Manchester City 17/18 discussion | "If you're here for the Champions clap your hands" (#6505)

[Jonathan Brown]

As a Newcastle supporter i find this thread hilarious. Man United fans complaining about another clubs spending..... really? Also beginning to sound like Liverpool fans (its all about our 'istree). City fans begining to get arrogance that Manchester United fans had. How the times they are a changing.
Ironically, as a neutral i would pay good money to see City play at the moment but not United but the City match against us was the most boring of the Season and the Man United the most exciting. Go figure.

 

[giorno]

Every single italian club ever, worked by being bankrolled by its owner. Milan and Inter in the 60s achieved their success by being bankrolled by rich owners. Juventus was the first big italian club to work with its own means, and they started to do it in the early 00s. Even their recent success was built on an initial big cash injection by the ownership in 2010 and 2011

Berlusconi just took it to another level as he was the richest owner in italian football history(and probablu football history in general) when he bought milan and he had political designs which he needed milan to be successfull to achieve, so he spent freely for more than a decade blowing everyone else out of the water


But let's talk about city. They're pretty good eh?

 

[BRRRRAP]

Every single italian club ever, worked by being bankrolled by its owner. Milan and Inter in the 60s achieved their success by being bankrolled by rich owners. Juventus was the first big italian club to work with its own means, and they started to do it in the early 00s. Even their recent success was built on an initial big cash injection by the ownership in 2010 and 2011

Berlusconi just took it to another level as he was the richest owner in italian football history(and probablu football history in general) when he bought milan and he had political designs which he needed milan to be successfull to achieve, so he spent freely for more than a decade blowing everyone else out of the water


But let's talk about city. They're pretty good eh?

'But let's talk about city'
With the UAE City project we're talking not only about sugar daddy bank rolling but about the fact that the funding comes from a regime who horrendously carry out systemic human rights abuses of migrants, gays and lesbians and pro-democracy advocates. All this at the same time we are trying to kick out racism and homophobia from our game. The fact that we allow the cruel medieval regime buy our trophies to launder their international image reflects poorly on the extent and commitment of UEFA's and the FA's efforts at the eradication of discrimination and abuse from our game.

This rampant hypocrisy in football is exemplified by Guardiola protesting against what he perceives as the unfair imprisonment of persons in Spain whilst at the same time getting paid officially to sing the praises of the brutal Qatar regime whilst also pocketing millions from the human rights abusing regime of the UAE.

 

[Thisistheone]

This City side are on course to break the best single season records in EPl history. Most goals and most points and most wins. Statistically they will be the best side. The rest is all down to what you cherish. If they do that and do the treble then for me they are the best side in EPl history.

For now, they are one the way to. Haven't won anything yet

If we're talking a single season - league campaign only - then they will be statistically the best. But seriously who ever remembers the best statistical side in PL history? As Mockney said, no one talks about the Utd side of 2000 who won the league by 18 points. It's that '99 Utd side that gets the mention. Same group of players. but the less dominant season, stats wise, is the one everyone talks about.

Who cares if Chelsea hold the points record? Utd won the league with 'just' 82 points in 1996 but its one of people's favourite ever title victories & one of the most famous PL title wins.

But talking about great teams should be about their body of work over a period. Not one season in isolation. It's like judging a one hit wonder to a great band with multiple hits. The one hit wonder doesn't come close to the greats unless they follow it up.

City can break all the records this season in the league but what happens if they come 2nd next season and don't win another major title. Pep leaves to manage Brazil. Would you still rank them as one of the best ever in a few years time?

Alternatively, if they win the league again next season in similar fashion, & win a CL, you've just got to hold your hands up and say yeah they're definitelly one of the best ever. Certainly above that Arsenal side.

 

[Thisistheone]

They were a great team but trophy wise they were patchy. On their day frightening but history shows 1 league title in 3 years plus an fa cup. In the season before and after invincibles united pretty much dominated them and it wasn't one of Ferguson's best sides.

Thus city side have miles to go but imhi the invincibles was a great season but a couple of Ferguson teams and José Chelsea were far superior. Even the current Chelsea who went 1st, 9th,1st were better in terms of winning the league.

2 league titles in 3 years. 2002 & 2004. Wenger actually went on record saying he thought his 2002-03 side could go unbeaten the whole season. Everyone laughed but he was proven right, just a season late.

We beat them to the title in 2001 and 2003 with the majority of our Treble winning side and Ferguson as manager. It was a top Arsenal side that won those leagues.

As for your last paragraph, we're in agreement. A few Utd sides and that Chelsea side are above them, but my original point was top 5, and Arsenal of that era defintely merit a part of the discussion. Several Journalists put them as No.1 which is nonsense but just shows how highly rated they are.

 

[Adisa]

They've scored 82 goals with 10 to go.

