|
Post by Mike on Aug 22, 2011 21:57:08 GMT 1
Quite good ain't they.
|
|
|
Post by Ned on Aug 22, 2011 22:00:45 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 28, 2011 15:10:31 GMT 1
|
|
poirot
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 243
|
Post by poirot on Aug 28, 2011 19:21:26 GMT 1
Quite good ain't they. But maybe just not quite good enough?
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Aug 28, 2011 19:22:46 GMT 1
Meanwhile, Liverpool continue to slip quietly under the radar...
|
|
poirot
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 243
|
Post by poirot on Aug 28, 2011 19:28:15 GMT 1
Meanwhile, Liverpool continue to slip quietly under the radar... Like they have for the last - how many years?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 28, 2011 19:44:58 GMT 1
Quite good ain't they. But maybe just not quite good enough? Why's that then, they put 5 past Spurs away. Man u put 3 past them at home, so that means City will put 15 past Arsenal at home.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Aug 28, 2011 19:48:31 GMT 1
Meanwhile, Liverpool continue to slip quietly under the radar... Scousers are very good at that...
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Aug 28, 2011 21:29:50 GMT 1
3 points is 3 points whether you win by one goal or seven...
All United have really done so far is win their home games, albeit impressivly. We'll have to see how they do in the more difficult away games, where the likes of Cleverly and Anderson might get bullied a bit more. They weren't convincing against West Brom, and even today, Arsenal had a lot of chances.
City have brushed aside Premier League newboys, mid table team and now Champions League contenders. They look the real deal.
|
|
|
Post by Ned on Aug 28, 2011 21:31:57 GMT 1
3 points is 3 points whether you win by one goal or seven... All United have really done so far is win their home games, albeit impressivly. We'll have to see how they do in the more difficult away games, where the likes of Cleverly and Anderson might get bullied a bit more. They weren't convincing against West Brom, and even today, Arsenal had a lot of chances. City have brushed aside Premier League newboys, mid table team and now Champions League contenders. They look the real deal. Spoken like a true envious Scouser.
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Aug 28, 2011 21:41:54 GMT 1
3 points is 3 points whether you win by one goal or seven... All United have really done so far is win their home games, albeit impressivly. We'll have to see how they do in the more difficult away games, where the likes of Cleverly and Anderson might get bullied a bit more. They weren't convincing against West Brom, and even today, Arsenal had a lot of chances. City have brushed aside Premier League newboys, mid table team and now Champions League contenders. They look the real deal. Spoken like a true envious Scouser. Not really. United had Arsenal at the best possible time, and whilst you can't help but admire their ruthlessness, they were expected to win, and win well. They're not perfect though.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Aug 28, 2011 21:48:18 GMT 1
3 points is 3 points whether you win by one goal or seven... All United have really done so far is win their home games, albeit impressivly. We'll have to see how they do in the more difficult away games, where the likes of Cleverly and Anderson might get bullied a bit more. They weren't convincing against West Brom, and even today, Arsenal had a lot of chances. City have brushed aside Premier League newboys, mid table team and now Champions League contenders. They look the real deal. Spoken like a true envious Scouser. thats why i gave up with him his banter is similar to that of an 8 year old whereas any 12 year old would be proud of mine
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Aug 29, 2011 0:38:45 GMT 1
United have certainly made a statement today, but until they come over for a good clogging at Goodison, judgement is reserved
|
|
islaymalt
Midland League Division One
Posts: 420
|
Post by islaymalt on Aug 29, 2011 16:50:21 GMT 1
Why's that then, they put 5 past Spurs away. Man u put 3 past them at home, so that means City will put 15 past Arsenal at home. Of course they will, Mike. Of course they will. They say that lying quietly in a dark room with a damp cloth on your forehead is good for contitions like yours. I think you ought to stick to politics - but then again ......
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 29, 2011 16:52:44 GMT 1
Why's that then, they put 5 past Spurs away. Man u put 3 past them at home, so that means City will put 15 past Arsenal at home. Of course they will, Mike. Of course they will. They say that lying quietly in a dark room with a damp cloth on your forehead is good for contitions like yours. I think you ought to stick to politics - but then again ...... and maybe you should stick to RagCafe....but then again we don't all get what we want...
