Yeah but that's been with them complying or at least trying to comply with FFP. With no FFP at all in place there would have been nothing to stop them spending 200-300-500m every summer, in that scenario yeah they would have been in the semi-finals every year with the team they could have built.
The most sickening CL semi-finalists ever?
- Thread starter OleBoiii
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
The clubs that have won the most CLs (Real Madrid, Milan, Liverpool, and Bayern) all have multiple titles won in seasons in which they didn't win the league. Only Barcelona, with 5, won the league every time, and they had the best player in history more than half of those times.
But hey if instead of actual European dominance you want to jack off to having won some games against dogshit league opposition with the rest of the "3 wins or less" club then be my guest.
I actually feel being in a tight top 4/title race helps in Europe. You have a peak competitive edge due to do or die games cropping up every few days whereas if you're running away with the league, comfortably in top 4 or comfortably out of it I think it's mentally hard to suddenly go from a situation where you have multiple room for error to suddenly one little error can be fatal (Liverpool last season the ultimate proof of that).
If we look at the English teams that have made CL finals all of them had something to play for domestically heading into the final stretch.
For the record, I agree that clubs should be allowed to have a rich owner to help propel them. However, with things like financial fair play it is clear that this method in the most extreme circumstances is generally frowned upon and seen as unhealthy.
I'd argue that for most of the time in football, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool have tried to do things more by the book with a history of success and morals more-so than other teams of late. It wasn't a case of a rich owner turning them from next to nothing to something in a short space of time. There is definitely a balance to find and I hope it can be done, but I understand people's concerns.
There has to be some form of limit though, otherwise what's stopping multi-billionaires owning the majority of the Premier League clubs? Once we get to 7-8 clubs with the Chelsea / Man City level of investment, and the same happening in other leagues, what happens then? You just end up with the teams that were already more successful being the most successful again.
It isn't a long-term solution IMO for rich owners to buy clubs and help them compete for higher honours and positions than what they already are. If Manchester United or Liverpool had an owner come in who could spend what the City & Chelsea owners can, I think it would be less of a contest than it is now. They are bigger clubs so as soon as the money available was evened out, you'd probably see the better players choosing them even more than they do now etc. It's a very difficult conversation to have but I could see it going that way.
Of course, the big teams all have rich owners already and do spend, but it definitely feels like Liverpool and United are hindered in some transfer windows with what they can do, more-so than the clubs with the bigger financial backing.
If even i cheer for Real to win the thing it says it all, really.
Real > Chelsea > City > PSG
Real > Chelsea > City > PSG
This is from 2021, it is the total transfer spend of the top six for the past 10 years
Man City Transfer expenditure: €1,521.91million
Chelsea Transfer expenditure: €1,465million
Man Utd Transfer expenditure: €1,343.61million
Liverpool Transfer expenditure: €999.71million
Arsenal Transfer expenditure: €906.65million
Tottenham Transfer expenditure: €790.26million
This myth that Man Utd are not spending as much as other clubs is bizarre.
https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...-net-spent-per-trophy-over-the-last-10-years/
Man City Transfer expenditure: €1,521.91million
Chelsea Transfer expenditure: €1,465million
Man Utd Transfer expenditure: €1,343.61million
Liverpool Transfer expenditure: €999.71million
Arsenal Transfer expenditure: €906.65million
Tottenham Transfer expenditure: €790.26million
This myth that Man Utd are not spending as much as other clubs is bizarre.
https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...-net-spent-per-trophy-over-the-last-10-years/
Funny thing, Athletic Bilbao are one of the 4 spanish clubs who have recently been found by the european court to have received "state aid" and condemned to pay it back(real madrid, barcelona and osasuna are the other 3)
Wow, a page straight out of the Mormon playbook. Bleeding the beast(!) they call it.