 

[TheReligion]

As a Newcastle supporter i find this thread hilarious. Man United fans complaining about another clubs spending..... really? Also beginning to sound like Liverpool fans (its all about our 'istree). City fans begining to get arrogance that Manchester United fans had. How the times they are a changing.
Ironically, as a neutral i would pay good money to see City play at the moment but not United but the City match against us was the most boring of the Season and the Man United the most exciting. Go figure.

Think it's a bit silly to bracket United with Liverpool given one hasn't won the league in over 30 years or a trophy in over 13 whilst the other won a title in the last 5 and trophies last season.

I understand the sentiment mind.

 

[Marnsky]

I am aware this is a United forum. The question is do City merit a discussion in this forum. By all means they are our rivals but then it does my head in when some here sing their praise. Can't stand it (Prolly because I hate shi tty and I'm not ashamed to say it) for a change will like to see them smashed in their own backyard of a sh it stadium by Chelski on Sunday.

 

[SER19]

Its not smug at all, just because you can give it but can't take it doesn't make it so. If you're going to get narky about someone saying pot noodle you should probably grow some thick skin my friend.

Haha coming from the touchiest city fan seemingly on 24 hour patrol of a united forum for any negative comment about city thats a bit rich.

Not my fault city will never be ranked among the big clubs. Same as psg

 

[OneFootball]

Haha coming from the touchiest city fan seemingly on 24 hour patrol of a united forum for any negative comment about city thats a bit rich.

Not my fault city will never be ranked among the big clubs. Same as psg

I think that is really only in the minds of fans. In terms of the players themselves, for the most part, they want to be where they will be well paid and where they can win trophies. That means Big Clubs and that means City. We were there but are no longer, some players will come to us on the managers appeal and a belief in what he’s doing. But the really top players wont. To a lesser extent its the same at United. United have Sanchez only because City didn’t want him in the end. Do players really give a damn about history? I think not. And if we’re being honest Big Clubs like City, Barca etc will generally get the players that they want. United too lest they come up against such other Big Clubs.

 

[Varun]

I think that is really only in the minds of fans. In terms of the players themselves, for the most part, they want to be where they will be well paid and where they can win trophies. That means Big Clubs and that means City. We were there but are no longer, some players will come to us on the managers appeal and a belief in what he’s doing. But the really top players wont. To a lesser extent its the same at United. United have Sanchez only because City didn’t want him in the end. Do players really give a damn about history? I think not. And if we’re being honest Big Clubs like City, Barca etc will generally get the players that they want. United too lest they come up against such other Big Clubs.

City didn't want Sanchez and then went big on Mahrez?

Also must be the first time someone's mentioned City next to Barca as examples of big clubs. I don't care much about the big club debate mind because it's subjective and eventually means little but it still made me chuckle.

 

[Fish in kettles]

That is just beautiful. I would have loved City to be a neutral team so I could watch them play for entertainment.
Can City fans point me to some other goals of theirs like that?

I am sure there is an app which would superimpose the club shirts of your preference over those in the clip, then, Hey Presto, guilt free pleasure. If not I may have stumbled on something big.

 

[SER19]

I think that is really only in the minds of fans. In terms of the players themselves, for the most part, they want to be where they will be well paid and where they can win trophies. That means Big Clubs and that means City. We were there but are no longer, some players will come to us on the managers appeal and a belief in what he’s doing. But the really top players wont. To a lesser extent its the same at United. United have Sanchez only because City didn’t want him in the end. Do players really give a damn about history? I think not. And if we’re being honest Big Clubs like City, Barca etc will generally get the players that they want. United too lest they come up against such other Big Clubs.

Youre right. Players wont care and teams like city and psg will have success. But football, including united, is on a different trajectory and city and psg are accelerating that journey.

If city win a title or two in the next few years, and ultimately a champions league, the common sense reaction wont be one of awe or appreciation; applying rational thought- how could they possibly not? It simply has to happen no matter what when doing what they do. But leicesters title winning season for example will always be the greater triumph. Uniteds 99 side with 6 guys who played from their teens to win a treble will. City turning over hundreds of millions of pounds of players until it clicks? No, theres no legacy or culture to that. They will forever represent this time of change in football, and by all means should make the most of their version of success

 

[SER19]

Top 5 is plausible... but you can surely see why United fans would be miffed (even a tad annoyed) by any talk of GOATness at this point? Considering we’ve won three back to back titles, twice, since the turn of the century. Both whilst also winning the Champions League. Not to mention the two back to back titles and two doubles we won in the decade before.

So if football does indeed get better with age, and remember the good as great, and the great as imperious...Then how are those achievements even debatably comparable with this 2/3rds of a City season? That won’t be invincible, can’t be a Treble, and hasn’t even matched our largest leadership gap yet? *

You can see why that opinion would seem super weird & short sighted to any Utd fan over about 12, yeah? Especially to those of us who remember Mourinho’s Chelsea side breaking the points record being seen as irrefutable evidence that the very idea of competition in football was over for at least the next twenty years. And how that went.

