I think City were a great club, with a checkered history but a fantastic fan base way before Sheikh Mansour took over.
Manchester United themselves have blown other clubs out of the water financially. If the only way City can compete is to out-buy and out-bid the likes of United, Chelsea and Real Madrid, then so be it. Stick it to 'em, I say.
Formerly TMOKJ
Great advice tbh.Originally Posted by Letters (TPFKA WWTL@WHL)
Who makes Steve Guttenb......Gareth Barry a star?
We do!
I really don't think it is the only way it can happen and I can see why the suggesting of it being 'ambition' is disregarded. The fact that most of us just want(ed) Wenger to be a bit more flexible in his approach (if he can!) suggests that for all the money that they spend you can still compete on some level. It doesn't have to be spending gazillions every transfer window and nor, in fairness does it just have to be getting players bought for more (relatively) conservative figures and youth players. It could be that supporting a club which has always been in the Champions League skews my perception a bit but really, the league we're in is a cash cow too.
I concede however that having owners that want to invest money in to their club, taking a long term approach is nigh-on impossible. I'm just pointing out, how they are doing it (with effectively unlimited sums) doesn't have to be governed by a feeling of it being necessary.
Yup, I agree with your points Maccy, 100%. We often laugh on GW that Arsenal are "2% away from domination" but, as you've suggested, you can see where GWers are coming from. We have to fine-tune our style of play, improve the mentality of the players at our disposal and add to the current personnel at the club (not necessarily big-money, marquis signings, either). It sounds really simple when I put it like that but, if Wenger's frustration is anything to go by, it's not quite so straightforward.
As for a club like, say, Stoke City making a real fight of winning the league in the next couple of seasons WITHOUT a huge cash injection into the club...well, I fail to see how it can happen, in all honesty. Pulis can probably make a couple of shrewd signings, get rid of the deadwood, change the style of play at the Britannia OR the club could change Pulis for another manager altogether (but this raises the argument, again, of how Stoke could attract a high-profile, proven manager). However, would this be enough to maintain a title challenge? There may be enough for a couple of game-raising performances, winning at Old Trafford and Stamford Bridge, maybe, but WITHOUT a big squad with proven quality, for every Hollywood result, there's a back-down-to-earth defeat at the Molineux.
The romantic in me would really like to see a club come up from the Championship and make a sustained challenge for the EPL title but with Ipswich the last team to threaten only to falter dramatically towards the end in 2001, I fail to see how that could happen without huge investment in the club.
Formerly TMOKJ
I tend to agree with the sentiments. I try to, but I just don't have any dislike for Man City.
That's not to say the criticisms of them are not valid, some you cannot argue with.
But to me City are no worse or different to a dozen other clubs who have been bought out by a tycoon, armed with funds to plough into the club - whether it's 40 million or 400 million, the principle is the same, it's just an extra '0' on the end that City cop the stick for.
It's laughable that Chelsea can criticise them for it, Blackburn won the league doing it, but Jack Walker wasn't Jonny Foreigner.
But less so, what about Tottenham? They've spent ridiculously over their means for well over a decade now, for the year up to & since Redknapp they were bringing in 8-10 big name players a season, for huge money & wages. Where has all that come from? Tiny little ground, no trophies, on C.L run in 15 years.
Liverpool, Villa, Newcastle have had big investors - 40 million + on 2 Englands fringe players in Bent & Henderson. QPR, Leicester are at it. These sides aren't winning anything, have no 60,000+ fans coming in, to bring the money in.
Just because the fundd are 20%-40% of Man City's, is neither here nor there to me. If you dislike it, then you dislike the principle surely?
Some of our fans need to stop worrying about City and concentrate on our own football club. On Twitter, there are Arsenal supporters criticising them putting on their website an image from the latest FIFA game showing Nasri scoring against United. This is just an example of an official partner (EA Sports) trying to create some more publicity for their new game, and yet some of our fans see it as indicative of a lack of "class".
E.G.
@Arseblog
Jesus fucking Christ - http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news...irst-City-goal - all that money and they can't buy some 'Not look like cunts' powder?!
15 hours ago
LGbayb Lou Gilmour
@arseblog That's a tad unrealistic. Etihad Stadium is sold out.
@Arseblog
@WestStandTone @lilangelicrose imagine thé nouveau riche having no class. Who'd have thunk it?
I really don't get this "noveau riche" dig either. It's not as if we're run as a supporter owned cooperative are we? We are also a private business where the primary concern of our primary shareholder is to make money. People laugh at the City owners for splashing the cash, but at least they seem to have an interest in the sport, which is more than can be said for Silent Stan.
Moreover, the "noveau riche" comment is a perfect example of the established order (the top 4) getting annoyed at a new upstart trying to upset their hegemony. Remember that the landowners were opposed to the industrial capitalists at the start of the industrial revolution. The capitalists were cruel and exploitative, but that's not the say the landowners were any better when they were at the top of the social ladder.
Some of our fans need to stop bitching about fans tbh.
you're the one starting threads about em
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote