Who can catch us

Spurs spend plenty, they just spend it very badly.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 days, 2 hours ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 22 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm a little confused by the article.

I thought it was asking who can catch you this season, then I considered perhaps it's asking who can catch you in general, although there was then talk about clubs spending badly who are nowhere near catching you.

If you're asking this season then Liverpool can catch you. If you're asking overall then nobody as you have the best squad of players and can improve on that with mega money each season. Of course as you say, this has to be done right but much easier from the position you're in than from the position Everton are/were in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City were in a worse position when the current owners took over than Everton were. City have only progressed as a result of their current owners.

Everton have got worse, or at best stagnated. Nah, they’ve got worse.

The point is that good owners with a plan can make all the difference. Rich owners (Everton) without a plan can make no difference at all. Or it can actually end up worse than it was beforehand.

Yes, the comments have taken the article in a different direction, but the point overall remains the same. Investment. Trying to compete. And once competing, who can then challenge.

City have been at and around the top for just over a decade now. Some of those at the top back in 2008 no longer are. United most notably. Is that purely down to money? I would say money plays a part but it isn’t the only reason.

My point is that City have clearly got it right. The club has a vision. It isn’t just about throwing money at something and hoping it sticks.

So my question does relate to who can catch us this season and also who can catch us going forward. Which club has the structure in place to compete and better what City have done and what City want to continue to achieve?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is how you spend the money but when its £2bn it makes spending it that bit easier. Spend a shed load on a new GK and it doesnt work out? Buy another one! Spend £50m on a new LB and he turns out to be rubbish and a bit rapey? Buy another one!

Your test will be when Pep goes. He is the difference. He is why your good form has endured and others have been up and down. Coupled with spending its probably easier to succeed than fail.

In the post Wenger, post Fergie era's these clubs have struggle to get the right appointment and it will be the same for City. It will be tough to replace him and keep the same levels up and despite City's status right now, without Pep it will be diminish, and you will find it harder operate at the same level without employing the slightly more boom and bust models of other clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to step back and try to understand the point.

Your first post set your agenda. You haven’t got a clue.

Your first paragraph shows how little you know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So will Man City have achieved the same on half the budget?

Yes money is just one ingredient to success, to be able to dominate you need everything in place, hardly needs numerous paragraphs to explain and understand that. But lets not pretend that in the case of Man City the record breaking amounts of money have not been a key factor that has made this all happen and allowed you to play out your master plan, which you have executed perfectly.

Combined with this you also began this process when FFP was nothing and were able to spend freely, posting an annual loss of £200m. It was a shot in the arm without limitation that built the foundations for where you are now, a more self sufficient club.

If you compare to Everton then they have spent big and badly (although compared to City the spending is smaller. City broke the British record in signing Robinho for £32m, and you barely get anything for that sum now, Mahrez cost twice that and is half the player). But Everton now face FFP restrictions which handicap them moving forward. City didnt have this issue at the beginning and breached it when it did come in.

If you compare to Spurs then both us and City have invested heavily in infrastructure and have great training, academy and Stadium facilities....Spurs are paying 10s of millions in loan repayments, City's are either Council owned or paid for!

Both have their off field stuff in order. On field SPurs have not been able to compete with City in the transfer market...either initially due to he sums of money spent or more lately given the lofty status City have achieved making them more attractive regardless of money.

Despite Spurs being a very well run club, we do not have owners that will prop up some of the massive losses City made, and this is the case for 90% of the league.

With all our infrastructure in place, with Conte at the wheel, and with a plan in place, how can we even compete unless we spend and have the depth and quality of squad City have?

So you may dress it up as wonderful planning, the right people in the right place and a perfectly executed strategy and this is all probably true, but it is the vast sums of money that has made it all possible and allowed you to deliver so successfully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have a sly dig at me writing numerous paragraphs, then you write numerous paragraphs that effectively say exactly the same thing I did.

Read it through again Devonshire. You’ve actually made the same point I have made, while trying to argue against me at the same time.

Only an idiot would do that…

Call me an idiot if you like but really you should follow a bit of your own advice and read properly.

Under a title of "who can catch us" you begin with the statement "It doesn’t matter how much money is spent."

Well if you truly believe that to be the case then good luck to you in your own little deluded world.

All i have done is counter that making the case that, of course how much is spent matters.

You cite Liverpool, who are a well run club operating within their means and executing their plans well, they are the best of the rest for a while now but only 2 trophies for Klopp compared to how many for Pep. Why is that?

You state "but it clearly needs more than just money". Does it? What do they need?

If you look at their XI its probably the best but beyond that it weakens. THat isnt due to poor planning or wasted money, its to do with the resources they have available. Their defence is built on VVD, a freebee in Matip, a new signing in Konate (about £30m) and a cheap signing in Gomes. TAA was free and Robertson £8m. Tsimikas was bought for £12m and is very decent.

Despite their size, their success, their resources it cannot comapre to City who have built a defence from new under Pep at the cost of £420m. or even Chelsea for that!

You could argue that LFC have bought every bit as well as City or better and have executed their plans superbly, as well as City. I see few if any flaws in how they are run, beyond the natural financial limitations that they operate in (ie, spending what they earn).

You miss the main point here about spending. You are trying to remove the huge sums spent by City as a factor in why they have been successful. Just because City have spent well does not mean how much they have spent is irrelevant. It is the defining factor. It is the reason why they can compete and beat equally well run clubs like Liverpool and dominate others. Badly run clubs will not succeed, that is a given. Well run clubs will be defined by how much they spend compared to their rivals. City are top of the pile in every respect.

I said - it doesn’t matter how much money is spent. What matters is that the money is spent right.

It seems you couldn’t get past the title and the first few words.

This is the reason why I deleted your first post. Because you jumped right in and had a dig without actually understanding the context of what I’m saying.

You, not me, really need to work on reading things in context.

And now you have the gall to say I’m missing the point!

You are justifying me calling you an idiot.

I am not, nor have I ever tried to remove the huge sums spent by City as a factor in why City have been successful. That, categorically is NOT my point at all.
My point has been that the money spent has been spent WELL, and the reason it had been spent well is because of other factors such as planning and vision and management, and those TOO have to be considered alongside the money spent in the reason why City have become successful.

It’s why I cited Everton in my OP - who have spent an amount that is greater than a fair few PL teams, yet they find themselves in a position where they have not progressed, but regressed as a result. It is why I mentioned United spending a huge amount, yet they are been unable to really challenge at all ever since Ferguson retired.

Honestly mate, your replies are making you look like an idiot, because you are fundamentally misunderstanding the point being made. Your first post was a dig. I deleted it because it was an idiotic post, and since then you seem to be doubling down, and continuing to miss the actual point being made.

Actually, you’re more of an idiot because you don’t even realise that in attempting to argue against me, you are actually cementing the point that I have been making throughout this thread.

Comment Deleted by Article Creator

"Get the manager right, get a plan in place, see a long term vision, and then reap the rewards."

If Brentford follow your genius advice and get the manager right, get a plan in place, see a long term vision, will they catch you?
=========
Exactly.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Devonshire, You’re boring me now. You’re missing the point and trying to create an argument out of nothing.

GT, only reason why I deleted your post was because you quoted his entire post in your reply.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator