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.
=============
Tbh, that’s not even debatable in my mind. Even the harshest critics of City would surely concede that the investments made have been sensible and strategically aligned.
I think that’s why many posters are mentioning Pep. City have (1) owners who know what they want and (2) are prepared to financially back their vision. They also have (3) the manager to deliver that vision on a pitch. In the context of who might catch you, only one of those three looks like changing.
Mancini had a far better squad than SAF
=====
Let me stop you there.
How the fack did that happen? Was it not purely down to money and money alone?
That's why I don't buy this "its not money alone" narrative.
City had won fack all at that time but were beating big and rich clubs to sign the best players. United had built their wealth over more than two decades.
What did they have to attract except money?
Don't forget that that was the same period where City's entire revenue as a football club was not enough to pay their wage bill alone, leave alone running expenses, insurance and all the other costs that come with running a club.
That continued for three years in a row, during which period they still managed to spend a few hundred million on new players.
Its almost a joke and you have to laugh at attempts to sanitise that and keep saying "its not just the money". They think we're stupid.
As time goes on City need less and less money from outside sources but you can't say that their current position isn't entirely and purely down to money. Its 100 percent because of money.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 10 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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question that in addition to the money City have got everything else right from the commercial side of things, to management choices and surprisingly giving young players chances despite the expensive squad.
Until Pep, City were just another Chelsea. They'd get trophies regularly but they were never far from a drop in form. Pep has made all the difference being one of the best managers around. He is dominating just like he did everywhere else, and when you have someone like him the recruitment isn't as important.
If you look at the Tranny thread there have been discussions about finances on there.
Our wage bill is bursting at the seams as it is, yet we are nowhere near City. City just signed a new sponsor, another company linked to their owner
If you went to Liverpool today and told Klopp and the team not to worry about wage bills or player fees, to just play football then within 2 or 3 years Liverpool would be wiping the floor with the rest of the league.
Liverpool are hamstrung and constrained by having to follow the rules and balance the books so you can't say its not down to money. Liverpool managing a title win and CL win are probably some of the most amazing achievements in modern football.
I reckon when Newcastle start signing the best players and the best managers, doctors, physios etc and winning the league every year people will say "its not just the money" when it clearly is.
I appreciate that Newcastle must make the right decisions but they will be in that position where they have to make good decisions because of the money.
The money comes first, and then enables everything else. Without the money, none of what follows would be possible. So its all about the money.
Makes perfect sense to me.
I didn’t think chelsea would win it but I do think our injuries have played a huge part in why city are so far clear. I think we’d be very close had we not had so many injuries to key players this year. And that’s with a fumbling front line.
Gotta say didn’t think that much of City last time we played them…..
#justsayin…..
comment by Assassin Baby (U1282)
posted 31 minutes ago
Mancini had a far better squad than SAF
=====
Let me stop you there.
How the fack did that happen? Was it not purely down to money and money alone?
That's why I don't buy this "its not money alone" narrative.
City had won fack all at that time but were beating big and rich clubs to sign the best players. United had built their wealth over more than two decades.
What did they have to attract except money?
Don't forget that that was the same period where City's entire revenue as a football club was not enough to pay their wage bill alone, leave alone running expenses, insurance and all the other costs that come with running a club.
That continued for three years in a row, during which period they still managed to spend a few hundred million on new players.
Its almost a joke and you have to laugh at attempts to sanitise that and keep saying "its not just the money". They think we're stupid.
As time goes on City need less and less money from outside sources but you can't say that their current position isn't entirely and purely down to money. Its 100 percent because of money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you wrote in your post is a point worthy of discussion
Everything you wrote in your post about United all fell apart the moment Ferguson left.
United relied on Ferguson.
United didn’t have a plan after his departure
United fell apart after Ferguson left.
United at that time were one of the most successful clubs and (for a long time) have been one of the most richest clubs.
If it was all down to money, then how, exactly, do you account for United’s demise from a club that won every other title to a club that is now struggling to compete?
If it’s about money, then I would say that it is all about having the money to be able to compete with the clubs that already had the money.
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.
I like the article but I also think it does matter how much is spent.
Money only goes so far.
If you did what we did and give control to Cardiff City's worst ever manager you get £130m on AVB and Maguire.
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.
Ripleys - always like you - a good honest sensible poster - also well jell of your moniker!!
But honestly, give Pep £70M and stick him in charge of Huddersfield or Barnsley? Really think he’d get them up there in a decade or so?? It’s not about the amount, it’s about how you spend it, apparently…..
