Mendy (season ending), Jesus and Stones all had long term injuries last season. Sane, Delph, Kompany and Aguero all spent time on the sidelines as well due to injury. Not to mention David Silva almost missed large chunks of the season (albeit not down to injury).
It's not that simple. Generally, a liberal democracy is far better than a dictatorship. But what if the likely alternative to a dictatorship in that part of the world is not a liberal democracy but a civil war? Is what has happened in Syria better than the Assad regime (which is really bad)? Is a proper liberal democracy in that region possible? Those questions don't have easy answers. And I'm a big supporter of liberal democracy. Btw, I supported the war in Iraq which I now think was a huge mistake. I don't like their owners, to put it mildly, but politics might be quite complicated. The fact that most countries over there do not have liberal regimes do not make the people who govern them monsters.
Oh my god you're a fecking parody. Is this serious or trolling?
Imposing Western values by thinking that it's probably not right that anybody inside the regime who speaks out goes 'missing'. Christ, can't imagine why they're saying they are happy when they get murdered for stepping out of line, proper head scratcher that. I can't quite work out if you're trolling .. surely nobody can honestly be using a 'happiness' article by forbes to justify repressing free speech through torture, murder, censorship, and feck knows what else.
Honestly, get a grip. The West isn't innocent but it's sure as hell better than the UAE and yeah we can apply values when they're as basic as don't kill people for having an opinion, think that's kind of OK.
You can both say that we have no right to intervene, and shouldn't do so because forcing democracy on people doesn't work, but also maintain a position that they're scum. Because they are. I'm not advocating moving in the troops and establishing Western rule, I'm calling a spade a spade.
I don't hate City and I'm not that jealous, I have very litttle care for them as a club, the team plays fantastic football and I think they're by far the best side in the league. I'm just not going to pretend they aren't owned by awful people, because they are. I don't expect City fans to care much, but I'd prefer we didn't try and bend the truth and act as if they aren't bad people, because they are, by pretty much every moral guideline. It's just really, really stupid when people like you come in and start justifying their human rights abuses because they pay some people well (???).
I don't think any Utd fans are jealous of City. It's more of a disappointed & disaffected feeling. It's more akin to the feeling that the other TDF riders had when Armstrong was winning titles. They likely all knew what he was doing. The only chance they had to win was to sink to his level.
Do you mean like last year at times without Mendy, Stones, Jesus, Aguero, Silva, Kompany? didn't turn out to be a bad season either.
City have 100% spent better than United. Doesn't really have anything to do with the point I was making.
Yes if we did some things right maybe we could compete
I don't think you necessarily have to match their spending, because United have pretty much done that so far and the teams are not even close. The money just needs to be spent better and wiser. City are just a team that absolutely yes have spent a lot, however they have spent accordingly. They have a manager with a vision and they buy players who will fit that vision. Pretty much the opposite of what United have done.
You're going to have to wait said years to see that.
Pep also broke the premiership spending record last season. Coincidence?
of that squad if that was still the first team squad only 6 would be under 30, and of those, Rodwell, Sinclair wouldn't get near a PL squad, that squad would finish about 8th if still playing, what are the club supposed to do, keep players for sentimental reasons even though they're past it.
They have spent nearly £200M more than us since SAF left. You also have to factor in that Pep is working with Aguero & Silva who are still integral parts of the team. These & many others were bought before the market exploded. We would have to spend between £300 to £400M to be near competing on a level playing field. When a team is operating at such an advantage then you can expect the kind of results we've seen. They spent big & finished 1st we spent less & finished 2nd.
I don't have a problem with City being run by a sheik, they had no say in the matter and all the fans want their respective clubs to spend money and win trophies. As for replacing older players that are clearly past it with younger/better ones, that's normal and every club does it, too. But the truth is, most clubs cannot simply get rid of every older/struggling player and spend a fortune on a new young star to take their place because they have to balance the books. City's net spend in the last five years or so is absolutely ridiculous, the club operates as if they don't have to sell in order to buy, which is total nonsense. Even the most commercially successful clubs in the world, the likes of Real, Barca or United have to think of the transfer market in business terms, of course they can spend big when they need to but they are a business at the end of the day. How can a City keep buying 50-60m players and have the most expensive squad in the world when even the biggest and most famous clubs out there cannot afford to live that way?