Of the 2 and a bit decades United have dominated this League, which titles do you remember most? Is it the ones where we ran away with the title and regularly thrashed our rivals? Like 2001, when we beat our closest competitors 6-1 and won it by 16 points? Remember that? Or maybe it was 2000? Where we won by a still held record of 18 points*? Presumably by defulat the PL’s greatest ever team by your metric, no?

Or is what you actually remember, the Treble winners? (Whose title went right down to the last day.) Or the 2008 “Roo & Ron” Double winners? (Who also went to the last day) or perhaps the 1996 “don’t win anything with kids!” Double winners? (Last day again. And after an epic, unlikely, 12 point overhaul.) Or maybe even the Cantona inspired ‘94 double winners? (An utterly dominant season of era defining sexy football, still won with only two games to spare)...

Point being, sure, City are a great side atm, no question. But football posterity remembers drama, romance and narrative more than dominance and statistics. So even if you win by 30 points in the end, it’ll still be less of a deal to most than the “Aguerooooooo!” season (especially if it’s just the one)...because that’s what really gets better with age. And a side with no competition, little youth or English connection, and no wider historical or redemptive narrative to speak of (and a manger who’ll always be more associated with his homegrown success at Barca) is not a side that I’d bet heavily on making a truly massive dent in the public consciousness, beyond a grudging concession that “yeah, that team we’re alright that year”...

And we should know, because we’ve had several dominant sides before. Sides that have won the League by even more points than you’re on course to. And the fact no one seems to remember it, speaks to just how unspectacularly history remembers those kind of seasons. Even when you’re Manchester United.

Of course, if you win the CL in a blaze of glory, that’ll start to build a legend. But anything less will leave a debatable legacy IMO. Because (and I hope this doesn’t come across as bias or bitter, because I genuinely don’t think it is) aside from KBD, and being undoubtedly very good, I can’t think of anything that’s actually very interesting about this side. Narrative wise, I mean. There’s no story there. It’s just a really good, well assembled side. Perhaps Sterling on a mild redemptive arc?

10/10

 

[Trizy]

10/10

As a Newcastle supporter i find this thread hilarious. Man United fans complaining about another clubs spending..... really? Also beginning to sound like Liverpool fans (its all about our 'istree). City fans begining to get arrogance that Manchester United fans had. How the times they are a changing.
Ironically, as a neutral i would pay good money to see City play at the moment but not United but the City match against us was the most boring of the Season and the Man United the most exciting. Go figure.

10/10

It just all goes back to the point that they don't deserve the money they have. If Liverpool started outspending us then you wouldn't hear complaining here. Same with Spurs or Arsenal. These clubs would still be spending within their means. It's not fair on any club in Europe when a club is backed by a country that does give a feck about being in minus figures. PSG and City are outspending Barcelona, Madrid, United and Bayern. Those clubs took over 100 years to get to where they are financially today whereas the former clubs are outspending them after less than 10 years.

Hell, even if Newcastle got taken over it would be easier to take since they're a much bigger club than City. Or at least they were, globally, until City started to become successful.

But anyway, it's not like anyone cares and nothing will change so blah blah blah make of it what you will.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

I am sure there is an app which would superimpose the club shirts of your preference over those in the clip, then, Hey Presto, guilt free pleasure. If not I may have stumbled on something big.

I don't think that would work. Most people like me who don't like a team just don't watch them. I am surprised how many people on here watch City.

 

[Sensei]

Youre right. Players wont care and teams like city and psg will have success. But football, including united, is on a different trajectory and city and psg are accelerating that journey.

If city win a title or two in the next few years, and ultimately a champions league, the common sense reaction wont be one of awe or appreciation; applying rational thought- how could they possibly not? It simply has to happen no matter what when doing what they do. But leicesters title winning season for example will always be the greater triumph. Uniteds 99 side with 6 guys who played from their teens to win a treble will. City turning over hundreds of millions of pounds of players until it clicks? No, theres no legacy or culture to that. They will forever represent this time of change in football, and by all means should make the most of their version of success

No one really bothers how and with what you win. It goes down in history as an additional trophy in your cabinet. Who remembers mourinho shelling out cash to stop us from getting Robben or signing for his bench to stop rival clubs? All they remember is how successful he is. Let's not kid ourselves, whether they spend or not, as long as they keep winning, no one really cares

 

[Greek9]

Add something to the debate, why do you favor united over two legs?

