Originally Posted by
Tipsychubbs
You sound like Wenger, making excuses because of City's money. Chelsea were in this position a few years ago, Man U still won the league, with money they generated not from billionaires.
Man City's/Chelsea's spending doesn't excuse a manager from utilizing the resources he's got in a most effective way. All those expensive player contracts we have on young players/deadweight players who are not worth it, that money can be spent on strengthening the team.
Man City's/Chelsea's spending doesn't excuse a manager from not blending youth with more experience so he wouldn't 'kill' the likes of denilson and diaby.
Man City's/Chelsea's spending doesn't excuse a manager from being a good tactician on the pitch, with disciplined players that know their roles, a recognition of an opposing team's strengths and weaknesses which you can take advantage of etc.
Man City's/Chelsea's spending doesn't excuse a manager from motivating the team to have a never say die attitude, and a professional attitude towards seemingly 'easy' opponents.
We didn't need a billion to win the league in 2004 and we don't need to now. With wise and sensible acquisitions without overspending and sound management we'd be up there challenging too.
We were conned into the idea of a new stadium that would allow us to compete with the top clubs, more than 6 years later, we should be generating a decent amount of income (with manageable and sustainable debt payments that should not be impacting too hard on the pitch) to do reasonably well, from money we have generated without a sugar daddy, like Manchester United. I use the word conned because our ticket prices are some of the highest in the league. Man U took them to the last game of the season, why can't we if the right decisions were made? I'm not trivialising the issue, it isn't easy to remain competitive against bottomless pockets, but impossible? Nah.
Reply With Quote