Pep’s history -Barca, Bayern and City???
Really?? 3 best sides in their respective leagues? The man’s never faced a “proper” challenge.
Let’s see him move to Everton now, who have a history of £500M these last 7 years and see how they do.
And City having spent £2B or so in a decade? Sure the country’s top side currently, but honestly, you would (probably) still be a yo-yo side without that investment.
And only one Euro final and trophy (1960s) in your history.
From Wiki …
“After losing the 1981 FA Cup Final, the club went through a period of decline, culminating in relegation to the third tier of English football for the only time in its history in 1998. They since regained promotion to the top tier in 2001–02 and have remained a fixture in the Premier League since 2002–03.”
Best part of 25 years in the doldrums until a lottery win…
I think that ,especially this year, Pep and the players will really want to make a statement in the C/L.
Consequently, the pressure will be huge, and the further they progress, this pressure will increase !
Certainly with (seemingly) the P/L wrapped up, they should be able to withstand the over expectation, we shall have to wait and see.
They will have to beware Chelsea and Liverpool in my opinion ,for obvious reasons.
comment by The Mighty Tottenham Hotspur. (U7858)
posted 20 minutes ago
Ripleys - always like you - a good honest sensible poster - also well jell of your moniker!!
But honestly, give Pep £70M and stick him in charge of Huddersfield or Barnsley? Really think he’d get them up there in a decade or so?? It’s not about the amount, it’s about how you spend it, apparently…..
Pep’s history -Barca, Bayern and City???
Really?? 3 best sides in their respective leagues? The man’s never faced a “proper” challenge.
Let’s see him move to Everton now, who have a history of £500M these last 7 years and see how they do.
And City having spent £2B or so in a decade? Sure the country’s top side currently, but honestly, you would (probably) still be a yo-yo side without that investment.
And only one Euro final and trophy (1960s) in your history.
From Wiki …
“After losing the 1981 FA Cup Final, the club went through a period of decline, culminating in relegation to the third tier of English football for the only time in its history in 1998. They since regained promotion to the top tier in 2001–02 and have remained a fixture in the Premier League since 2002–03.”
Best part of 25 years in the doldrums until a lottery win…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The last time we didn’t have an owner asset stripping us, we weren’t a yo-yo club. I get the point we wouldn’t be where we are now without the investment and ownership we’ve had. People seem very happy to forget the reasons we were where we we previously at times too though, which was ultimately down to the exact same root cause - ownership.
To echo what Melton said.
People often take this to the extreme. The amount of times I’ve read, on this site alone ,that City would now be at their true level - the third tier - without investment. It’s just a ridiculous comment (one year of our entire history we spent at that level (it clearly is not our level at all).
To be fair Mighty Tottenham, your comment is just an extension of that kind of comment.
It’s a what if based on a what was, and even the “what was” is a skewed perspective.
Another question - why would pep go to a club like Everton? I’ve never understood this kind of comment. No one who is good in their job - whatever that job is - moves down when they’ve proven themselves more than capable at working at the higher level.
It’s a just stupid comment that is seemingly intent on downplaying what someone has achieved at the top level.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 6 minutes ago
To echo what Melton said.
People often take this to the extreme. The amount of times I’ve read, on this site alone ,that City would now be at their true level - the third tier - without investment. It’s just a ridiculous comment (one year of our entire history we spent at that level (it clearly is not our level at all).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone says that then I think you can safely say they're trying to wum. Without checking I would guess that City have spent at least 75% of their history in the top division.
However, the narrative was fed by media a little. When City first got taken over you often got the 'rags to riches' story trotted out and how it was only X years since they were in division 2. Not surprising it stuck with some people.
Just on the OP, on the pitch, there will be a leveller when Pep leaves. There’s a point where regardless of the money, ultimately it’s down to the players and the coach and that’s a finite amount. Chelsea, United and Liverpool are all capable of having squads or a coach good enough to challenge (as has been shown already).
Off the pitch, it’s going to take a few years for any of them. Whilst all the focus has been on dodgy deals and ffp, they missed the trick or doing something similar to the CFG model that we’ve got in place. There’s a reason Mansour has been able to recoup a lot of his money already through outside global investment.
comment by Naby8 (U6997)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 6 minutes ago
To echo what Melton said.
