City's Owners

[McNamara That Ghost...]

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.

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.

[Ernesto]

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.