Interesting. Let's see:
2020 - bayern munich
2019 - liverpool
2018 - madrid
2017 - madrid
2016 - madrid
2015 - barcelona
2014 - madrid
2013 - bayern munich
2012 - chelsea
2011 - barcelona
2010 - inter
2009 - barcelona
2008 - united
2007 - milan
2006 - barcelona
2005 - liverpool
2004 - porto
2003 - milan
2002 - madrid
2001 - bayern munich
2000 - madrid
1999 - united
1998 - madrid
1997 - dortmund
1996 - juventus
1995 - ajax
1994 - milan
1993 - OM
1992 - barcelona
1991 - red star
1990 - milan
I'd say the best team in europe won the CL about half the time over the last 30 years
Isn't the idea of the not-on-paper-the-best-team winning.... the entire point? I mean why else do we watch the sport? Chelsea 2012 (semis and to a lesser extent the final itself) was objectively awesome. Above and beyond. Glory. Madrid 2014? That sucked. The whole planet was rooting for Atletico, they lose in absolutely gut wrenching fashion but like who cares? The result ended up just being what was "supposed" to happen in the first place. If I wanted to see the richest and most prestigious team always win, I'd just watch the marvel movies.
The best player in history is a certain Portugese who won more CLs than 'you know who'.
Imagine a City vs Liverpool CL final.
But they were in a top four fight for most of the season which meant the competitive sharpness was there as every match was a vital one.Seriously?
In 2005, Liverpool finished almost 40pts behind the champions.
I believe Paris underachieving in CL is a lot down to most of their titles being so comfortable it's hard to adjust to suddenly having a huge match where there's no room for error. It's no coincidence that their best two CL campaigns have come when it's an isolated tournament (last season) and a year they've been dragged into a title scrap.
True. However, my point was more about them being a club with defined principals that are clearly stuck too. Amongst pretty much all of the clubs in the top 4 leagues, I would say that they're the only one that has real commitment to a egalitarian approach to football. If all clubs followed their model, there wouldn't really be any issue with big money as all issues would be localised to specific regions.
Would be to Utd fans what Dippers v Tottenham was to Arsenal/Chelsea fans (or do Arsenal fans tolerate the Dippers?)
Personally I was far happier to see Liverpool win. Obviously we had a bit of a rivalry with Liverpool in the CL in the late aughts but that pales in comparison to my desire to laugh at Spurs. Can't speak for all Chelsea supporters but I quite like being the only club from London with a CL as well.
@Dave Smith ah, no, i mentioned that as a curiosity, wasn't trying to contest your point
Sorry, I inferred you previous point incorrectly.
psg > chelsea > city > real for me. I am not from the city of manchester so i dont dislike city as much as locals. I hate madrid more then any other club, even liverpool. They always beat us and took my favorite players Beckham, rud, Cristiano .
No problem, i can how my post could have been interpreted that way
For what is worth, the state aid in question stems from the spanish law in the early 90s that forced all football clubs to become public companies, except for those 4, who were allowed to keep their status and ownership model. Now the reason for the law is that all those other clubs were at risk of bankruptcy under the supporters trust ownership model. The 4 clubs that were spared were the only 4 clubs that were solvent, so there was actually no reason for them to change. This however did in turn grant them a competitive advantage over the rest in the form of lower tax rates(as they are NPOs, as opposed to plcs)
I am going with a chelsea vs psg final, man city are slipping up of late and even got very lucky against a out of sorts Dortmund side with that dodgy ref decision in the first leg.
Chelsea's defensive strength as a team will get them over the line against madrid.
Chelsea's defensive strength as a team will get them over the line against madrid.
I rooted for Athletico in that untill it became clear that they didn't want to play football, but just kick and foul the Real Madrid players of the pitch. A bit like the Netherlands and Spain WC final.
I am going to root for PSG. Because they are a oil club no one cares about. Real have won it enough times. And so much recently I'm fed up with seeing them win it. Both Chelsea and Man City are oil clubs but they are still also our rivals. So therefore I'm going with PSG.