I've never read him before but he can't be very good. Writing an article after yesterday's cup final was really an open goal to any journalist worth their salt to write a provocative article about City and our present position in English football and how we have attained that, yet Wilson can only muster that nonsense.
Varchester City 18/19 discussion
- Thread starter Bergman
- Start date
You've clearly missed the point of the article, which is about the unequal structure of football generally, not just City specifically.
But moving on, for the sake of your argument, let's say hypothetically City never got taken over by either Thaksin or ADUG, and we're still scrambling about in the bottom half of the PL. Irrelevant to the top teams. What would the Premier League look like? Would it be a competitive oasis where any team can win the league, or would it just be the exact same clubs dominating, but without City? At the top of the league, the elite teams would still have the same revenue they have now, in fact they'd probably have slightly more because they wouldn't be having to share with a 6th club. So what would they do with all that revenue?
Do you honestly believe that the only reason United and the other top clubs have spent like they have is: 1) because they're all chasing City; or 2) because they have accrued massively more revenue than anyone else and can afford to spend it? In my hypothetical scenario with no City takeover, if you believe it's #1, then what do you think United would do with all the surplus revenue that they wouldn't be spending? Give it to the Glazers, I guess?
Football's structure is broken with City. It'd still be broken without City.
That's a fair comment. The huge success of the PL has made it extremely attractive for big investors from abroad interested not only in making money but also (or mainly) in becoming popular. Abramovich and the sheikhs are a point in case. The thing with them is that they can swallow losses for a much longer period than normal rich guys. This gives them a huge edge. I think the time when the top 6 will become top 8 because of big (Arab) investments in other clubs is not far away, probably just 3-4 years. There is a distinct possibility (danger) that the EPL becomes much better than La Liga and any other league. Then the likes of Barca, Real, Bayern and Juventus will be desperate to form an European super league in order to stay competitive.
The Premier League era broke it. It’s not just City, City shine a spotlight on it because they’ve taken it to another level. People have talked about this as a problem for decades now.
I know a lot of fans of non-“big six” teams and many of them are wishing for a super league just to get the big six out of the picture. I know a Villa fan who doesn’t want his team promoted because he’d rather compete in this championship than watch them get smashed 5-0 by City & Liverpool home and away next season. Ultimately these fans are paying their hard earned money to go and watch their team and be entertained. He says the Championship is fun and he hasn’t enjoyed watching Villa this much for a decade. Isn’t that what it’s all about after all? Most of the other teams in the top flight now exist so City can thrash them while Sky put up fancy graphics and masturbate themselves silly over how amazing they are.
I made a thread about him! He grates my reason.
Let's see what happens with the current FFP investigation into City. UEFA's already shattered credibility is on the line once again.
You've completely ignored where I said the article isn't solely about City. Not interested in more mental gymnastics with a city fan. Wilson makes broad points and also points specifically about a side under investigation for breaking ffp. They've ruined the game in the UK.
I don't think you're interested because it undermines your prejudices. The structure of football has been trending towards elite capture since the formation of the Premier League and the rebranding of the Champions League. Both of these events happened prior to ADUG, and I doubt you had a problem with it while United were mopping up 13 PL titles in 20 years. City aren't to blame for Juventus winning 8 titles in a row or Bayern Munich winning 7 titles in a row either.
I can accept City's post-ADUG spending is not good for the competitive health of the game. I can accept City should be punished for breaking UEFA FFP. I can't accept that City have ruined the game though, we're just hitching a ride on the gravy train that you helped construct. Looks like we just managed to catch the last seat on the train.
No I've just heard the tired old justifications and excuses countless times.
This is the Manchester/Varchester City discussion thread. You regularly use the thread to provide your opinion on Manchester City, particularly on FFP-related issues. But then you don't actually want to discuss/debate the issue or your opinion, which seems pointless.
Tbf debate with any fan who thinks City’s spending and success of late is somehow comparable to United’s over the years is fecking pointless.
I've never said it's comparable. It's not comparable on a £ for £ basis or on a source basis (organic vs. sugar daddy). No-one sensible would dispute that, surely.