I think they got problems against teams that sit deep, many teams that played ultra defensively against them this season either barely lost in the last seconds or even eliminated them like Wigan. The one time we played them this season Imo we didn't deserve to lose, and if anything since it's a two legged tie and we have to play on their turf too this gives another excuse to Jose to park the bus there which will succeed. If I remember correctly after the first season with RM his defensive tactics against Pep worked unless poor referee decisions like Pepe red card took place. League table matters very little on Champions League games as it is not about consistency but more to do with tactical decisions and motivation, we will be more up for it I presume having already lost the league.

 

[padr81]

I think they got problems against teams that sit deep, many teams that played ultra defensively against them this season either barely lost in the last seconds or even eliminated them like Wigan. The one time we played them this season Imo we didn't deserve to lose, and if anything since it's a two legged tie and we have to play on their turf too this gives another excuse to Jose to park the bus there which will succeed. If I remember correctly after the first season with RM his defensive tactics against Pep worked unless poor referee decisions like Pepe red card took place. League table matters very little on Champions League games as it is not about consistency but more to do with tactical decisions and motivation, we will be more up for it I presume having already lost the league.

While I think those two lines in particular are both very wrong, thats a decent justification.

You did deserve to lose albeit you would have held out if not for 2 Lukaku brainfarts. Joses record v Pep is horrid. In 20 meeting vs Pep, Jose has 4 wins and 6 draws. One would have to say his record against Pep is atrcious in comparison to manager like Klopp and Wenger.

Haha coming from the touchiest city fan seemingly on 24 hour patrol of a united forum for any negative comment about city thats a bit rich.

Not my fault city will never be ranked among the big clubs. Same as psg

Oh, the old its a United forum excuse. This is general football and I'm perfectly entitled to post on here. I also don't patrol the place 24/7 but hey delude yourself with that like you do with the anti-city rubbish you spout. I get on with most posters on here and they take discussion for what it is, nor do I take offence to someone saying "pot noodle" or resort to calling people smug etc...

I also don't jump on any negative comment about City (in fact I have made plenty) just the stupid, bitter and rubbish ones with no reality except in said posters head.
Unfortunately for you, with regards City, you are blind to the reality in front of your face and talk shite about yellow ribbons, human rights and try and wum instead. That's why we never agree.

Ah, the old never be a big club thing... again not based in reality and only in your head. PSG and City are both big clubs now and getting bigger. Tell me how they aren't? (we both know you won't, you'll post your usual unearned, unmerited shite, maybe a line about yellow ribbons (which we should wrap around the premier league trophy btw..) and some other stuff which has nothing to do with the size of a club whatsoever.

Things that make City now a big club:

1. Best team in the league
2. 53k average attendance, higher than that of Liverpool or Chelsea (both big clubs)
3. Until the Mbappe deal goes through, the most expensive squad in world football.
4. Heading for our 3rd league title in 7 seasons (that will be the same amount as Chelsea and United combined).
5. Using the last 10 seasons as a measure we will have the same amount of league titles as United and Chelsea.
6. Consistently able to attract and buy top players.
7. Able to hire the best manager in the world.

Small clubs just can't do those things... you're so blinded by anger and jealousy you can't see the wood from the trees.

 

[Litch]

I think since clubs spending was more about their owners money than what they generated themselves certainly in this country, for me I see it as the end of one chapter and the beginning of another. A definition of a big club was very much about their history on world football. There are clubs like AC Milan that haven't won anything for a long time but I'd still say are a big club. It seems that 'new money' buys you great players and managers which is enough to call you a big club. It's funny as the more it's just about money, the more it devalues clubs achievements. The PL has more significance for those who haven't won it. Chelsea lifting the trophy was quickly forgotten and it's all about the here and now. If city win it by 20 points yet don't win the CL, it will be no better achievement than previous managers. Attracting big players is positive but I'm sure players didn't come there to emulate the achievements of Colin Bell. I think big clubs still attract players because of their history. The badge still counts for your position in world football.

For me they will never be big clubs cause no matter if someone puts a billion pounds into where I'm from say Birmingham City, Aston Villa will always be a bigger club. New money can't buy you History.

 

[el magico]

I think since clubs spending was more about their owners money than what they generated themselves certainly in this country, for me I see it as the end of one chapter and the beginning of another. A definition of a big club was very much about their history on world football. There are clubs like AC Milan that haven't won anything for a long time but I'd still say are a big club. It seems that 'new money' buys you great players and managers which is enough to call you a big club. It's funny as the more it's just about money, the more it devalues clubs achievements. The PL has more significance for those who haven't won it. Chelsea lifting the trophy was quickly forgotten and it's all about the here and now. If city win it by 20 points yet don't win the CL, it will be no better achievement than previous managers. Attracting big players is positive but I'm sure players didn't come there to emulate the achievements of Colin Bell. I think big clubs still attract players because of their history. The badge still counts for your position in world football.

For me they will never be big clubs cause no matter if someone puts a billion pounds into where I'm from say Birmingham City, Aston Villa will always be a bigger club. New money can't buy you History.

