or get fecked. Spurs deserve a lot of plaudits for how they built but as of yet its resulted in nothing. One trophy won't change that, its sustained trophies and sustained fighting at the top that the Spurs method is incapable of bringing in, because they don't have the revenue of a United etc... The only two clubs to join the party recently and win consistently are City and Chelsea, guess what they have in common? £££.
4 - They don't have to be, nobody is ever impressed by the team on top. Not just in football but in all sports. When United were of top people made excuses for why they were better, someone will always find something to blame when they are jealous (myself included). Same happened before that with Liverpool and after with Chelsea. City are obviously an easier target because our owners are monsters, the reality is though, they've been nothing but great for City despite being horrible people.
The other reality is he who has the most £££ comes out on top and its been like that since Arsenal's bank of England in the 1900's. Sucks but life is not fair nor has football ever been. Would I prefer City to have built the Spurs way? You bet your balls I would if it led to trophies but if it led to nothing it was just more of being nothing. We're still Manchester City, we're just a richer Manchester City, we actually have barely any new fans, nothing has changed except we got bought by a tyrant and we have lots of money.
As more money comes into the game the numbers get bigger and bigger but its still the same old football, monopolized by the haves, the difference with City is we are now in the haves instead of the have nots (probably top of the haves). What Spurs are trying to do is commendable but inevitably will falter just like the other clubs who did the same. Sucks to say it but winning consistent trophies (I keep using consistent because anyone can win a one off) is only achievable to clubs who aren't European juggernauts who already have massive fanbase etc...(United, Real, Barca, Bayern, Liverpool etc...) via one method and always has been.
5 - Its the only way to the top, if City weren't in your way it would still be United or Arsenal or Liverpool. You can be annoyed, jealous whatever.. that's fine but the reality for Spurs is they are still in tier 2 (and I mean that with all due respect, hell we were probably tier 10 at one stage) and if City and Chelsea had never came to be, you'd still be in tier 2. The Aguero's, KDB's and Hazards would be lining out for the Uniteds, Liverpools and Arsenals. Nothing has changed for any club bar the United's Arsenal's and Liverpool's with the arrival of first Chelsea and than City. Its their successes that have dried up. City have had no effect on clubs like Spurs, you'd always be chasing someone. Football has an always will be that way. Football hasn't become this, it's always been this.
I learned the last day saying or singing anything about Liverpool is a capital offence will be blown out of proportion and the offending club should be docked enough points to give them the title.
You just don't know that. We have no idea what the implications are for clubs like Spurs, Dortmund, etc if oil clubs didn't cause rampant inflation in the market. The fact that Spurs and Dortmund are doing what they're doing using their own resources is admirable. They aren't financially cheating, and thus carry more respect than a typical oil club.
Bullshit, we didn't bring inflation, prices were going that way anyway. They've been on the up since early 1900's, more money in the game brings bigger prices. Its the big deals that throw prices up, the Neymars, Ronaldo's etc.. once that happens the prices jump huge on worse players but still of high standard. The fact is none of the top 5 most expensive purchases in premier league history are Cities.
https://www.skysports.com/football/...sive-premier-league-transfers-in-todays-money Look at the deals, when they were done and the relevant changes in the market. The market jumps on those type of deals.
Most fraudulent FA Cup win ever? Their run to the final was an absolute joke.
You can’t be on this much if you think people are obsessed with City.
The majority aren’t bothered about City , Liverpool are talked about twice as much on here.
Yes it was even easier than our run with LVG. I didn't think it would be possible to have an easier run than that.
I said oil clubs, I didn't state City specifically. Did I say there was no inflation? No. To put the blinkers on and presume that oil investment didn't contribute to inflation is ludicrous, which is essentially what you're claiming. Chelsea, PSG and other oil clubs have been amongst the biggest spenders since their emergence. In fact top 5 spending clubs since 2010 have been, in order:
1. Man city
2. Chelsea
3. Barca
4. PSG (french league!)
5. United
Top Google result. I am sure similar lists exists with different dates.
I challenged your assertion that clubs like City have had no impact on clubs like Spurs and I think it is an absolutely baseless claim and one that you cannot possibly substantiate.
You said oil clubs were inflating the market. Top 5 spenders don't inflate prices, it you look at the prices the growth generally falls in line with the mega deal's. but in reality spunking £90m on Paul Pogba will drive the market higher than 10 Bernardo's for £40m. Someone bids for Eriksen, he's not gonna say "oh 40m is grand because City paid that for Bernardo". he's gonna say "if Pogba goes for £90m, I was £100m for Eriksen", and so if everyone else.
