Pep's speech video is just another example of City's "look at me,look at me" persona, desperate measures of a club trying too hard to be noticed, I would imagine most if not all football clubs, deliver a speech of thanks to all it's staff, how many video it and present it to the public ?
Manchester City 17/18 discussion | "If you're here for the Champions clap your hands" (#6505)
- Thread starter simonhch
- Start date
Can you imagine the club telling SAF they had to be there to record his speech? Boots and fecks would start flying
But it did, I see people saying the early years, the early years, I'm not on about the early years, I'm on about from around the time of treble winners on. Until Chelsea you were utterly dominant. £27m back then was a world class player btw... It's the equivalent of about a £100m player nowadays.
Leeds almost bankrupt themselves and could not keep up. Liverpool had to stop as they couldn't live with you. Arsenal had to slow, Newcastle were a mess. You could spend what you needed, the others couldn't. No other team could afford the Veron fee etc.. and if Chelsea didn't come along simple math says the gap was going to get bigger not smaller. As I said no Chelsea and in the end City, United would have less competition more top, top players and even given the times you came behind Chelsea and City, the tables say you would have 16 of the first 20 PL titles.
The dominance would be so big and clear cut you would never have had the post Ferguson collapse you suffered for a couple of years.
Here's the deloitte richest clubs in the world, from 07 to now, because it doesn't go back any further..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes'_list_of_the_most_valuable_football_clubs#2007_rankings
Here you can clearly see how much further you were and are still pulling away from Arsenal and Liverpool and make no mistake you'll always been at the top of that list with Real... Now imagine how England looks without City and Chelsea.
You are also equating financial dominance with spending but in reality you didn't spend because you didn't need to not because you couldn't. You also had many of the class of 92 in their peak at that same time. If you really believe Liverpool and Spurs had the financial power of Man United then we'll have to agree to disagree as we're moving in circles.
thing is though, Fergie was 5 years ago and social media has now (IMO for the worse) absolutely exploded. Can you imagine Pogba and Lingard being in Ferguson's squad and doing the stuff they do on instagram, he'd have gone bloody light.Can you imagine the club telling SAF they had to be there to record his speech? Boots and fecks would start flying
personally I think there is a massive difference to genuine outside interests and acting up to followers on social media.
Your assumption that they are acting.
Sad times.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Looks like he is about to blow his nose into it
The person beside him (dunno if it's a girl or boy
) has a Man City logo on her bag. Assuming she just bought it and is showing the guy in the United jersey. Lovely nothing tweet that will probably explode with ABUs on twitter.
In response to the stuff on the last couple of pages, I'd like to point out two things. Firstly, we were only the Bayern Munich of England for two years between 2001-2003, and then Roman came along and rendered any counterfactuals irrelevant. We weren't even particularly good in those two seasons.
Secondly, I'd like to remind everyone of the endlessly hilarious fact that in the ten seasons up to the end of 1995/96 (i.e. SAF's first ten years) City, like a lot of clubs, spent more money on transfers than United did. At the end of those ten years they were relegated without having won a trophy in decades, and we'd just won our third league title and third FA cup in that decade.
Truly, it was a golden time to be a United fan going to school in Stockport.
Secondly, I'd like to remind everyone of the endlessly hilarious fact that in the ten seasons up to the end of 1995/96 (i.e. SAF's first ten years) City, like a lot of clubs, spent more money on transfers than United did. At the end of those ten years they were relegated without having won a trophy in decades, and we'd just won our third league title and third FA cup in that decade.
Truly, it was a golden time to be a United fan going to school in Stockport.
Fergie didn't give a damn if it didn't undermine performances on the pitch or dressing room harmony. And there's no evidence to suggest having an active social media impacts your ability to play football.
that's true there isn't, but he was scathing about twitter and instagram is another level up, think Gary Neville commented that everything Pogba does is for an Instagram video, anyway my point was that Social Media has exploded over the last few years and most clubs now do it, football has changed and Fergie may not have been recorded like Pep was but isn't that what growing a brand is all about now, social media. Personally I hate it and don't follow City's instagram or whatever but I can see why clubs do it, plenty of younger fans appear to lap it up no matter how cringworthy it is.