So, based on that rationale, before the PL 'new money', Aston Villa had won more trophies than Man Utd. Are Villa a bigger club than Utd? Will 'Villa always be a bigger club' than Utd? Are Liverpool a bigger club than United? Will Liverpool always be a bigger club' than Utd?

 

[padr81]

I think since clubs spending was more about their owners money than what they generated themselves certainly in this country, for me I see it as the end of one chapter and the beginning of another. A definition of a big club was very much about their history on world football. There are clubs like AC Milan that haven't won anything for a long time but I'd still say are a big club. It seems that 'new money' buys you great players and managers which is enough to call you a big club. It's funny as the more it's just about money, the more it devalues clubs achievements. The PL has more significance for those who haven't won it. Chelsea lifting the trophy was quickly forgotten and it's all about the here and now. If city win it by 20 points yet don't win the CL, it will be no better achievement than previous managers. Attracting big players is positive but I'm sure players didn't come there to emulate the achievements of Colin Bell. I think big clubs still attract players because of their history. The badge still counts for your position in world football.

For me they will never be big clubs cause no matter if someone puts a billion pounds into where I'm from say Birmingham City, Aston Villa will always be a bigger club. New money can't buy you History.

That's complete shite, the no history argument, in general, is complete shite. It's saying a club should win because they have always won. Which is ridiculous.

Are St. Etienne and Nantes really bigger clubs than PSG? St. Etienne themselves were nobodies until they won until the 1963 to 77 period.
Bayern were nobodies in German football until 1968 and probably more specifically the 3 in a row starting in 1972.

So what about United? were they a no history club whose achievements and history counted for nothing when Sunderland, Villa, Arsenal, Huddersfield, Everton, Liverpool, The Wednesday all had more league titles than them?
What about before the premier league when you had half the amount of titles Liverpool had and also lagged behind Arsenal, while level with Everton and Villa?

Now a Little Story about a Club dubbed MoneyBags United.
Take a little club who were building organically like City, we won our first trophy in 1907, which happens to be a year before United won their first, fwiw.

BTW that first trophy in 1908 was heavily bankrolled by a sugar daddy in John Henry Davies who saved the club from folding and invested heavily. Ever hear of the old "Money bags" United from the early 20th century. Or how said sugar daddy was censured by the league for lying about financials in 1910. It's an interesting tale.... Basically, he came in and bought a struggling club in 1902(sounds familiar), spent shitloads (sounds familiar) and after a few years won the title (sounds familiar). Got warned for cheating the books in 1910.

So we've established early Manchester United were a sugar daddy club? Good. And your first trophy and all the infrastructure around your great stadium was bought by a Sugar Daddy. I can just picture all the City fans in 1908 complaining about United's sugar daddy ruining football.

So anyway said tycoon died and United ended up back in trouble financially. What happens?

Along comes another tycoon in the form of James W Gibson (admittedly a brilliant man with tons of foresight who took the club through some seriously hard times) but had the bankroll to do it.

-----

You can paint it any way you like, the badge counts for nothing, history counts for nothing. The growth of both City and PSG, the fall of the Villa's, Huddersfield's, Sunderland's, clubs who won bucket loads while both Manchester Clubs were nobodies show this. Or do you genuinely think players will choose Villa, Sunderland etc.. over United and City. I mean they are Englands true historical clubs.

Fwiw, City won their first trophy before United so they have a longer history of winning. They also held English footballs record attendance from 1934 until 2016, something strangely United have never held. Does it make them a bigger club than United? Nah does it feck. United are ten times the size.

History though is written by the victors which is why Liverpool and United (lately) go on about it so much.

Anyone who thinks Villa, Sunderland etc.. are currently bigger clubs than City/Chelsea are deluded and those are clubs steeped in a much better and more successful history than pre-1992 United. Can you imagine Liverpool fans going on about United in 1993 like United fans do about City now....

In the past 15 years, Chelsea has written their own history and anyone who says they are not a big club needs a slap in the head for idiocy.

Chelsea's means of reaching the top will be forgotten as will Cities and like "Moneybags" United or bankrolled Arsenal teams of the past, only the history of trophies and not the means of winning will be remembered.

Football hasn't changed, just the scale of it has.

 

[Varun]

I think since clubs spending was more about their owners money than what they generated themselves certainly in this country, for me I see it as the end of one chapter and the beginning of another. A definition of a big club was very much about their history on world football. There are clubs like AC Milan that haven't won anything for a long time but I'd still say are a big club. It seems that 'new money' buys you great players and managers which is enough to call you a big club. It's funny as the more it's just about money, the more it devalues clubs achievements. The PL has more significance for those who haven't won it. Chelsea lifting the trophy was quickly forgotten and it's all about the here and now. If city win it by 20 points yet don't win the CL, it will be no better achievement than previous managers. Attracting big players is positive but I'm sure players didn't come there to emulate the achievements of Colin Bell. I think big clubs still attract players because of their history. The badge still counts for your position in world football.