People often take this to the extreme. The amount of times I’ve read, on this site alone ,that City would now be at their true level - the third tier - without investment. It’s just a ridiculous comment (one year of our entire history we spent at that level (it clearly is not our level at all).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone says that then I think you can safely say they're trying to wum. Without checking I would guess that City have spent at least 75% of their history in the top division.
However, the narrative was fed by media a little. When City first got taken over you often got the 'rags to riches' story trotted out and how it was only X years since they were in division 2. Not surprising it stuck with some people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Particularly when people tend to focus a lot more on recent history and what’s happened in their lifetime too. Depressingly, 1981 is forty years ago now!
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 5 minutes ago
Another question - why would pep go to a club like Everton? I’ve never understood this kind of comment. No one who is good in their job - whatever that job is - moves down when they’ve proven themselves more than capable at working at the higher level.
It’s a just stupid comment that is seemingly intent on downplaying what someone has achieved at the top level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I agree, but I also doubt they could pay a manager £20m a year.
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 5 minutes ago
Another question - why would pep go to a club like Everton? I’ve never understood this kind of comment. No one who is good in their job - whatever that job is - moves down when they’ve proven themselves more than capable at working at the higher level.
It’s a just stupid comment that is seemingly intent on downplaying what someone has achieved at the top level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I agree, but I also doubt they could pay a manager £20m a year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially not now. I bet it cost them a fair bit to get Ancelotti though.
The same media that during (and after) the one sole season we spent in the third tier were all too quick to label the large attendances.
You’re right. Its just a wum, but people pick and choose what they want to run with.
Now with have no fans and we play at the Emptyhad.
You’ll know this all too well. When at the top, people will choose to cling to whatever they can l to try and bring someone else down.
The difference between Man City spending and Everton spending is that City can afford not to gamble. They are buying from the guaranteed proven grade A pool of peak players and can lay down the salaries necessary. Those players are not going to go to Everton at the moment.
It's easier for City to make more good buys than bad.
Sign in if you want to comment
Who can catch us
Page 2 of 4
posted on 17/1/22
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.
=============
Tbh, that’s not even debatable in my mind. Even the harshest critics of City would surely concede that the investments made have been sensible and strategically aligned.
I think that’s why many posters are mentioning Pep. City have (1) owners who know what they want and (2) are prepared to financially back their vision. They also have (3) the manager to deliver that vision on a pitch. In the context of who might catch you, only one of those three looks like changing.
posted on 17/1/22
Mancini had a far better squad than SAF
=====
Let me stop you there.
How the fack did that happen? Was it not purely down to money and money alone?
That's why I don't buy this "its not money alone" narrative.
City had won fack all at that time but were beating big and rich clubs to sign the best players. United had built their wealth over more than two decades.
What did they have to attract except money?
Don't forget that that was the same period where City's entire revenue as a football club was not enough to pay their wage bill alone, leave alone running expenses, insurance and all the other costs that come with running a club.
That continued for three years in a row, during which period they still managed to spend a few hundred million on new players.
Its almost a joke and you have to laugh at attempts to sanitise that and keep saying "its not just the money". They think we're stupid.
As time goes on City need less and less money from outside sources but you can't say that their current position isn't entirely and purely down to money. Its 100 percent because of money.
posted on 17/1/22
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 10 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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question that in addition to the money City have got everything else right from the commercial side of things, to management choices and surprisingly giving young players chances despite the expensive squad.
posted on 17/1/22
Until Pep, City were just another Chelsea. They'd get trophies regularly but they were never far from a drop in form. Pep has made all the difference being one of the best managers around. He is dominating just like he did everywhere else, and when you have someone like him the recruitment isn't as important.
posted on 17/1/22
If you look at the Tranny thread there have been discussions about finances on there.
Our wage bill is bursting at the seams as it is, yet we are nowhere near City. City just signed a new sponsor, another company linked to their owner
If you went to Liverpool today and told Klopp and the team not to worry about wage bills or player fees, to just play football then within 2 or 3 years Liverpool would be wiping the floor with the rest of the league.
Liverpool are hamstrung and constrained by having to follow the rules and balance the books so you can't say its not down to money. Liverpool managing a title win and CL win are probably some of the most amazing achievements in modern football.
posted on 17/1/22
I reckon when Newcastle start signing the best players and the best managers, doctors, physios etc and winning the league every year people will say "its not just the money" when it clearly is.
I appreciate that Newcastle must make the right decisions but they will be in that position where they have to make good decisions because of the money.
The money comes first, and then enables everything else. Without the money, none of what follows would be possible. So its all about the money.
