Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Paulpowersleftfoot (U1037)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 7 minutes ago
Mourinho is just a good person dude. He would never harm anyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would gouging the eyes of a cancer suffering fellow manager count as harming someone ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would rather not talk about this out of respect but I believe that happened before he was diagnosed with cancer

comment by Kuki (U6289)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Paulpowersleftfoot (U1037)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 7 minutes ago
Mourinho is just a good person dude. He would never harm anyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would gouging the eyes of a cancer suffering fellow manager count as harming someone ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wahl is pulling a Wenger on that one. There's no way he saw it...even after being showed replays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I saw what happened, I just don’t believe the full story behind it was ever told.

comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
Why don’t we talk about the obscene amounts of money Man City spend every summer instead? Why don’t we talk about all the players city have signed for double the price they should have paid?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

coming from a bloke that supports Chelsea and Man Utd, two of the other biggest culprits. Chelsea were destroying the financial landscape of football when City were still in the second tier for facks sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea never destroyed the market like city have. City consistently for years have been spending 40-60m on players that are worth 20-25m. This has played a huge role in inflating the market and making it so that only city and a couple of other clubs can consistently afford to pay for good players. All because they have a bottomless pit of money meaning they can waste all the money they want if it means they completely furrrk up the transfer market for everyone else. Barely any of the players they sign are any good as well.

comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Paulpowersleftfoot (U1037)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 7 minutes ago
Mourinho is just a good person dude. He would never harm anyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would gouging the eyes of a cancer suffering fellow manager count as harming someone ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would rather not talk about this out of respect but I believe that happened before he was diagnosed with cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no harm done then 🤣

comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
Why don’t we talk about the obscene amounts of money Man City spend every summer instead? Why don’t we talk about all the players city have signed for double the price they should have paid?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

coming from a bloke that supports Chelsea and Man Utd, two of the other biggest culprits. Chelsea were destroying the financial landscape of football when City were still in the second tier for facks sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea never destroyed the market like city have. City consistently for years have been spending 40-60m on players that are worth 20-25m. This has played a huge role in inflating the market and making it so that only city and a couple of other clubs can consistently afford to pay for good players. All because they have a bottomless pit of money meaning they can waste all the money they want if it means they completely furrrk up the transfer market for everyone else. Barely any of the players they sign are any good as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So in other words - the business model forged by Chelsea in the 00s 🤣

comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
Why don’t we talk about the obscene amounts of money Man City spend every summer instead? Why don’t we talk about all the players city have signed for double the price they should have paid?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

coming from a bloke that supports Chelsea and Man Utd, two of the other biggest culprits. Chelsea were destroying the financial landscape of football when City were still in the second tier for facks sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea never destroyed the market like city have. City consistently for years have been spending 40-60m on players that are worth 20-25m. This has played a huge role in inflating the market and making it so that only city and a couple of other clubs can consistently afford to pay for good players. All because they have a bottomless pit of money meaning they can waste all the money they want if it means they completely furrrk up the transfer market for everyone else. Barely any of the players they sign are any good as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So in other words - the business model forged by Chelsea in the 00s 🤣
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Chelsea were regularly spending 40m+ on every. Single. Player. Were they doing that?

Man City’s spending is obscene.

How many clubs were dropping 150m in one window like Chelsea did in 04?

The difference is Chelsea didn’t permanently multiply the amount of money other clubs had to spend on players by 2x by overspending on every. Single. Player. They bought. There was never any attempt to negotiate a sensible price. Your club would see a 20m player and would just throw 50m at the selling club. You still do e.g. Kyle Walker. Your club is largely responsible for furrrking up the transfer market.

Barely any of the players they sign are any good as well.

-----------------------

It's clear that you don't like the way that City have gone about their business, and that is a fair enough opinion to have (as long as you are consistent and not hypocritical in having that opinion).

But your dislike for City and the way they go about their business is clearly clouding your judgement when you come out with comments like the one above.

Don't get carried away Erik. It devalues your opinion and and does you no favours whatsoever.

So just take this little bit of constructive criticism on board and carry it forward as you get a little older.

In the past 5 years how man players have Man City signed that you can say are very good players? De Bruyne, Fernandinho (only just in the last 5 years), Sane and Ederson. Now look at how many other players city have signed in that period and how much money was spent on those other players.

Looks like biiiitch boy is leaving bro. Do you think Mourinho should sign him?

In the past 5 years how man players have Man City signed that you can say are very good players?

----------------------

So now you're attempting to double down on your comments and in doing so you've laughably changed your stance somewhat.

You previously said that City barely sign any good players. Meaning that City mostly sign bad or mediocre players. Now you're saying that City don't sign many "very" good players. The qualifier "very" changes the whole context of your previous comment.

So...

...in the last 5 years City have only signed 4 players who in your opinion are very good.

First question. Why have you now, all of a sudden, given a time frame of 5 years?

Second question. Where has this arbitrary time frame stemmed from?

Final question...

In your opinion, how many "very good" players do City currently have in their first team squad?