For me they will never be big clubs cause no matter if someone puts a billion pounds into where I'm from say Birmingham City, Aston Villa will always be a bigger club. New money can't buy you History.

Players won't give a shit especially if you're nowhere near in terms of the ability to win trophies and wages you offer. Just using your examples, Milan can't pull players like City can.

 

[OldSchoolManc]

I have no idea why Man City was chosen by it's current owners. There were far better options, like Newcastle as some others have said. At least then, there would be actual fans at the games instead of the swathes of empty seats.
They could have just as easily stuck a pin in the map and picked the nearest ‘attainable’ club.
What really gets my goat about the City fans that I know, is the fact there is absolutely no humility about what has happened. They act like they actually deserve their success.
It is basically the same as a cheat mode in a football manager game. You might well go and win everything in sight, but inside, you have that empty feeling that it isn’t real and everybody else knows it.
In years to come, I wouldn’t be surprised if massive under the table payments to players and agents from City became known. Mercenaries, every single one of them.

 

[stepic]

So I guess we should all want City to win today? Chelsea are the most likely team to fall out of the top 4, and City can’t be caught anyway.

 

[BRRRRAP]

That's complete shite, the no history argument, in general, is complete shite. It's saying a club should win because they have always won. Which is ridiculous.

Are St. Etienne and Nantes really bigger clubs than PSG? St. Etienne themselves were nobodies until they won until the 1963 to 77 period.
Bayern were nobodies in German football until 1968 and probably more specifically the 3 in a row starting in 1972.

So what about United? were they a no history club whose achievements and history counted for nothing when Sunderland, Villa, Arsenal, Huddersfield, Everton, Liverpool, The Wednesday all had more league titles than them?
What about before the premier league when you had half the amount of titles Liverpool had and also lagged behind Arsenal, while level with Everton and Villa?

Now a Little Story about a Club dubbed MoneyBags United.
Take a little club who were building organically like City, we won our first trophy in 1907, which happens to be a year before United won their first, fwiw.

BTW that first trophy in 1908 was heavily bankrolled by a sugar daddy in John Henry Davies who saved the club from folding and invested heavily. Ever hear of the old "Money bags" United from the early 20th century. Or how said sugar daddy was censured by the league for lying about financials in 1910. It's an interesting tale.... Basically, he came in and bought a struggling club in 1902(sounds familiar), spent shitloads (sounds familiar) and after a few years won the title (sounds familiar). Got warned for cheating the books in 1910.

So we've established early Manchester United were a sugar daddy club? Good. And your first trophy and all the infrastructure around your great stadium was bought by a Sugar Daddy. I can just picture all the City fans in 1908 complaining about United's sugar daddy ruining football.

So anyway said tycoon died and United ended up back in trouble financially. What happens?

Along comes another tycoon in the form of James W Gibson (admittedly a brilliant man with tons of foresight who took the club through some seriously hard times) but had the bankroll to do it.

-----

You can paint it any way you like, the badge counts for nothing, history counts for nothing. The growth of both City and PSG, the fall of the Villa's, Huddersfield's, Sunderland's, clubs who won bucket loads while both Manchester Clubs were nobodies show this. Or do you genuinely think players will choose Villa, Sunderland etc.. over United and City. I mean they are Englands true historical clubs.

Fwiw, City won their first trophy before United so they have a longer history of winning. They also held English footballs record attendance from 1934 until 2016, something strangely United have never held. Does it make them a bigger club than United? Nah does it feck. United are ten times the size.

History though is written by the victors which is why Liverpool and United (lately) go on about it so much.

Anyone who thinks Villa, Sunderland etc.. are currently bigger clubs than City/Chelsea are deluded and those are clubs steeped in a much better and more successful history than pre-1992 United. Can you imagine Liverpool fans going on about United in 1993 like United fans do about City now....

In the past 15 years, Chelsea has written their own history and anyone who says they are not a big club needs a slap in the head for idiocy.

Chelsea's means of reaching the top will be forgotten as will Cities and like "Moneybags" United or bankrolled Arsenal teams of the past, only the history of trophies and not the means of winning will be remembered.

Football hasn't changed, just the scale of it has.

Quit digging mate. You are welcome to post here as a guest rival club poster even if you are a pretty aggressive one.
Any success the UAE buy will be tainted by their human rights abuses record, their imprisonmemt and torture of pro democracy advocates, suppression of gays and lesbians and their horrific abuses of migrant workers. All of that systemic UAE, racist, sexist and homophobic brutality and torture at a time when we in the UK and Europe are trying to kick both racism and homophobia out of football.
No use defending the brutal regime. By all means continue to watch your team but don't think that the UAE purchased success will be respected by fans in general. It simply will not.