That wasn't the discussion though, at least on the last couple of pages. The discussion was on whether City have ruined the game, or whether City are a symptom of a broader problem in the competitive health of the game.
No that's not true. I've discussed it at length and don't want to discuss it further, if its covering old ground and involves the same old justifications and far reaching comparisons to previous eras. The article by Wilson was worth sharing and commenting on, what he says is all true.
City are undeniably the biggest problem for the competitive health of the game.
Fantastic Irish Times article today by Ken Early
"The strangest moment of Saturday’s FA Cup final came in the seconds after Manchester City’s sixth goal, when the camera cut from the mob of celebrating City players to Pep Guardiola, who was slumped on the bench with his head in his hands.
Pep looked less like a happy football coach watching his side make history and more like an anguished scientist whose prototype civil defence robot has just run amok at a trade show, slaughtering several bystanders".
___________
"City victories are now the default outcome in this rigged game and there is not much left to say about them, so it’s not really surprising that the focus has increasingly turned to issues surrounding their funding and ownership. It’s enough to make you question the whole concept of sportswashing".
"...City are perched on the back of a dragon, peering down at a sullen populace, wondering incredulously why they are not loved. Shouldn’t it be obvious?"
"The strangest moment of Saturday’s FA Cup final came in the seconds after Manchester City’s sixth goal, when the camera cut from the mob of celebrating City players to Pep Guardiola, who was slumped on the bench with his head in his hands.
Pep looked less like a happy football coach watching his side make history and more like an anguished scientist whose prototype civil defence robot has just run amok at a trade show, slaughtering several bystanders".
___________
"City victories are now the default outcome in this rigged game and there is not much left to say about them, so it’s not really surprising that the focus has increasingly turned to issues surrounding their funding and ownership. It’s enough to make you question the whole concept of sportswashing".
"...City are perched on the back of a dragon, peering down at a sullen populace, wondering incredulously why they are not loved. Shouldn’t it be obvious?"
Perfectly put
He's about perceptive as a turnip if this is only just dawning on him.
Has the playing field ever been even? Football has always been dominated by those who can amass the best players.
Last edited:
Nobody expects even. There has to be somebody at the top. But they will inevitably fall. United are proof of that. Milan clubs are. Juventus were. Tottenham Leicester ajax are proof of the worth of being aspirational. But they can't compete with this.
'they have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United.'
That is absurd. It has no comparison. It is an unprecedented upheaval of the sport and we are seeing predictable results. 6 or 7 nil wins against good Premier league and champions league sides being met with a shrug of the shoulders and a reaction of "well, obviously"
Actually, Chelsea 03-07 spent much more money than City 15-19 if you take inflation into account. Spending 150m back in the summer of 2004 is like spending 600m in one transfer window now. And City have spent 600m over 6 transfer windows/3 seasons. It's not even close.
City may not be the original cause of the problem but they are taking things to the far extreme, much more so than anyone else ever dreamed. Peps comments this morning on how a treble isn't good enough for city are sort of embarrassing. I find this sport less enjoyable as time passes and I don't think it's just because my team doesn't win any more.
1.2bn since 08. Why would you only include 15-19 when prior to that aguero silva kompany and others were already there. Guardiola is reaping the rewards of spending prior to him and blowing other teams away. In any case the same accusations were levelled at Chelsea and their spending at least eased a little. City are showing no indication of this and are being investigated for cheating while they do it.
1.2bn under their new owners can't be competed with.
I know I'm being facetious but City made a net profit of about £8m in the last season on transfers.
Buy more players for high fees, sell more players for high fees. Net spend not hugely relevant when a club is literally endlessly buying until they stumble on the right one. Can't even remember most of the defenders they've rattled through
Personally, I am always wary of admitting City's dominance is as a result of money because I think it's an attempt with whitewash what a disaster we've been. And I think focusing on money makes us blind to our real problems.
They're completely separate issues. You should be able to rationalise and discuss one independently of the other.