Yeah, that's why I mostly don't comment on these commercial activities, I'm obviously not the target audience so I just ignore it. I think most football managers given their age probably don't love social media but have adapted to the times and learned to tolerate it.
Leeds had financial problems because they planned poorly, they banked everything on being able to hit very high targets and as soon as they didn't they fell apart.
The big spending years at United around the 5 year period you picked were surrounded by years spending a lot less than what other teams were. We have only recently gone out and spent big money year after year. I'm not sure how much attention we should pay to a rich list when talking about spending power, or how one starting in 2007 relates to United having much more spending power than everyone else before Chelsea were bought out...
I don't think Liverpool got your memo about them stopping spending because they couldn't compete, for the first 5 season after the Chelsea takeover they were very close to our total outlay, and spent over £30 million net more than us.
Liverpool United in £ millions
2003/4 8.5 (2.25) 60 (15)
2004/5 39.8 (25.3) 27.2 (25.9)
2005/6 35.14 (25.64) 19.5 (1)
2006/7 28 (15.66) 18.6 (4.1)
2007/8 69.75 (39.85) 61.75 (26.55)
Total 181.19 (108.7) 187.05 (72.55)
Now Chelsea won the league in 2004/5 and 2005/6 and United's reaction was to spend less than £40 million (£5.1 million net!) over the seasons after them (less than Liverpool), despite having the spending power to dominate the likes of Liverpool? That just doesn't add up. Were we, over 2 seasons, spending less that half of what Chelsea spent in 1 season because we didn't need to even though they had won the league?
Although I take your point about United not having to spend, it's not proof that United were financially dominant. Other clubs having a higher turnover of players and having the spending power to do that really doesn't say much about our own spending power.
There’s a hypothetical argument at work here that’s narrowing in scope as the thread goes on. As if the glazers would never take over and limit our spending power, as if premier league tv money would never have sky rocketed and a million other variables.
City fans will do more work than politicians to spin things to try equate what they’ve done in the league to that of another team, namely man united, who every single thing city do as a club seems to be motivated by getting out of uniteds shadow.
City fans will do more work than politicians to spin things to try equate what they’ve done in the league to that of another team, namely man united, who every single thing city do as a club seems to be motivated by getting out of uniteds shadow.
Last edited:
I think we're going round in circles buddy. Might as well agree to disagree.
Last edited:
The facts have been posted in black & white. You can't just come out & say that when you know you have lost the argument. At least have the good grace to say that you were wrong.
It's more than likely Pep is contractually obliged to perform these duties. They have made him the highest paid manager in world football. When they want him to dance he knows he has to get on the stage & shake that thang.Can you imagine the club telling SAF they had to be there to record his speech? Boots and fecks would start flying
Fine, I'll bite. We will keep going... so saying you didn't have financial dominance until/without Chelsea and City.
98/99 - Manchester United buy the two most expensive players in the league that season Yorke and Stam. Title winner - United
99/00 - United do nothing. - Title winner United
00/01 - United again do very little - Title winner United
01/02 - United dig deep buying the two most expensive players in the league that season. RVN and Stam, breaking the english transfer record.
02/03 - United again break the british transfer record for Rio Ferdinand (he is a full €30m more expensive than the leagues 2nd most expensive signings Diouf and Anelka). Title winner - United
03/04 - Without Chelseas signings United buy the 2nd and 3rd most expensive players entering the PL this season (Ronaldo and Saha). Only Reyes to Arsenal cost more.