Be careful answering those 3 questions, because your answers to them are most likely going to result in you contradicting your own comments that you've made in this thread so far.

comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 2 hours, 10 minutes ago
The difference is Chelsea didn’t permanently multiply the amount of money other clubs had to spend on players by 2x by overspending on every. Single. Player. They bought. There was never any attempt to negotiate a sensible price. Your club would see a 20m player and would just throw 50m at the selling club. You still do e.g. Kyle Walker. Your club is largely responsible for furrrking up the transfer market.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they did and what was worse was that unlike Utd, Real & Barca they didn’t have the commercial revenue to do it.

comment by 9ctics (U21076)
posted 50 minutes ago
Looks like biiiitch boy is leaving bro. Do you think Mourinho should sign him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? So he can get screwed over by biiitch boy downing tools again?

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 25 minutes ago
In the past 5 years how man players have Man City signed that you can say are very good players?

----------------------

So now you're attempting to double down on your comments and in doing so you've laughably changed your stance somewhat.

You previously said that City barely sign any good players. Meaning that City mostly sign bad or mediocre players. Now you're saying that City don't sign many "very" good players. The qualifier "very" changes the whole context of your previous comment.

So...

...in the last 5 years City have only signed 4 players who in your opinion are very good.

First question. Why have you now, all of a sudden, given a time frame of 5 years?

Second question. Where has this arbitrary time frame stemmed from?

Final question...

In your opinion, how many "very good" players do City currently have in their first team squad?

Be careful answering those 3 questions, because your answers to them are most likely going to result in you contradicting your own comments that you've made in this thread so far.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at mr Intellectual here lmao.

I gave 5 years as the time frame because that’s what I would class as recent signings. Players signed in the last five years is what makes up your squad mostly as well. Most players signed before then probably are no longer at Man City.

And in terms of good players city have those four I gave plus Aguero, Silva and Kompany. The fact that Kompany is still your best CB despite spending probably like 200m on Central defenders in those last five years is hilarious and shows just how shiiit your transfer record is.

comment by KLS (U1695)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 2 hours, 10 minutes ago
The difference is Chelsea didn’t permanently multiply the amount of money other clubs had to spend on players by 2x by overspending on every. Single. Player. They bought. There was never any attempt to negotiate a sensible price. Your club would see a 20m player and would just throw 50m at the selling club. You still do e.g. Kyle Walker. Your club is largely responsible for furrrking up the transfer market.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they did and what was worse was that unlike Utd, Real & Barca they didn’t have the commercial revenue to do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Chelsea didn’t totally furrrk up the transfer market like city have though. They signed players for prices which at the time were reasonable. City pay double what most people would say are reasonable prices.

€30m on Shaun Wright Phillips

£22m on Damian duff.

There wasn’t the money in the game then that there is now. Chelsea did the same thing then that city are doing now!

Look at mr Intellectual here lmao.

-------------------

Why are you laughing? What's funny about being intelligent? Or are you suggesting that I'm not intelligent?

Seriously, think about what you are actually saying.

Ok, so 5 years counts as "recent signings" in your opinion.

You wrote: "Players signed in the last five years is what makes up your squad mostly as well."

So, in your opinion, because City have only signed 4 "very good" players in the last 5 years, plus the signings City have made in last five years makes up our "squad mostly" (your words)...

Which means that what you've just said is that City's current squad is made up of mostly mediocre/bad players.

You going to stand by that comment?

Or are you going to change your mind and contradict yourself?

Because I would love to know how a squad that is made up of "barely" any good players / mostly mediocre players (which is your opinion), has just won the league with a points total that has never ever been attained before in the ENTIRE HISTORY of English football.

Also, you do realise that you've gone from "City barely sign any good players" to saying that City have "7 very good players in their first team".

I suspect, a couple of more posts further into our little discussion, that number will increase for you...

comment by KLS (U1695)
posted 9 minutes ago
€30m on Shaun Wright Phillips

£22m on Damian duff.

There wasn’t the money in the game then that there is now. Chelsea did the same thing then that city are doing now!


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair money for duff. Look at the sheer amount of players city have overpaid for. Mangala, Stones, Sterling, Walker, Jovetic, Otamendi...

Man City’s squad is mostly average players. You won the league because of the good ones (De Bruyne and Silva mostly)

Walker, Delph, Stones, Otamendi, Mendy, Sterling, Gabriel all pretty average to ok players

So how does a squad of mostly average players...

win the league
set the record for most wins in a season
set the record for most consecutive wins
set the record for most points
set the record for biggest title-winning margin
set the record for most goals scored in a season
set the record for most away wins
set the record for best goal difference

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 5 minutes ago
So how does a squad of mostly average players...

win the league
set the record for most wins in a season
set the record for most consecutive wins
set the record for most points
set the record for biggest title-winning margin
set the record for most goals scored in a season
set the record for most away wins
set the record for best goal difference


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because a group of some very good players and a lot of not very good players ended up making a good team when led by a very good manager.

So why hasn't, say, Ferguson or Mourinho, who, unlike City's current squad, have had a group of very good players and not that many not very good players ever achieved such records?