Makes perfect sense to me.
posted on 17/1/22
I didn’t think chelsea would win it but I do think our injuries have played a huge part in why city are so far clear. I think we’d be very close had we not had so many injuries to key players this year. And that’s with a fumbling front line.
posted on 17/1/22
Gotta say didn’t think that much of City last time we played them…..
#justsayin…..
posted on 17/1/22
comment by Assassin Baby (U1282)
posted 31 minutes ago
Mancini had a far better squad than SAF
=====
Let me stop you there.
How the fack did that happen? Was it not purely down to money and money alone?
That's why I don't buy this "its not money alone" narrative.
City had won fack all at that time but were beating big and rich clubs to sign the best players. United had built their wealth over more than two decades.
What did they have to attract except money?
Don't forget that that was the same period where City's entire revenue as a football club was not enough to pay their wage bill alone, leave alone running expenses, insurance and all the other costs that come with running a club.
That continued for three years in a row, during which period they still managed to spend a few hundred million on new players.
Its almost a joke and you have to laugh at attempts to sanitise that and keep saying "its not just the money". They think we're stupid.
As time goes on City need less and less money from outside sources but you can't say that their current position isn't entirely and purely down to money. Its 100 percent because of money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you wrote in your post is a point worthy of discussion
Everything you wrote in your post about United all fell apart the moment Ferguson left.
United relied on Ferguson.
United didn’t have a plan after his departure
United fell apart after Ferguson left.
United at that time were one of the most successful clubs and (for a long time) have been one of the most richest clubs.
If it was all down to money, then how, exactly, do you account for United’s demise from a club that won every other title to a club that is now struggling to compete?
If it’s about money, then I would say that it is all about having the money to be able to compete with the clubs that already had the money.
posted on 17/1/22
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.
posted on 17/1/22
I like the article but I also think it does matter how much is spent.
posted on 17/1/22
Money only goes so far.
If you did what we did and give control to Cardiff City's worst ever manager you get £130m on AVB and Maguire.
posted on 17/1/22
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.
posted on 17/1/22
Ripleys - always like you - a good honest sensible poster - also well jell of your moniker!!
But honestly, give Pep £70M and stick him in charge of Huddersfield or Barnsley? Really think he’d get them up there in a decade or so?? It’s not about the amount, it’s about how you spend it, apparently…..
Pep’s history -Barca, Bayern and City???
Really?? 3 best sides in their respective leagues? The man’s never faced a “proper” challenge.
Let’s see him move to Everton now, who have a history of £500M these last 7 years and see how they do.
And City having spent £2B or so in a decade? Sure the country’s top side currently, but honestly, you would (probably) still be a yo-yo side without that investment.
And only one Euro final and trophy (1960s) in your history.
From Wiki …
“After losing the 1981 FA Cup Final, the club went through a period of decline, culminating in relegation to the third tier of English football for the only time in its history in 1998. They since regained promotion to the top tier in 2001–02 and have remained a fixture in the Premier League since 2002–03.”
Best part of 25 years in the doldrums until a lottery win…
posted on 17/1/22
I think that ,especially this year, Pep and the players will really want to make a statement in the C/L.
Consequently, the pressure will be huge, and the further they progress, this pressure will increase !
Certainly with (seemingly) the P/L wrapped up, they should be able to withstand the over expectation, we shall have to wait and see.
They will have to beware Chelsea and Liverpool in my opinion ,for obvious reasons.
posted on 17/1/22
comment by The Mighty Tottenham Hotspur. (U7858)
posted 20 minutes ago
Ripleys - always like you - a good honest sensible poster - also well jell of your moniker!!
But honestly, give Pep £70M and stick him in charge of Huddersfield or Barnsley? Really think he’d get them up there in a decade or so?? It’s not about the amount, it’s about how you spend it, apparently…..
Pep’s history -Barca, Bayern and City???
Really?? 3 best sides in their respective leagues? The man’s never faced a “proper” challenge.
Let’s see him move to Everton now, who have a history of £500M these last 7 years and see how they do.
And City having spent £2B or so in a decade? Sure the country’s top side currently, but honestly, you would (probably) still be a yo-yo side without that investment.
And only one Euro final and trophy (1960s) in your history.
From Wiki …
“After losing the 1981 FA Cup Final, the club went through a period of decline, culminating in relegation to the third tier of English football for the only time in its history in 1998. They since regained promotion to the top tier in 2001–02 and have remained a fixture in the Premier League since 2002–03.”
