Quote Originally Posted by Joker View Post
We're complaining about football being boring because it's obvious who's going to win, but it's only been the first season that City have won the league, and at the end of the day it was on goal difference. If we had owners who cared about trophies and a more tactically astute manager, I think we could be challenging for the league, along with Man Utd, Chelsea, maybe Liverpool as well. The takeovers have increased competition in the Premier League, and that's got to be a good thing.

What do you think other teams were thinking from the the mid 90s until 2005, when it was only us or Utd winning the league? They probably felt football was becoming boring, with only two teams with a chance of winning the league.
Sure, but that was because the other teams were not up to it. Some of them could have competed had they chosen to make the effort. Clubs like Liverpool and Newcastle, for instance, have a massive fan base and should have been able to compete on the financial side at the time (before the sugar daddy shit started) - but they did not invest wisely in getting good managers who could last over time.

I have said before that football was better when I started watching in the early 1970s where there were half a dozen teams who, at the start of the season, could have felt they had a realistic chance of making a title challenge, so when you won it, there was a big sense of achievement. At any one time there might be a couple of teams that are the more likely candidates but they used to come and go more often. Before the PL started up, only Liverpool dominated for a long period but at lease that was not based on cash. It was based on having Shankly and then Paisley build up a team and a mentality over a long period.

A lot of the failing clubs who should have been competing in recent years might take a look at how often they change their manager and have to pretty well start again, then wonder why they never win anything.