do you realise that united spend just as much as us?
The difference is that it's genuinely
their money. Manchester United is a massive football club. They have enormous revenues. The argument isn't really about what City spends, or about what anybody spends, it's about where the money they spend comes from.
money poorly spent doesn't result in much silverware, like united's past decade.
This is undoubtedly true. Manchester City are not only successful because they're rich, but because they've been exceptionally well run. Manchester United are rich, but very poorly run. I think we've also seen this season at Chelsea that having a lot of money doesn't mean you have the first clue what you're doing.
But if City weren't so fabulously rich in the first place, no matter how well run they were they wouldn't be dominating English and European football. Because they're a medium-sized club with medium-sized revenues.
the majority didn't seem to agree until city started playing the same crooked game
I'm not sure about this. Perhaps it feels that way as a City fan, but I think most people were fairly indifferent to Manchester City. I'm a Liverpool fan. I've always quite liked you. We have a common enemy, and you were always a fine football club with good supporters. I don't think it's
about Manchester City. I think it's just that it
happened to Manchester City. It could have been anyone. You can just as easily get me started on PSG or Newcastle. Two clubs I dislike far more than I dislike City.
it's far too late now and has been too late for about 30 years.
I don't think it's ever too late. But I think it'd be hard to find the political will with all that lovely filthy lucre swishing around the game.
reply
share
MiguelGordon (525)
2 years ago
i get what you mean about it being their money and not endless arab funds (even though it was mostly earned from glory hunters around the world buying kits and flocking to old trafford etc, not from real manc fans) but personally i don't see the core problem being who's money it is, i see the core issue as being that money is one of the biggest factors at all.
regardless of where it came from, when united were the only club with big money the league was stale to me, not enjoyable to watch (unfortunately with city winning the league every season it's starting to feel that way again, as much as i hate to say it). I think that's why after city got bought out i stopped watching for years and started watching more american football, because i really liked their system of having a salary cap which kept the competitive element of the sport alive.
i always had a big soft spot for liverpool (until out recent rivalries lol) for a good few reasons such as you lot being able to bring a big fight to the club i hated the most at a time when we simply couldn't, for some reason i loved ian rush as a kid, and perhaps the biggest reason being my mother's side of the family emigrated from jamaica and even though there's no LFC fans in my family john barnes was considered an absolute hero, we loved him and looked up to him and still do. he's one of my favourite players of all time.
either way i totally respect where you're coming from and i can't say i disagree with anything you're saying, although i do see things slightly different. at the end of the day imo the integrity of the sport died when money started being such a massive factor, and that was long long before city got a sniff of it.
reply
share
capuchin (3187)
2 years ago
Oh, John Barnes. Quite possibly my favourite Liverpool player. Certainly was when I was a kid -- and that's when football really grabs you, isn't it? So he probably still is. What. A. Player.
personally i don't see the core problem being who's money it is, i see the core issue as being that money is one of the biggest factors at all.
Yeah. I get that.
I think it'd be great if we could have more parity. We all loved seeing Leicester win the league a few years back -- and in large part because we all know the chances of anything like that happening again in our lifetimes is... minimal.
Ideally, no-one wants a league that's dominated by one or two clubs, whether the money to dominate comes from their own revenue generation, an oligarch or a foreign state. It's not healthy for the game. And you're right: although some clubs were always bigger than others, it used to be more of a level playing field, and that was gone long before Manchester City got rich. That is, of course, why Manchester City were an attractive investment for Abu Dhabi. Because the sport had allowed the devil in already. You're not wrong.
imo the integrity of the sport died when money started being such a massive factor,
Yeah. Don't hugely disagree with that either. The Premier League has created a great, internationally saleable 'product' and there's still a beautiful game underneath that 'product'. But it's sometimes hard to see through all the venal corporate crap.
reply
share