04/05 - United have the most expensive singing in the premier league in Wayne Rooney (almost double the price of their nearest rivals signing of Cisse)
05/06 - United spend feck all while Newcastle spunk money. Title winner - United (this is how long it took for the Rio fee to be bested by Chelsea)
06/07 - The most expensive player in the PL, Michael Carrick to you guess it Manchester United. Title winner - United
07/08 - Torres is the big move, but United sign the 2nd, 3rd and 4th most expensive players (Anderson, Nani and Hargreaves) Title winner - United
08/09 - Berbatov to United is the most expensive deal. Title winner - United
So in 11 seasons that is 8 titles. The most expensive signing 6 times, the 2nd most expensive signing 4 times (coming with the 3rd most expensive on two of those occasions).
That is complete and utter financial dominance and an ability to sign players the others could never dream of.
Fwiw you'd have won the title in 09/10, 10/11, 11/12, 12/13 as well. Just the 8 in a row.
City and Chelsea aside you would also have the most expensive signings in 11/12, 12/13, 14/15, 15/16, 16/17, 17/18
So yes, complete and utter financial domination without Chelsea first and then City. How you guys can't comprehend that the richest club in the world has the most money is fecking illogical and like I said without Chelsea the league becomes the BL. United win the title 12 times in 15 seasons and there is no way you have the post-Ferguson collapse.
Last edited:
Why are you focusing on single player prices rather than overall or even net spend? What exactly counts as dominance to you?
You have to focus on total expenditure rather than individual sales. As has been proved there was nothing stopping other clubs buying the players we bought. They had the money but chose to invest it in other targets.
You have a strange definition of Financial Dominance. We currently have the 2 most expensive players. By your definition we are financially dominant in the league. Most neutrals (along with most City fans) would say that City's spending power dominates the league.
You just can’t base an argument, repeatedly, around a “you would have won 8 titles in a row”. I’m not going to get drawn into the reinterpretation of spending and spinning of numbers to suit a point, but making the point I’ve mentioned repeatedly, detracts hugely from any argument being made.
A minor correction would be that in 05/06 united didn’t win the league, unless again you’re making the point about what would definitely happened in football had Chelsea not been bought? My own stance is that that just simply isn’t how football works. where you say rvn and Stam, I know you mean Veron, but stam was sold abroad to a league that was, as far as anybody knew at the time, dominating footballs money stakes and was replaced with a free transfer. United were operating under something that at least resembled a budget. If they were as ridiculously “dominant”as you say they would have turned around and bought the best instantly to replace a world class talent. Fair enough Ferdinand came a year later but again as part of some sort of budget. A far cry from buying a defence for over 200m and whacking on another 56m pound defender in January for the feck of it.
This is without mentioning that so many of the players that were key to united success for years were not world stars, were often very well spotted talents, Ronaldo a fine example. Rooney too as I believe received an offer from Newcastle that matched ours, Nani and Anderson were unheard of, Carrick couldnt have been signed by any other team for 16m in 2006? Let’s get real.
A minor correction would be that in 05/06 united didn’t win the league, unless again you’re making the point about what would definitely happened in football had Chelsea not been bought? My own stance is that that just simply isn’t how football works. where you say rvn and Stam, I know you mean Veron, but stam was sold abroad to a league that was, as far as anybody knew at the time, dominating footballs money stakes and was replaced with a free transfer. United were operating under something that at least resembled a budget. If they were as ridiculously “dominant”as you say they would have turned around and bought the best instantly to replace a world class talent. Fair enough Ferdinand came a year later but again as part of some sort of budget. A far cry from buying a defence for over 200m and whacking on another 56m pound defender in January for the feck of it.
This is without mentioning that so many of the players that were key to united success for years were not world stars, were often very well spotted talents, Ronaldo a fine example. Rooney too as I believe received an offer from Newcastle that matched ours, Nani and Anderson were unheard of, Carrick couldnt have been signed by any other team for 16m in 2006? Let’s get real.
Last edited:
So, Pep won the league already and still doesn't start a single youth from their ''famous state of the art'' academy, at home and to a relegation battling team?
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the savior of football
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the savior of football
Quite simply, the best side the PL has ever seen.So, Pep won the league already and still doesn't start a single youth from their ''famous state of the art'' academy, at home and to a relegation battling team?