 

[OldSchoolManc]

So I guess we should all want City to win today? Chelsea are the most likely team to fall out of the top 4, and City can’t be caught anyway.

Absolutely not. We should still be able to get 2nd place off our own back with the remaining fixtures. There’s nothing better than seeing the Pep and City melt down whenever they don’t get everything their way.

 

[Carolina Red]

So I guess we should all want City to win today? Chelsea are the most likely team to fall out of the top 4, and City can’t be caught anyway.

How bout a draw?

 

[stepic]

Absolutely not. We should still be able to get 2nd place off our own back with the remaining fixtures. There’s nothing better than seeing the Pep and City melt down whenever they don’t get everything their way.

We should be able to, but surely Chelsea taking themselves out of the top 4 race is the more prudent result. Given Tottenham and Liverpool look less like dropping points.

 

[Litch]

So, based on that rationale, before the PL 'new money', Aston Villa had won more trophies than Man Utd. Are Villa a bigger club than Utd? Will 'Villa always be a bigger club' than Utd? Are Liverpool a bigger club than United? Will Liverpool always be a bigger club' than Utd?

What....it's sooo emotionally on here. Not saying it's about how many, it's pedigree and sorry new money will never be able to buy that and at no point did I make reference to the amount of trophies, it fact quite the opposite. The point I was making was Aston Villa's history can't be replicated with Brum because now the overwhelming factor is money. City are no different and sorry any success will always be tainted with that.

 

[Raoul]

That's complete shite, the no history argument, in general, is complete shite. It's saying a club should win because they have always won. Which is ridiculous.

Are St. Etienne and Nantes really bigger clubs than PSG? St. Etienne themselves were nobodies until they won until the 1963 to 77 period.
Bayern were nobodies in German football until 1968 and probably more specifically the 3 in a row starting in 1972.

So what about United? were they a no history club whose achievements and history counted for nothing when Sunderland, Villa, Arsenal, Huddersfield, Everton, Liverpool, The Wednesday all had more league titles than them?
What about before the premier league when you had half the amount of titles Liverpool had and also lagged behind Arsenal, while level with Everton and Villa?

Now a Little Story about a Club dubbed MoneyBags United.
Take a little club who were building organically like City, we won our first trophy in 1907, which happens to be a year before United won their first, fwiw.

BTW that first trophy in 1908 was heavily bankrolled by a sugar daddy in John Henry Davies who saved the club from folding and invested heavily. Ever hear of the old "Money bags" United from the early 20th century. Or how said sugar daddy was censured by the league for lying about financials in 1910. It's an interesting tale.... Basically, he came in and bought a struggling club in 1902(sounds familiar), spent shitloads (sounds familiar) and after a few years won the title (sounds familiar). Got warned for cheating the books in 1910.

So we've established early Manchester United were a sugar daddy club? Good. And your first trophy and all the infrastructure around your great stadium was bought by a Sugar Daddy. I can just picture all the City fans in 1908 complaining about United's sugar daddy ruining football.

So anyway said tycoon died and United ended up back in trouble financially. What happens?

Along comes another tycoon in the form of James W Gibson (admittedly a brilliant man with tons of foresight who took the club through some seriously hard times) but had the bankroll to do it.

-----

You can paint it any way you like, the badge counts for nothing, history counts for nothing. The growth of both City and PSG, the fall of the Villa's, Huddersfield's, Sunderland's, clubs who won bucket loads while both Manchester Clubs were nobodies show this. Or do you genuinely think players will choose Villa, Sunderland etc.. over United and City. I mean they are Englands true historical clubs.

Fwiw, City won their first trophy before United so they have a longer history of winning. They also held English footballs record attendance from 1934 until 2016, something strangely United have never held. Does it make them a bigger club than United? Nah does it feck. United are ten times the size.

History though is written by the victors which is why Liverpool and United (lately) go on about it so much.

Anyone who thinks Villa, Sunderland etc.. are currently bigger clubs than City/Chelsea are deluded and those are clubs steeped in a much better and more successful history than pre-1992 United. Can you imagine Liverpool fans going on about United in 1993 like United fans do about City now....

In the past 15 years, Chelsea has written their own history and anyone who says they are not a big club needs a slap in the head for idiocy.

Chelsea's means of reaching the top will be forgotten as will Cities and like "Moneybags" United or bankrolled Arsenal teams of the past, only the history of trophies and not the means of winning will be remembered.

Football hasn't changed, just the scale of it has.

Twisting yourself into verbal pretzels to justify wealthy oligarchs buying their way to success doesn't make it any more right does it. We've never seen this level of wealth simply walking into a country and shopping their way to trophies.