|
|
islaymalt
Midland League Division One
Posts: 420
|
Post by islaymalt on Aug 29, 2011 17:56:42 GMT 1
Of course they will, Mike. Of course they will. They say that lying quietly in a dark room with a damp cloth on your forehead is good for contitions like yours. I think you ought to stick to politics - but then again ...... and maybe you should stick to RagCafe....but then again we don't all get what we want... RagCafe?? My God you must be older than I thought. Rags indeed. Not an insult but a self-deprecating name from many years ago when there wasn't enough money to buy a kit. A bit like Bristol Rovers being 'Gas Heads' but from a long long time ago. I don't mind insults - too used to them - but please make them up-to-date and actually relevant. Typical City - out of touch with reality and no class
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 29, 2011 18:22:31 GMT 1
Yeah Dzeko, Aguero, Silva, Nasri, Toure, Tevez - No Class! Anyway, can't you rags stay out of this thread? This is a thread for the appreciation of everything Man City. No need for your lot in here.
|
|
poirot
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 243
|
Post by poirot on Aug 29, 2011 19:18:02 GMT 1
Anyway, can't you rags stay out of this thread? This is a thread for the appreciation of everything Man City. No need for your lot in here. OOOOh get you. Start a thread about a team you clearly like and woe betide anyone dare come on and be a bit anti. Like the man said "no class". By the way 'Rags' isn't an insult so why use it?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 29, 2011 19:54:17 GMT 1
What shall I use instead?
'No Class' isn't really an insult either is is, think the class was their for all to see yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Aug 29, 2011 20:13:37 GMT 1
It's August. Nothing more needs to be said.
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Aug 29, 2011 20:38:06 GMT 1
Yawn. A club who were cr@p for 30 years become the plaything of mega-rich Arabs and spend several years burning their oil money like someone with a cheat-code on Football Manager, buying up enough talent for two Premier League squads. Was bound to click eventually and inevitable that they'll have success, but it's soulless and hollow.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 29, 2011 20:46:21 GMT 1
Yawn. A club who were cr@p for 30 years become the plaything of mega-rich Arabs and spend several years burning their oil money like someone with a cheat-code on football Manager, buying up enough talent for two Premier League squads. Was bound to click eventually and inevitable that they'll have success, but it's soulless and hollow. Pretty much like every other big club who wants success then, how much have Liverpool, Chelsea and Man Utd spent this summer and over the last few seasons? If they have success will that be hollow and souless too? Where's the cut-off point for spending when a team is successfull but it's not 'hollow and souless' depending on how much money they have spent?
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Aug 29, 2011 20:51:52 GMT 1
Well, I guess the whole Premier League is pretty soulless and hollow but certainly there's a difference with Chelski and Man City.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 30, 2011 10:22:06 GMT 1
Yawn. A club who were cr@p for 30 years become the plaything of mega-rich Arabs and spend several years burning their oil money like someone with a cheat-code on football Manager, buying up enough talent for two Premier League squads. Was bound to click eventually and inevitable that they'll have success, but it's soulless and hollow. And yet if you want to win the thing that's exactly how you have to go about it. Just look to those clubs that have done so already. That's a pretty strange comment from you there our kid. I think it's pretty clear that's how you win the English top flight these days...spend, spend and spend again...
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Aug 30, 2011 12:33:27 GMT 1
That may well be the case, but it's mainly because of the unconstrained finances of Chelsea and Man City and the incredible strength of Man Utd (a combination of their financial resources and the genius of Fergie). Teams that are fairly financially realistic and responsible and keep to a wage structure (like Spurs and Arsenal) don't really stand much chance. I don't see that it's strange that I should resent that. And I just don't see that it's much for City fans to be that proud about or to gloat over - it's just inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 30, 2011 13:32:09 GMT 1
I guess I was just a tad confused as to why someone would level that at Manchester City alone. Maybe I’m wrong but that the impression I got from the posts. Everyone who has won the English league in the last few years have gone about it in the very same way. Whether that be Arsenal, Blackburn, Chelsea and Manchester United. All of them have spent millions of pounds in order to win what they have. It’s not as if Manchester City are breaking new ground here, their new owners are just following a path well travelled. I’m certainly not going to wish them ill for that (not saying you do either, mind). But that’s the game now. Has been since the Premier League and more so the Champions League flooded a certain few with millions to outspend every bugger else…
So I don’t see any difference with Chelsea or Manchester City to any of the others that have spent daft amounts of money to win the league (or to try and win it). Liverpool for example, spending large amounts of money to get back on top of the pile. I don’t see any different to what they are doing compared to Chelsea or Manchester City (apart from not spending their millions wisely)…
I do agree that it is inevitable that Manchester City will win the title at some point soon. That’s for sure. And if it's not them then only two or three others can do. That’s how it's been for ages now and that’s how it will continue for some time yet. You do wonder how long that is set to continue. As you would think that sport loses some attraction when it is so predictable, when things are inevitable. I am amazed that none of the other top flight sides have actually spoken up and tried to address things. I guess they are just happy with their slice of the pie. I find it strange that there are not more voices in the game and the media asking for change, for the imbalance to be addressed.
