Pep the Muppet and Other Citeh Shit

[Syn]

I don’t really blame Man City. To be honest, I don’t know why others do. Unless they go ‘round behaving like a bunch of cunts (like Barca), simply a spending a fuckload of money that they haven’t deserved is not a crime. I’m not saying I’d like that circus to happen to Arsenal, but I don’t think they’re doing anything wrong. The key distinction is that what they’re being allowed to do is blatantly wrong. Syn’s mantra #3: “Don’t blame the players, blame the game”. It’s not Man City’s fault that the rules are stupid. And the rules are very stupid.

That said, it’s obvious that whatever Man City achieve in terms of on-field success is meaningless to the rational observer. Nothing they do on the pitch will be worthy of praise.

What Joker is saying is that the sport is always (or at least, 90s onwards) been skewed in terms of inequality and it has never been a level playing field. As a left-wing pansy, he drew the line of ‘this is unfair’ well before even Chelsea became a Russian billionnaire’s penis extension. As a fellow left-wing pansy, I would like to see the league(s) as competitive as possible in the sense that clubs should have a better chance of moving up based on sound financial and on-pitch management. I think there have been many examples of this. We are one. But I don’t know how anyone could seriously take a look at top flight football post-Chelski and seriously claim that the sport isn’t just about which owners have the deepest pockets.

[Letters]

I don’t really blame Man City. To be honest, I don’t know why others do.

I don't think anyone does.

What City are doing is reprehensible but so was what Chelsea did, so are loads of things in the sport which is now set up entirely to make the gaps between the haves and have nots ever wider and make it harder for any team to move between levels unless they get a sugar daddy on board.

It's sad and it's not much fun any more because it's not a sport any more, it's a business. Sport is fun. Business isn't fun.

I don't blame City for any of it, but I'm quite happy to hate them for jumping on the billionaire bandwaggon and for thinking that anything they achieve is meaningfull.

[Syn]

I don't think anyone does.

What City are doing is reprehensible but so was what Chelsea did, so are loads of things in the sport which is now set up entirely to make the gaps between the haves and have nots ever wider and make it harder for any team to move between levels unless they get a sugar daddy on board.

It's sad and it's not much fun any more because it's not a sport any more, it's a business. Sport is fun. Business isn't fun.

I don't blame City for any of it, but I'm quite happy to hate them for jumping on the billionaire bandwaggon and for thinking that anything they achieve is meaningfull.

That's exactly what I think. I just got confused when you said: "Yes, the system is wrong. But so are the clubs exploiting it" and maybe I misunderstood 'hating Man City' for 'blaming Man City'. I don't think the clubs are wrong for exploiting the shitty rules....but it just means that their 'success' becomes almost inevitable and meaningless.

They're going to win this league by a mile this season. Wouldn't mind them winning the CL because it'd mean Barca lose out.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

I don’t really blame Man City. To be honest, I don’t know why others do. Unless they go ‘round behaving like a bunch of cunts (like Barca), simply a spending a fuckload of money that they haven’t deserved is not a crime. I’m not saying I’d like that circus to happen to Arsenal, but I don’t think they’re doing anything wrong. The key distinction is that what they’re being allowed to do is blatantly wrong. Syn’s mantra #3: “Don’t blame the players, blame the game”. It’s not Man City’s fault that the rules are stupid. And the rules are very stupid.

That said, it’s obvious that whatever Man City achieve in terms of on-field success is meaningless to the rational observer. Nothing they do on the pitch will be worthy of praise.

What Joker is saying is that the sport is always (or at least, 90s onwards) been skewed in terms of inequality and it has never been a level playing field. As a left-wing pansy, he drew the line of ‘this is unfair’ well before even Chelsea became a Russian billionnaire’s penis extension. As a fellow left-wing pansy, I would like to see the league(s) as competitive as possible in the sense that clubs should have a better chance of moving up based on sound financial and on-pitch management. I think there have been many examples of this. We are one. But I don’t know how anyone could seriously take a look at top flight football post-Chelski and seriously claim that the sport isn’t just about which owners have the deepest pockets.

I think effectively waving huge amounts of money under any player they can get to smell it, is pretty indicative of 'go 'round behaving like a bunch of cunts'. I mean, the suggestion is that Nasri was all but about to go to Man Utd and then in come Citeh.

Anyway, why does it have to be one or the other? I can quite easily criticise Manchester City and then criticise FIFA/UEFA/FA too.

Joker might be saying that but it makes no difference to the fact Manchester City would go out of business in any other circumstance and that is my biggest gripe with the whole thing. And highlighting that other clubs might have done the same thing doesn't really change my antipathy for Citeh.

[Syn]

I think effectively waving huge amounts of money under any player they can get to smell it, is pretty indicative of 'go 'round behaving like a bunch of cunts'. I mean, the suggestion is that Nasri was all but about to go to Man Utd and then in come Citeh.

If they've 'tapped players up' or whatever the homoerotic expression is, then that's wrong and illegal. I don't know if that happened with Nasri or Tevez or other players they've previously signed. It might've - I genuinely don't know. But from my point of view, if they're just offering mass amounts of money to clubs and players, I don't think that's poor conduct. If they're going behind clubs' backs and offering money to the player first, that's wrong and obviously deserving of criticism/punishment.

Anyway, why does it have to be one or the other? I can quite easily criticise Manchester City and then criticise FIFA/UEFA/FA too.

You can criticise whoever you want. Whether it makes sense depends on what grounds you're criticising them. It's quite simple in my book: FIFA/UEFA/FA are to blame regardless because even without Arab takeover, the rules were still stupid. But if Man City are playing within the rules, I don't see how they could be criticised. Offering huge sums of money in itself is not a crime. Again - I'm not saying they haven't done anything wrong, but just that I haven't heard of it...I don't tend to follow the drawn-out transfer stories outside Arsenal so I might've missed something. I've yet to read anyone give evidence or a convincing argument that says they have.

