I don't think I said any of that I used us as an example (mainly cause its the most recent). However I could have easily used ManU or Chelsea who have also won titles during the 'City era'. Both ManU and Chelsea's only answer to challenging City (and future Newcastle) is to spend big and as of now it hasn't worked out. Thus I asked how do CLUBS (not just Liverpool) keep up with the Footballing Jones other than just spending, which most can't afford to keep up with. Are you advocating that the title is shared by City and Newcastle for the foreseeable with the occasional other winning a title every 5-10years when one of them can get their team right and luck out that the previously mentioned two have an off season? (That's looking forward not backwards)
Truth hurts. Your fanbase whinges and cries and whinges and cries and that's all you do much like your current manager.
It's not a different mindset though, we should always strive to beat whatever is front of us and that will always be the case too. However, what is different is your acceptance to cheating.
We bought RVP for £20m so how exactly did we spend big to overcome City after their first league title? As I've said countless times on here, it's not just about spending but also about the manager. United have failed since our last league title because of poor management. Thus proving as you've also inadvertently highlighted that spending isn't "all you can do". I really don't see how you've got me advocating the title being shared by City and Newcastle with occasional other winning title every 5-10 yrs, from anything I've said. How did you come to that conclusion? It really is a strange mentality you lot have. In terms of football dominance, the challenge is no different to anything we've seen in the past. Clubs dominate until others improve enough and then someone else takes over. What you've just posted was being said of the dominance of Liverpool in the 80's, United of the 90's. The only difference being our clubs built something from the ground up and made our earning from our success. But once we got there, others felt like me were immoveable. We weren't, and neither will City be.
How is anything I've posted to acceptance to cheating? Is it bcos I'm not crying about it on here like you? Is that how you prove you don't accept cheating?
And how does anything I posted show me accepting their cheating? I posted my thoughts on City and you quoted me, remember?
We get it mate, teams should try harder, accept the cheating and bow in acknowledgement of Man Utd's achievements after spending £2b on players over the next few years You accused me of sounding like Diego before continually doing circles. Have fun
A: First title, so before they'd established themselves like now B: Look at your spending since, in vain attempt to keep up. You claim teams can build and overcome City or Newcastle, however said teams will need to maintain their teams in order to maintain the challenge for more than 1 or 2 seasons. Only way to do that would be to spend alot every season, which as you've not disputed is impossible to do year on year for almost all the rest of the league. Which would would mean that while teams are attempting to build, City and Newcastle would be cleaning up and already be in position to see off most challengers, thus 5-10 years between most being able to break the dominance. (this is not a hard and fast 5-10) In the past no club had the spending power of a monarch of a oil rich nation. The circumstances are definitely different Also I'm done, I've put my point across.
So the Diego comment got to you Don't worry about trying harder mate, Klopp stepped up and you finish 2nd so you lot just carry on crying
Some honest arguments you've raised but I think you're choosing to read some of what I post whilst ignoring things that are important to what I'm saying. Namely the manager being a key factor in everything. You've mentioned our spending since our last league title and how it's been in vain. And as I've said, all you've highlighted there is that spending is not the be all and end all. There are so many variables that I just don't see it as one way or as simple as you do. City (with all their spending) + any other manager, probably wouldn't have stopped Liverpool winning more league titles. Klopp's come very close, and ignoring a couple of signings he didn't spend megamoney to achieve what he has at Livpl prior to this season. He may not have managed to overcome City for a sustained period but that's not to say he won't in the future. He'll still attract top players and great prospects who will want to play for him because they've seen what he can do, and if he picks players to come to Liverpool they know he'll turn them into top performers and challenging for silverware. I'm hopeful after the debacle of Ole, and seeing what Ten Hag is doing at ours and the type of players he's bringing in, the football we've shown glimpses of in his first season, that he can do the same. City (with all their spending) + Pep is no guarantee that they'll continue to do the same. And there's no reason Klopp or Ten Hag or Pochettino or even Arteta can't get the better of him. But even if that doesn't happen, Pep won't be there forever. And then City with all their spending (+ new guy) could be just another club spending big but achieving little. So this whole 5-10 year conclusion you're drawing, I just don't see it because football isn't that straightforward. As for the oil rich monarch, the likes of Abramovich had never been seen before, United dominating before them hadn't been seen before, Liverpool dominating before that hadn't been seen before. Every time something new comes along that hasn't been seen before, it has its moment and then it's all change again. The funny thing is that Abramovich's Chelsea were overcome, and unsurprisingly it happened because they hired managers who were ****, regardless of how much they spent, so we have precedent here already. I don't have to like the way City go about their business, much like I didn't like the way Chelsea do or have done, but we had a manager who saw it as a challenge to overcome and the only way you can do that is improve yourself. And I buy into that. That's my mindset. Seriously, wtf is the alternative? Waiting for the PL or FA to do something about it while we all cry about it in the meantime lol. Good luck with that, you'll be waiting a lot longer than 5-10 years for that I can tell you.
