Comment deleted by Site Moderator
It's not just money it's how they invest it. City have the best training facilities, best stadium , best links to other clubs, best scouts,best coach , best young players for the future.
What chance is there for the other clubs to compete, and is there any way for the impending monopoly on english football this club is about to have, to be reversed ?
------------------------
Very little. Its a new era of clubs being owned and financed by entire states rather than simply rich owners. Impossible for anyone not in that ownership model to compete.
BTW, I have some Durian crisps at home.
Minging
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
No it’s the money: any club that can spend over 300 mil in 2 transfer windows will always get success eventually. Chelsea have Proven it. It could of being any club that stoke luck with an Arab billionaire and they would of been in exactly the same position eventually.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Stinks✡ (U1071)
posted 9 seconds ago
Would like to see a multi billionaire buy a non-League club
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't that City?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Rushden & Diamonds. Level 8 or 9 all the way to League One
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 20 minutes ago
What chance is there for the other clubs to compete, and is there any way for the impending monopoly on english football this club is about to have, to be reversed ?
------------------------
Very little. Its a new era of clubs being owned and financed by entire states rather than simply rich owners. Impossible for anyone not in that ownership model to compete.
BTW, I have some Durian crisps at home.
Minging
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That fruit smells disgusting.
comment by -Baz-tango-in-Paris (U19119)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 20 minutes ago
What chance is there for the other clubs to compete, and is there any way for the impending monopoly on english football this club is about to have, to be reversed ?
------------------------
Very little. Its a new era of clubs being owned and financed by entire states rather than simply rich owners. Impossible for anyone not in that ownership model to compete.
BTW, I have some Durian crisps at home.
Minging
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That fruit smells disgusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You wanna try putting it in your mouth. Your burps smell like a sweaty gym sock full of onions and limburger cheese for the rest of the day.
Don, 100 per cent correct. Money is what is giving Man City a massive advantage. All teams with unlimited funds will eventually win trophies. Chelsea were very dominant before Man City come into even more money.
I love watching Spurs, win or lose, but as you all know I watch very little other football. Teams that are basically funded by countries have in reality no place in football as I know it.
I actually think the Man Utd team at their peak under Ferguson were more dominant both in terms of trophies and dominating the market. Man City have won what 2 league titles in the 7 years since they got taken over. They have never even come close to winning the Champions League. Plus they recently refused to pay the transfer fee and wages demanded for Sanchez.
United will match and exceed the wages, in fact Arsenal have just started shelling out 350k a week to Özil if reports are believed to be true, it’s just that city have a structure and plan in place to see it through as opposed to arsenal being in transition, Chelsea trying to reign it in a bit and united just spending money on a bunch of cruiserweights
City haven’t even won a single trophy yet. Stupid to compare them to United sides who won titles 3 seasons in a row and CL titles
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 11 minutes ago
I actually think the Man Utd team at their peak under Ferguson were more dominant both in terms of trophies and dominating the market. Man City have won what 2 league titles in the 7 years since they got taken over. They have never even come close to winning the Champions League. Plus they recently refused to pay the transfer fee and wages demanded for Sanchez.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
obviously in terms of trophies, however one would think that man city's trophies are only just starting.
i disagree with you regarding market/transfer dominance. look at the side that arsenal assembled during that period, and whereas many of man united's players came through their own ranks, almost all of arsenal's side was imported.
i don't see any way that a club other than man city could attract the players over the next few seasons, that arsenal did during the Fergie years.
To be fair I think City should have been dominating for the last 5/6 years already. Certainly should have kicked on from 13/14 and won the next 2 or 3 leagues after that.
You also get the sense that may be they are influencing the market by showing (false) interest in players which they don't intend to follow through on.
United probably paid a lot more for Sanchez than if City had not shown an interest, and City's interest does not even have to be legit. A few whispers in a few ears that they'd be willing to pay £400k a week and suddenly that becomes the players demand/expectation from any suitor.
Chelsea in 2004-2005 were buying anything that moved.
They signed players like Parker, Wright-Phillips that they didn’t really need to just to stop other clubs potentially strengthening.
It’s a shame for the league in a way that the two eras didn’t coincide, as Abramovich isn’t bothered with putting his dough in anymore so Chelsea now can’t compete with City signings wise.
When Chelsea or City come top it isn't a footballing achievement in my mind. It's simply money. No matter what they achieve it simply doesn't matter in my book. The nouveau riche of this game are to be ridiculed not lauded. Clubs like United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs are the true top 4 as they have achieved success the hard way, they've not been handed it on a plate.
comment by SB&S (U17757)
posted 16 minutes ago
When Chelsea or City come top it isn't a footballing achievement in my mind. It's simply money. No matter what they achieve it simply doesn't matter in my book. The nouveau riche of this game are to be ridiculed not lauded. Clubs like United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs are the true top 4 as they have achieved success the hard way, they've not been handed it on a plate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry? what have spurs won in the last 25 years?
Sign in if you want to comment
Has there ever been a club as dominant ?
Page 1 of 3
posted on 1/2/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/2/18
It's not just money it's how they invest it. City have the best training facilities, best stadium , best links to other clubs, best scouts,best coach , best young players for the future.
posted on 1/2/18
Best stadium
posted on 1/2/18
What chance is there for the other clubs to compete, and is there any way for the impending monopoly on english football this club is about to have, to be reversed ?