By the by, if interested in just how much money does play apart in success in the top flight then ‘Pay As You Play’ by Paul Tomkins is a decent read.
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Aug 30, 2011 13:57:10 GMT 1
I don't think you can really compare the spending of Arsenal or Liverpool with that of Chelsea or Man City though. Liverpool have spent big recently, but look how much they received for Tores (from Chelsea). Arsenal under Wenger have generally bought relatively cheap, young prospects rather than big, established names and have run a tight financial ship and sold well. Man Utd have spent a lot but they have always been very well-suported and generated large turnover (and again sold Ronaldo for huge money) which couldn't be said about City or Chelsea. I too wonder that so little has been made of the huge imbalances and uncompetitiveness of modern-day Prem/CL era football. Hopefully UEFA's prospective financial fair-play rules will rein it in a bit but I'm not very optimistic. I think your host-country is to be admired with respect to the balance and competitiveness it has acheived in domestic football, Stutty. Don't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Ned on Aug 30, 2011 14:24:15 GMT 1
City's latest signing, and it's an odd choice.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Aug 30, 2011 15:25:08 GMT 1
I guess I was just a tad confused as to why someone would level that at Manchester City alone. Maybe I’m wrong but that the impression I got from the posts. Everyone who has won the English league in the last few years have gone about it in the very same way. Whether that be Arsenal, Blackburn, Chelsea and Manchester United. All of them have spent millions of pounds in order to win what they have. It’s not as if Manchester City are breaking new ground here, their new owners are just following a path well travelled. I’m certainly not going to wish them ill for that (not saying you do either, mind). But that’s the game now. Has been since the Premier League and more so the Champions League flooded a certain few with millions to outspend every bugger else… So I don’t see any difference with Chelsea or Manchester City to any of the others that have spent daft amounts of money to win the league (or to try and win it). Liverpool for example, spending large amounts of money to get back on top of the pile. I don’t see any different to what they are doing compared to Chelsea or Manchester City (apart from not spending their millions wisely)… I do agree that it is inevitable that Manchester City will win the title at some point soon. That’s for sure. And if it's not them then only two or three others can do. That’s how it's been for ages now and that’s how it will continue for some time yet. You do wonder how long that is set to continue. As you would think that sport loses some attraction when it is so predictable, when things are inevitable. I am amazed that none of the other top flight sides have actually spoken up and tried to address things. I guess they are just happy with their slice of the pie. I find it strange that there are not more voices in the game and the media asking for change, for the imbalance to be addressed. By the by, if interested in just how much money does play apart in success in the top flight then ‘Pay As You Play’ by Paul Tomkins is a decent read. I think the thing that's different about City is the wages that they're paying. They're in a different world to everyone who went before. I mean there's a large number of players there that the previous manager bought in who Mancini has made clear have no future at the club (Adebayor, Bellamy, Bridge, Wright Phillips, Santa Cruz to start with), but the thing is those players are paid an absolute fortune and no-one else can afford them unless city still carry on paying a large proportion of their wages. That's what sets them apart. There's so many players there that they don't want that are on wages far higher than far better players at other clubs and it's causing problems throughout football because then those players either want similar wages to stay or want to leave. The other problem with both City and Chelsea is that they're totally reliant on their owners. If they lose interest, or they're business goes completely up in smoke, how are those clubs going to carry on without the rich owners to support them?? They'll be stuck with an entire squad on mega wages without the income to support them. At least Arsenal and Spurs both realise that they can't hope to compete and are running their clubs like a business. Liverpool at least too are paying higher wages but have a smaller squad, and united of course just have the benefit of 75k every week and massive sponsorship so can afford it.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 30, 2011 18:59:01 GMT 1
Financial fair-play will simply keep the status quo. It'll just help the top clubs who have had the benefit of ten years of Champions League football on which to build a global following (and the financial rewards that brings). Without owners coming in and spending money there would be very little competition at the top of the table. Manchester City haven't had champions league football before this season, without the investment from their new owners breaking into the top four and maintaining a top four spot would have been extremely difficult (look at Everton). So without that investment allowing some other club to compete the top four would simply be the same again and again and again. I think financial fair play will strangle competition. The rich simply stay rich with other clubs having no means available to compete financially...
As for the wages; they are playing silly amounts. But then where did they start, what level was set before they went spending? They need to spend that daft amount on wages because the bar has been set that high from wages paid by other clubs to other players before Manchester City started to push for the title. football transfer fees and salaries were daft way before Manchester City got involved, this is just a continuation of something started by other clubs (those in the top four) a fair while ago. Sure Manchester City would prefer to pay a lot less then what they do, but the bar was raised long time past...
|
|