City are an incredible team. They’ve spent incredible money to make that team. But as chelsea show, throwing money at things doesn’t guarantee success, it just really really helps. There’s no denying pep is a brilliant manager when he’s given the funds and players to implement his style. Now, could he get a bunch of mid table players to exceed their ability and get top 4? We’ll never know, he’ll never need to because he’ll always get the top jobs. Stick lampard in the hot seat they don’t win the treble. Stick pep into villas team, they prob don’t finish 7th. If and when pep goes, I think it’ll be like when wenger/Ferguson goes (same for klopp). Next person has an almost impossible job and I don’t think they’ll be as dominant as they are now. However much like united in the 90s and esrly 00’s and then Chelsea under Jose, no team in the prem can go and win the title for 15 seasons in a row like Scotland/Germany/France because there is too much competition. City may well win the next few and it’s up to other clubs to do their hardest to stop them. Will city go 3/4 years without a title win while pep is there? Most likely no. Coukd luverpool United chelsea go that long? Absolutely. But more than likely city will have a slight off season some point (they had one when we won it - partly because we were so good that when they dropped so far behind they almost gave up) and that’s when another team needs to be ready to take advantage. Think likely to see city win 2/3 or 3/4 titles with another team picking up one in those years for the foreseeable future. edit - let’s also Remmeber that had arsenal not bottled it, they’d have won the league this year.
no they woudn't have. The second arsenal lost to city at home (and the better team won) that was that. city were never losing and they could afford to take the foot off the gas city coudl easily have gotten 5 more points over the last two games. that'd be a 10 point swing Arsenal lost to forest knowing the tile was gone, a sulky 0-1. I'd give them that one if the title race was on. draw to west ham, draw to southampton and loss to brighton. I make that another 7 points so AT BEST arsenal could have been level with city and raced them to the end IMO. City laways had the GD to do for them. The simple fact is arsenal recrod all year defensively was not brilliant esp against the top 6 so city winning the two games v arsenal won them the title. As for the rest. Nobody is denying nor acknowledging city's manager nor players as to even discuss that ignores the rampant cheating and corruption at play. I won't give city a complement on hiring and paying the worlds best manager under the table to doge tax and FFP. I can state yes guardiola is a top top manager thats been a top manager at barca and bayern before this so its no shock he applies standard but that doesn't change the fact of whats going on. the current rules are a bad compromise between no rules at all and an equal playing field for all thats not possible to achieve without massively strict rules. City have consistently cheated and doped to get round any rules applied. its just that simple. If we allow no rules at all and just say fire on and buy anything you like and run at any loss you like city would then stop cheating but the game would be no better as their spending would simply be more out in the open and guardiola would end up paying more tax. This would not help smaller clubs one iota. the current rules don't help smaller clubs as they cannot aspire to improve and win anything and it doesn't stop the rampant fee inflation or agents blood sucking. Having the rules is meant to stop clubs going under if they have bad footballing results. that's the sum total of thier intent. Smaller clubs claim they are to keep the elite elite and thats complete short sighted view. Having really stringent rules stopping player transfers won't help smaller clubs either as a few might improve as they are not destroyed but the vast majority of small clubs depend on fees as they simply don't have the fans to pay the wages. And thats no different today as it was 30 years ago.
Arsenal would have won the league if they hadn't bottled it just see the 3 games prior to the Man City game .
but not the first city game. the first city game at the Emirates was the trigger. the second city were given that hope they were going to win every game. After that loss arsenal beat villa, Leicester, eveverton, bournemouth, Fulham, Palace and Leeds but were under the city gun. the 2-2 v lfc at anfield then occurred. again if arsenal didn't lose to city away they would still be in prime position.