Barca and United for example are far more guilty of driving inflation in the last couple of years, Barca in particular with the crazy money they've been spending on players. PSG with the Neymar deal too.
Example is Allison and Kepa, goalkeepers don't go for that money but once one does the flood gates are open.
I didn't see more than 2 minutes of it but there seemed to be lots of empty seats.
Again, what you're saying is completely unsubstantiated. How does the biggest spenders buying the most players (a scarce resource) not contribute to inflation? And doing so by spending money, money which is not generated by or based on the economics of the game, but comes from an unlimited pool of money, the very definition of inflation... So how are City magically not contributing to inflation? Do me a favour! I can't even begin to describe why that is an economically ridiculous position to take.
And I'd argue that the profile of players that City target and continue to buy is the class of player most likely to cause clubs like Spurs problems. Instead of paying 30M for a "good" midfielder, they pay 50M. For a club like Spurs, that's tough, and just goes to show that your assertion remains baseless.
Anyway, you will outspend everyone in England this transfer window again, for the 8th or 9th time in the past decade. But I'm sure Spurs fans like Squishy can have peace of mind knowing that the world's biggest spenders, residing in the same league as Spurs, are not contributing to inflation.
Why would you even sing anything about other clubs, you just won the league??
Not for that anyway . He was right and not very abusive said his peice and left
100%. Their run in all the cup competitions this season have been ludicrously easy but they still managed to get beaten by Spurs in the CL.
And Watford played us off the park for an entire half.
Do you ever think about how different the world would be if slaughter rhymed with laughter?
He's not wrong though.Very salty for a Spurs fan. Excellent
Of course the oil clubs brought inflation. The rate of inflation can increase you know... and it has.
He’s bang on.
Of course that mental fan is right. This place jizzes over everything Salah does ffs but Sterling barely gets a mention. It’s all very odd. Had Liverpool won 6-0 today instead of City, there would be millions of threads about them. There’s a weird Liverpool obsession these days whereas no one really seems to care about City, who are the better team.
Your club paid world record transfer fees for multiple defenders in one summer and the same for a goalkeeper, having just paid £18.6m for a goalkeeper the season before.
You haven’t needed to buy player in positions that sell for the most since the real inflation started. When the likes of Aguero and David Silva retire you will be spending over £100m to replace them. You spent £70m on a player that was always going to sit on the bench. After proclaiming to take the moral high ground on Sanchez your club spent nearly £70m on a CB.
Before City turned up United were rarely the highest spenders in the league, there was even a thread about it recently that showed under Sir Alex we outspent the other Premier League like 3 times under his tenure. Our recent ridiculous spending has been a case of poor management and panicking about being left behind by City which is now happening.
Other than a very good manager currently at Liverpool no one would be near City and that’s down to the amount of players they buy in the transfer window. Idiots like Balague will proclaim that’s all down to Guardiola but what other club can bring on the same quality of player on the bench for every single position. De Bruyne, Sané, Stones and Aguero on the bench and win a cup final 6-0. It’s not like Watford are a terrible side. If City continue to win in this vain fans will very quickly get bored of it and the ABU culture will eventually turn on City.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Disagree, they were fine tactically and performance wise until 1-0. They were massively rattled from 1-0 to HT. This was mainly due to City though, I don't think any team wouldn't have been rattled given the intense pressing. Second half they changed tactic to press City high as they obviously needed goals. They got caught on the counter twice for the 3rd and 4th goals as they were pushing for it. Game was done then. The alternative choice at HT was to go for damage limitation which some teams would have done and just took 2/3-0. Watford went for it at least and got into a fair amount of dangerous positions throughout the game but the final ball was very poor.
City's pressing from 1-0 to HT was outstanding, Watford were unable to get out at all. Gundogen was absolutely everywhere. It was a truly great City performance.
Last edited:
The result is probably an accurate reflection of the money spent by both teams.
City far to good for Watford no shame in that for them, thought they gave it a good go to be fair.
A lot of these posts here come across as bitter and this forum is brilliant usually for separating salty from opinion but on this not much difference. City far to good and players moved the ball to quick for them. They’ve done it for against better teams before and it won’t be the last
A lot of these posts here come across as bitter and this forum is brilliant usually for separating salty from opinion but on this not much difference. City far to good and players moved the ball to quick for them. They’ve done it for against better teams before and it won’t be the last