I think some genuinely think their dominance is purely down to money. Imo, that fails to look at the entire picture. They have a fantastic structure and have arguably the best coach in the world.
Even with all the money spent, I don't think they're this good under another manager.
Agreed.
Not sure I agree with the dragon comparison. That dragon was earned through pain, torture, rape, fire. It wasn't just handed to the rider with no effort put in. The rider has a right to be loved or feared because they earned that right. City on the other hand...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What!? Can't a man just work for royal dictatorship and not get ask tough questions.
Last edited:
fair pointI think he’s being ironic. It still bears repeating. No point in being defeatist about it; let’s keep saying it. And saying it’s wrong
Their parade is on. Everything they do has a hollowness to it.
They've got their 'Fourmidables' t shirts printed though.
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1vOxwqBywYrGB
They've got their 'Fourmidables' t shirts printed though.
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1vOxwqBywYrGB
City spent 1.2bn in over a decade.
Chelsea in
2003/04 spent 170M Euros
2004/05 spent 170M Euros
2005/06 spent 95M Euros
2006/07 spent 90M Euros
That is a total of 530M Euros in 4 seasons at a time when balon dors like Sheva and Dinho were going for 30M. Adjusting for inflation and increased player prices that will be around 1.2bn in those 4 seasons alone. They could even offer Bayern captain Ballack double wages to get him on a free transfer.
Has Chelsea eased? In the past 2 seasons, Chelsea spent over 400M which was more than City spent in the same time frame.
I personally think its sour grapes to complain about City spending even when our Bayern management does it. The big clubs have all had breaks in the past which they are benefitting from till date
Madrid and Barca were basically state-sponsored I remember in the early 2000's when the City of Madrid bought Real training pitch for an overpriced value which basically sponsored the Figo purchase and the Galactico revolution. Check out Barcelonas spends since 2013 yearly. They are about to drop huge amounts for Griezzman, DeJong and Deligt
Others have got billionaire help at some time, Milan was the City of the late 80s and Berlusconi was their Mansoor. Same with Inter/Moratti, Juve/Agnelli. Lazio/Cragnotti
Bayern and Man Utd have had decades of headstart over other clubs, built goodwill and thus can make commercial income in 1 season that others ill make in a decade
Now you will see fans of Milan Madrid Barca Man Utd Bayern pointing fingers at others claiming they ruined football
Last edited:
I though he stands for freedom, democracy and human rights.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
5.2m (39.6%) watched the FA Cup final on the BBC. The ratings peaked at just before the half time whistle (7.5m/52%).
When you think the Chelsea/United match earlier in the competition peaked at 8.1 million and averaged better you wonder why the TV execs weren't exactly thrilled at the prospect of Citeh at Wembley.
When you think the Chelsea/United match earlier in the competition peaked at 8.1 million and averaged better you wonder why the TV execs weren't exactly thrilled at the prospect of Citeh at Wembley.
If you take into account inflation in football, from 2003 to 2007 Chelsea spent about 1.2 bn in todays prices. Chelsea's spending was on another level. What's more, they have out spent City since 2010.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/europes-top-20-biggest-spending-14196912
Last edited:
So many nonsense arguments in this thread. Yes, Chelsea and Abramovich are a disgusting plastic match made in hell. Yes, they started all this shit. But that’s beside the point.
Firstly, Chelsea have had significant outgoings nearly every season in that time making their net spend significantly less than City’s. And secondly, they spent little to not the two seasons prior while City spent nearly £300m after the takeover. It’s just a lazy comparison lacking proper context.
Also, the market didn’t go absolutely nuts until the Neymar and Mbappe transfers and City luckily had all their business done before then aside from Mahrez. So I’m not sure the inflation argument holds water. It’s incredibly subjective anyway.
All that to say that City has run away with spending since those cnuts took over and it’s not even close. And that’s just the money we know about. Considering the fact that Mancini was receiving shady, under the table payments, there’s no telling what they’ve actually spent since 2008.
Disgusting owners. Disgusting club.
A blight on football and sport in general.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date