Best part of 25 years in the doldrums until a lottery win…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The last time we didn’t have an owner asset stripping us, we weren’t a yo-yo club. I get the point we wouldn’t be where we are now without the investment and ownership we’ve had. People seem very happy to forget the reasons we were where we we previously at times too though, which was ultimately down to the exact same root cause - ownership.
posted on 17/1/22
To echo what Melton said.
People often take this to the extreme. The amount of times I’ve read, on this site alone ,that City would now be at their true level - the third tier - without investment. It’s just a ridiculous comment (one year of our entire history we spent at that level (it clearly is not our level at all).
To be fair Mighty Tottenham, your comment is just an extension of that kind of comment.
It’s a what if based on a what was, and even the “what was” is a skewed perspective.
posted on 17/1/22
Another question - why would pep go to a club like Everton? I’ve never understood this kind of comment. No one who is good in their job - whatever that job is - moves down when they’ve proven themselves more than capable at working at the higher level.
It’s a just stupid comment that is seemingly intent on downplaying what someone has achieved at the top level.
posted on 17/1/22
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 6 minutes ago
To echo what Melton said.
People often take this to the extreme. The amount of times I’ve read, on this site alone ,that City would now be at their true level - the third tier - without investment. It’s just a ridiculous comment (one year of our entire history we spent at that level (it clearly is not our level at all).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone says that then I think you can safely say they're trying to wum. Without checking I would guess that City have spent at least 75% of their history in the top division.
However, the narrative was fed by media a little. When City first got taken over you often got the 'rags to riches' story trotted out and how it was only X years since they were in division 2. Not surprising it stuck with some people.
posted on 17/1/22
Just on the OP, on the pitch, there will be a leveller when Pep leaves. There’s a point where regardless of the money, ultimately it’s down to the players and the coach and that’s a finite amount. Chelsea, United and Liverpool are all capable of having squads or a coach good enough to challenge (as has been shown already).
Off the pitch, it’s going to take a few years for any of them. Whilst all the focus has been on dodgy deals and ffp, they missed the trick or doing something similar to the CFG model that we’ve got in place. There’s a reason Mansour has been able to recoup a lot of his money already through outside global investment.
posted on 17/1/22
comment by Naby8 (U6997)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 6 minutes ago
To echo what Melton said.
People often take this to the extreme. The amount of times I’ve read, on this site alone ,that City would now be at their true level - the third tier - without investment. It’s just a ridiculous comment (one year of our entire history we spent at that level (it clearly is not our level at all).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone says that then I think you can safely say they're trying to wum. Without checking I would guess that City have spent at least 75% of their history in the top division.
However, the narrative was fed by media a little. When City first got taken over you often got the 'rags to riches' story trotted out and how it was only X years since they were in division 2. Not surprising it stuck with some people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Particularly when people tend to focus a lot more on recent history and what’s happened in their lifetime too. Depressingly, 1981 is forty years ago now!
posted on 17/1/22
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 5 minutes ago
Another question - why would pep go to a club like Everton? I’ve never understood this kind of comment. No one who is good in their job - whatever that job is - moves down when they’ve proven themselves more than capable at working at the higher level.
It’s a just stupid comment that is seemingly intent on downplaying what someone has achieved at the top level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I agree, but I also doubt they could pay a manager £20m a year.
posted on 17/1/22
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 5 minutes ago
Another question - why would pep go to a club like Everton? I’ve never understood this kind of comment. No one who is good in their job - whatever that job is - moves down when they’ve proven themselves more than capable at working at the higher level.
It’s a just stupid comment that is seemingly intent on downplaying what someone has achieved at the top level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I agree, but I also doubt they could pay a manager £20m a year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially not now. I bet it cost them a fair bit to get Ancelotti though.
posted on 17/1/22
The same media that during (and after) the one sole season we spent in the third tier were all too quick to label the large attendances.
You’re right. Its just a wum, but people pick and choose what they want to run with.
Now with have no fans and we play at the Emptyhad.
You’ll know this all too well. When at the top, people will choose to cling to whatever they can l to try and bring someone else down.
posted on 17/1/22
The difference between Man City spending and Everton spending is that City can afford not to gamble. They are buying from the guaranteed proven grade A pool of peak players and can lay down the salaries necessary. Those players are not going to go to Everton at the moment.
It's easier for City to make more good buys than bad.
Page 2 of 4