------------------------
Very little. Its a new era of clubs being owned and financed by entire states rather than simply rich owners. Impossible for anyone not in that ownership model to compete.
BTW, I have some Durian crisps at home.
Minging
posted on 1/2/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/2/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/2/18
No it’s the money: any club that can spend over 300 mil in 2 transfer windows will always get success eventually. Chelsea have Proven it. It could of being any club that stoke luck with an Arab billionaire and they would of been in exactly the same position eventually.
posted on 1/2/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/2/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/2/18
comment by Stinks✡ (U1071)
posted 9 seconds ago
Would like to see a multi billionaire buy a non-League club
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't that City?
posted on 1/2/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/2/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/2/18
Rushden & Diamonds. Level 8 or 9 all the way to League One
posted on 1/2/18
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 20 minutes ago
What chance is there for the other clubs to compete, and is there any way for the impending monopoly on english football this club is about to have, to be reversed ?
------------------------
Very little. Its a new era of clubs being owned and financed by entire states rather than simply rich owners. Impossible for anyone not in that ownership model to compete.
BTW, I have some Durian crisps at home.
Minging
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That fruit smells disgusting.
posted on 1/2/18
comment by -Baz-tango-in-Paris (U19119)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 20 minutes ago
What chance is there for the other clubs to compete, and is there any way for the impending monopoly on english football this club is about to have, to be reversed ?
------------------------
Very little. Its a new era of clubs being owned and financed by entire states rather than simply rich owners. Impossible for anyone not in that ownership model to compete.
BTW, I have some Durian crisps at home.
Minging
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That fruit smells disgusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You wanna try putting it in your mouth. Your burps smell like a sweaty gym sock full of onions and limburger cheese for the rest of the day.
posted on 1/2/18
Don, 100 per cent correct. Money is what is giving Man City a massive advantage. All teams with unlimited funds will eventually win trophies. Chelsea were very dominant before Man City come into even more money.
I love watching Spurs, win or lose, but as you all know I watch very little other football. Teams that are basically funded by countries have in reality no place in football as I know it.
posted on 1/2/18
I actually think the Man Utd team at their peak under Ferguson were more dominant both in terms of trophies and dominating the market. Man City have won what 2 league titles in the 7 years since they got taken over. They have never even come close to winning the Champions League. Plus they recently refused to pay the transfer fee and wages demanded for Sanchez.
posted on 1/2/18
United will match and exceed the wages, in fact Arsenal have just started shelling out 350k a week to Özil if reports are believed to be true, it’s just that city have a structure and plan in place to see it through as opposed to arsenal being in transition, Chelsea trying to reign it in a bit and united just spending money on a bunch of cruiserweights
posted on 1/2/18
City haven’t even won a single trophy yet. Stupid to compare them to United sides who won titles 3 seasons in a row and CL titles
posted on 1/2/18
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 11 minutes ago
I actually think the Man Utd team at their peak under Ferguson were more dominant both in terms of trophies and dominating the market. Man City have won what 2 league titles in the 7 years since they got taken over. They have never even come close to winning the Champions League. Plus they recently refused to pay the transfer fee and wages demanded for Sanchez.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
obviously in terms of trophies, however one would think that man city's trophies are only just starting.
i disagree with you regarding market/transfer dominance. look at the side that arsenal assembled during that period, and whereas many of man united's players came through their own ranks, almost all of arsenal's side was imported.
i don't see any way that a club other than man city could attract the players over the next few seasons, that arsenal did during the Fergie years.
posted on 1/2/18
To be fair I think City should have been dominating for the last 5/6 years already. Certainly should have kicked on from 13/14 and won the next 2 or 3 leagues after that.
posted on 1/2/18
You also get the sense that may be they are influencing the market by showing (false) interest in players which they don't intend to follow through on.
United probably paid a lot more for Sanchez than if City had not shown an interest, and City's interest does not even have to be legit. A few whispers in a few ears that they'd be willing to pay £400k a week and suddenly that becomes the players demand/expectation from any suitor.
posted on 1/2/18
Chelsea in 2004-2005 were buying anything that moved.
They signed players like Parker, Wright-Phillips that they didn’t really need to just to stop other clubs potentially strengthening.
It’s a shame for the league in a way that the two eras didn’t coincide, as Abramovich isn’t bothered with putting his dough in anymore so Chelsea now can’t compete with City signings wise.
posted on 1/2/18
When Chelsea or City come top it isn't a footballing achievement in my mind. It's simply money. No matter what they achieve it simply doesn't matter in my book. The nouveau riche of this game are to be ridiculed not lauded. Clubs like United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs are the true top 4 as they have achieved success the hard way, they've not been handed it on a plate.
posted on 1/2/18
comment by SB&S (U17757)
posted 16 minutes ago
When Chelsea or City come top it isn't a footballing achievement in my mind. It's simply money. No matter what they achieve it simply doesn't matter in my book. The nouveau riche of this game are to be ridiculed not lauded. Clubs like United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs are the true top 4 as they have achieved success the hard way, they've not been handed it on a plate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry? what have spurs won in the last 25 years?
Page 1 of 3