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the savior of football
You're clutching at straws.So, Pep won the league already and still doesn't start a single youth from their ''famous state of the art'' academy, at home and to a relegation battling team?
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the savior of football
60-70% sure that's a dude.The person beside him (dunno if it's a girl or boy
Lovely nothing tweet that will probably explode with ABUs on twitter.
How so? It's well documented how much money they pumped into the youth system and academy structure. Yet Pep in his title winning season played youth players for an entire 7 minutes. Of all the games you were dominating being 2,3 and 4 goals up with 10-20 minutes left he didn't bring on one youth. To make that worse, now the league is wrapped up he doesn't start one youth player.
For a manager that was dubbed to develope youth and the money City spent on their academy, is it really clutching straws to criticize him or the club?
Comments like this make us seem small time. They have a chance to decimate the points, goals, and wins record all in one season. I wouldn't begrudge them to go all out for a chance to accomplish that.So, Pep won the league already and still doesn't start a single youth from their ''famous state of the art'' academy, at home and to a relegation battling team?
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the savior of football
I don't think they are. They might be the most dominant team in league play, but theres more than just the league.
United's 1999 team did the treble.
Our 2008 team won the Champions League and league double.
Fegan's Liverpool won a European Cup, league, and league cup treble, in ADDITION to reaching an FA cup final.
Arsene Wenger's invincible went an entire season unbeaten (49 league matches overall)
If City do set all these records - which seems almost inevitable at the moment - that catapults them ahead of the mid-2000's Chelsea. But I'm not how you can comfortably declare them the most dominant team in English football if they were knocked out of Europe by non other than a team currently playing in the same league.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You're clutching at straws because City are about to win the league with a number of records playing the best football the PL has ever seen. They have just beaten Swansea by five goals to nil. And, to make yourself feel better over in Ireland you choose to fixate on youth players. I hope the absence of youth players from City's starting line-up this afternoon helps you sleep better.
That's entirely subjective.
Some of you take this youth players nonsense too far! They have won the league but are on course for record points, at the end history wouldn't remember how many youth players they gave minutes this season. I don't begrudge them playing key players till they secure their objective, which at this point looks like the points record, just as I didn't begrudge Wenger starting his first 11 players after winning the league in the unbeaten season.
I hate defending them but some of the stuffs people come up with to downplay how good they've been this season would have been laughed at silly on the CAF if roles were reversed.
I just threw up.
Personally I preferred the Arsenal team of Henry, Vieira, Bergkamp, Pirés, Cole. Much better football, faster, more dynamic.
Yes, knocked out by a team currently in the same league... a team 19 points behind City...
The dominance by City in the league is a better indicator of quality than performances in Europe because the margins in Europe are so fine. 19 points ahead of Liverpool surely suggests City are a vastly superior side. A number of incorrect decisions over the two CL legs certainly helped Liverpool progress.
It's the same when Liverpool won the CL against Milan... Sure, it adds prestige to the club, but Liverpool could not be considered the best side in Europe then given their league position...
Looking at City's FA cup exit this season - again, incorrect call by the officials, and City are out.
So, pointing out cup performances to detract from City's SUSTAINED dominance over a league campaign, doesn't hold much weight IMO.
That's why I think this City side is the finest of the PL era! Records are being broken left, right and centre, at a time when the quality of the league is much higher than the Invincibles season, and the treble winning seasons.
Easy to inflate your passing numbers when you're just knocking it back and forth at close range between 2 players. I've seen City do this plenty where instead of just holding the ball, then passing it, running with it or attempting a long ball, 2 players will just pass it back and forth, not holding the ball for more than a second, they probably complete about 10 needless passes in these phases.
Statistical doping??
And they clinched their last title against their main city rivals which Pep couldn't do.
Then why can't everyone else do it? I mean, if it's that simple.
Think they had better individuals than this City team but the latter dominate teams on a different level and will likely outscore the Invincibles with 35+ goals without having a striker like Henry. Arsenal's GD in 03/04 was + 47. City are now on + 73 and can reach +80. That's a massive difference.