Its about how you spend the money, the scouting system, the coaching of the player. For what City paid for Sane United paid similar for Miki. For what City paid for Kevin De Bryune United bought Di Maria, United spent more getting Mata than City did getting Silva. I could go on. United have 3 of the 5 biggest earners in the premier league, City have 1. Money plays a bit part no doubt but the other top clubs in England have hardly penny pinched have they. To insinuate the club who spends the most will win is an unbelievably uneducated view on football.
Just because United haven't got great value for their money in the transfer market doesn't change the fact that City spent significantly more money than everybody else without having to sacrifice any quality they'd already had.
Sounds like sour grapes to me. City, United, Chelsea and Liverpool have all spent big. One clubs failings cant be blamed on another clubs business. Spend the money better, coach the players better build a team!! football is quite simple. If Peter spent £30 on a pen and Paul spent £25 on a pen that's no excuse for Peter doing better in school than Paul.
Do you seriously believe we have matched City's spending over the past decade? We have clearly let our lead narrow and then fall far behind them. Arsenal took the same value for money approach and look at where they are now.
So how do you explain this?
Funny you say that, because this schooling thing has become a big deal. If Peter spent £30000 on a private education with personal tutors and a great environment to study and Paul spent £2500 on a shitty public school that's is a great excuse for Peter doing better in school than Paul.
No excuse at all, everybody has the ability to lean and better them selves, its the people who hide behind excuses such as a better environment and personal tutors that end up achieving nothing in life.
This is where your words become worthless and irrelevant now. There are countless studies showing the correlation between family background and wealth leading to better performance in school and a better career later in life. To totally disregard that shows you are very far detached from reality.
I'm afraid you are stuck in the bygone days football. City's success is built from the 2008 takeover. They have massively outspent us in this time which is leading to our current malaise. They have wasted a hell of alot of money in this period on the likes of Mangala, Nasri, Bony , Robinho, the list is endless. If you keep throwing enough money around eventually you will spend some of it right. The main reason Pep didn't join us is that he knew he would be competing with a manager across the road who had unlimited funds at his disposal. You have to face facts that we will likely never see a class of 92 or a Leicester again. The team that spends the most will most likely win the most.
Have they really wasted the money on those players though? I mean, comparing United and City since the 2008 takeover is comparing apples and oranges in a way. City were a lower to mid-table club before their takeover and they have been improving steadily since then. So can we say they 'wasted' money when their league finishes were getting higher?
I think that's bollox tbh, City have been courting him for years and that's one of the big reason the likes of Txiki Begiristain was brought to the club and I can't ever remember United approaching him
You're missing one important detail which I've already mentioned. City is in a priviledged position when it comes to upgrading their squad because not only they can outspend everybody else, they don't have to sacrifice any quality in the process. That's why I used Chelsea during the first few years of Abramovich's takeover as an example. No club that's run as a business can afford to operate in such manner and it's a huge advantage.
Source?
SAF stated in his book that Pep was his first choice as his successor. It's likely Pep didn't come to us as it would have been a poisoned chalice following SAF. He would also have known that the squad he would have been left would need major rebuilding. He made the smart move going to Bayern.
Chelsea have lost those players because the manager didn't fancy them or they wanted to leave, nothing to do with having to raise funds. Fortunately City have been able to keep their best players happy. It probably helps when you're not bringing a new manager in every 2 years and destabilising the club.
Don't compare City to United. I'm no MU fan but in terms of legitimate income they're the best run club in the land. The've managed to turn their past successes on a pitch into a brilliant marketing strategy and now are reaping the rewards. They can spend plenty every summer and not care.
Please refer to my business model comment above.
We fund transfers via buy legitimately earned income. You are funded via an oil state. There is no way Pep could have spent what he has if Mansour had been unwilling to prop up the club. City & PSG are run differently to all other clubs. City are well run due to the business model they have. This business model won't work at any other club as they are not owned by a state. It's highly unlikely that private investors will put over £3 Bill into a business which is still not profitable after a decade.