Joker might be saying that but it makes no difference to the fact Manchester City would go out of business in any other circumstance and that is my biggest gripe with the whole thing.

Of course. That was my point also.

[Niall_Quinn]

They're going to win this league by a mile this season.

We'll see. Massive meltdown coming at that club. They have absolutely no values and this means they're all just a pack of blood-suckers who are bound to turn on each other at some point. Even if they hold it together for this season, once they've "been there, bought that, done the T-shirt", they'll collapse. At least Chelsea poured the money on to a team that was already in place (if not that great), the "gents" at City have basically chucked everything out and bought a whole new club from scratch. I don't like Barca for many reasons but they aren't in the same league as City for being crass, vulgar, devoid of character, essentially meaningless. If the Munich crash happened to City they'd just buy replacements the next day, wouldn't they? For all their money they are the cheapest thing the game has ever witnessed.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Syn -The second paragraph is odd. You say I can criticise whoever I want so long as it makes sense but nobody is actually suggesting Manchester City are breaking the rules. That doesn't preclude from saying what they're doing is (and I want to use a word less righteous but can't think of one) more morally wrong.

You chose to mention Barca so I will indulge here: Were Barca's players actually breaking rules by clamouring for Cesc to return through the media? I don't believe they were but that doesn't preclude you (nor me) from explcitly criticising them for it.

I'm not entirely sure I get this idea of 'not blaming them'. As if this was some kind of well conceived plan and they are achieving this through clever use of loopholes. They were just bought by an extremely wealthy person from an even more extremely wealthy family and proceded to spend the money they have. Or maybe that's why they can't be 'blamed', they're at the behest of a man who wants to spend what he wants and they at Manchester City can't exactly say no.

[Sirjackofwilshere]

We'll see. Massive meltdown coming at that club. They have absolutely no values and this means they're all just a pack of blood-suckers who are bound to turn on each other at some point. Even if they hold it together for this season, once they've "been there, bought that, done the T-shirt", they'll collapse. At least Chelsea poured the money on to a team that was already in place (if not that great), the "gents" at City have basically chucked everything out and bought a whole new club from scratch. I don't like Barca for many reasons but they aren't in the same league as City for being crass, vulgar, devoid of character, essentially meaningless. If the Munich crash happened to City they'd just buy replacements the next day, wouldn't they? For all their money they are the cheapest thing the game has ever witnessed.

Best poster tbh

[Syn]

Syn -The second paragraph is odd. You say I can criticise whoever I want so long as it makes sense but nobody is actually suggesting Manchester City are breaking the rules. That doesn't preclude from saying what they're doing is (and I want to use a word less righteous but can't think of one) more morally wrong.

You chose to mention Barca so I will indulge here: Were Barca's players actually breaking rules by clamouring for Cesc to return through the media? I don't believe they were but that doesn't preclude you (nor me) from explcitly criticising them for it.

I'm not entirely sure I get this idea of 'not blaming them'. As if this was some kind of well conceived plan and they are achieving this through clever use of loopholes. They were just bought by an extremely wealthy person from an even more extremely wealthy family and proceded to spend the money they have. Or maybe that's why they can't be 'blamed', they're at the behest of a man who wants to spend what he wants and they at Manchester City can't exactly say no.

Right, I think I've got a clearer picture now. It was the Barca point you made that helped. You're saying that, overall, what's going on at Man City is wrong (morally) and that nobody's holding a gun to their heads; Man City are participating in something that is wrong and so are deserving of criticism/blame.

Barca haven't been punished for what they did and so evidently they didn't break the rulebook either - my objection to their behaviour can only be moral one too.

So in the same way I'm blaming Barca, I guess blaming Man City is fair game.

My question is now this: If Man City were more subtle about it - perhaps more like Mourinho and Chelsea were - with less big-name signings and a much lower level of spending would they be less deserving of criticism? i.e. When your budget is £800m, and you spend £20m of it...does it make it 'right' to spend £50m instead of £700m of it? Because IMO, I'd have to go for the £700m. Aren't you eventually converging to the same outcome - that Man City keep climbing the table (at a much slower rate) - until they are no.1?

[Syn]

We'll see. Massive meltdown coming at that club. They have absolutely no values and this means they're all just a pack of blood-suckers who are bound to turn on each other at some point. Even if they hold it together for this season, once they've "been there, bought that, done the T-shirt", they'll collapse. At least Chelsea poured the money on to a team that was already in place (if not that great), the "gents" at City have basically chucked everything out and bought a whole new club from scratch. I don't like Barca for many reasons but they aren't in the same league as City for being crass, vulgar, devoid of character, essentially meaningless. If the Munich crash happened to City they'd just buy replacements the next day, wouldn't they? For all their money they are the cheapest thing the game has ever witnessed.

I dunno...that's a lot of description without much substance, for me. Chelsea don't win any extra points for requiring less of a push. Whether you buy your way from 4th to 1st or whether you buy you way from 20th to 1st, you're still buying shit. I think that's part of Joker's argument before - that people have some sort of preconceived notion of what teams 'should' be challenging for the title and what teams shouldn't. Even though we have been challenging for the title in recent years and are generally seen as a top team (yes, this is still the case...) it wouldn't make it any better if we did it than if Norwich did it. Sure, we'd hold on to more players than they would...we might keep Wilshere, Van Persie and a few others instead of buying a totally new team like Norwich would have to - but does that make us morally superior? (What am I saying - we are the champions of that trophy). For all the colourful words to describe a 'tasteless' Man City, they all stem from the fact that they (undeservingly) spend too much for your liking.