 

[padr81]

Quit digging mate. You are welcome to post here as a guest rival club poster even if you are a pretty aggressive one.
Any success the UAE buy will be tainted by their human rights abuses record, their imprisonmemt and torture of pro democracy advocates, suppression of gays and lesbians and their horrific abuses of migrant workers.
No use defending the brutal regime. By all means continue to watch your team but don't think that the UAE purchased success will be respected by fans in general. It simply will not.

Who are you to tell me what I'm welcome to do? All 37 posts in the 2 weeks you've been on the forum and acting like you own the place... kind of sad. Your just another of the wums, kind of sad you care more about City and City fans than your own club and fans. I'm actually not in the least bit aggressive but of course you would totally know after 2 weeks on the forum and deciding it's your job to tell people what they can and can't do. Your knowledge of me, is worse than your knowledge of United and you know nothing about them which is why you avoided my post entirely.

Where have I ever defended anything of the UAE regime? Quotes, please or kindly feck off with your rubbish.

You last line is just bitter, like good old moneybags united of the early 20th century and you're 3 sugar daddy owners in your early days, history will not care about the means only the results. The victors write it after all.
Maybe read up on what I posted and learn something instead of being an offical forum wum and thinking you're Niall after 2 weeks posting.

 

[adexkola]

So I guess we should all want City to win today? Chelsea are the most likely team to fall out of the top 4, and City can’t be caught anyway.

A City loss makes us giving them a guard of honour less likely, so yes, hope they lose.

 

[Litch]

Players won't give a shit especially if you're nowhere near in terms of the ability to win trophies and wages you offer. Just using your examples, Milan can't pull players like City can.

That's not my point. Football is based on history, City and Chelsea before it are making their own new history but sorry it's tainted by the fact it's overwhelming about money. That's not saying money hasn't been a factor previously but it can't be denied City is 100% about it. There's nothing left about the old city and you might as well call it another name. The clubs umbilical cord is attached to its owners. I'm sure there's many city fans that like the success but equally others that wonder how much of the soul is left. Success is great but it comes with a price. It's like my friend who won the lottery and bought a Porsche, everyone knew where the money came from so his ownership was tainted by where the money came from.....

 

[el magico]

That's not my point. Football is based on history, City and Chelsea before it are making their own but sorry it's tainted by the fact it's overwhelming about money. That's not saying money hasn't been a factor previously but it can't be denied without City is 100% about it. There's nothing left about the old city and you might as well call it another name. The clubs umbilical cord is attached to its owners. I'm sure there's many city fans that like the success but equally others that wonder how much of the soul is left. Success is great but it comes with a price. It's like my friend won the lottery and bought a Porsche, everyone knew where the money came from so his ownership was tainted....

City have the longest serving season ticket holders out of any premier league club (apparently, this was discovered in a recent survey). What greater continuity could there be than the actual supporters?

 

[podurban2]

A City loss makes us giving them a guard of honour less likely, so yes, hope they lose.

Jesus christ the tought of that.

 

[Kraftwerker]

Loads of empty seats once again. In a big Sunday fixture against reigning champs. Shame the title is headed for a club whose own fans can’t even be arsed going to watch them.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Loads of empty seats once again. In a big Sunday fixture against reigning champs. Shame the title is headed for a club whose own fans can’t even be arsed going to watch them.

What's the excuse today?

 

[Varun]

That's not my point. Football is based on history, City and Chelsea before it are making their own new history but sorry it's tainted by the fact it's overwhelming about money. That's not saying money hasn't been a factor previously but it can't be denied City is 100% about it. There's nothing left about the old city and you might as well call it another name. The clubs umbilical cord is attached to its owners. I'm sure there's many city fans that like the success but equally others that wonder how much of the soul is left. Success is great but it comes with a price. It's like my friend who won the lottery and bought a Porsche, everyone knew where the money came from so his ownership was tainted by where the money came from.....

I don't think any sane City fan is denying that but padr makes a valid point above. History is written by Victors especially as more time passes. I won't repeat what he said again because he put it well.

 

[Varun]

Who are you to tell me what I'm welcome to do? All 37 posts in the 2 weeks you've been on the forum and acting like you own the place... kind of sad. Your just another of the wums, kind of sad you care more about City and City fans than your own club and fans. I'm actually not in the least bit aggressive but of course you would totally know after 2 weeks on the forum and deciding it's your job to tell people what they can and can't do. Your knowledge of me, is worse than your knowledge of United and you know nothing about them which is why you avoided my post entirely.

Where have I ever defended anything of the UAE regime? Quotes, please or kindly feck off with your rubbish.

You last line is just bitter, like good old moneybags united of the early 20th century and you're 3 sugar daddy owners in your early days, history will not care about the means only the results. The victors write it after all.
Maybe read up on what I posted and learn something instead of being an offical forum wum and thinking you're Niall after 2 weeks posting.

I've rejected his response to this post. I'll advise you to calm down a bit too.

Lets stop this discussion here.