For someone who doesn't care you seem ever so fond of copy and pasting the same highly selective transfer statistics in a vain effort to compare United's spending to city. As soon as someone points out how selective it is, or how city didn't earn any of their money suddenly its "I don't care" The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
You still don't get it do you The money we spent on the likes of Rio Ferdinand and Veron was EARNT. The money you've spent on players has been given to you, you haven't earnt a penny of it. If Man City end up winning the title and you claim it's a great achievment then you are seriously ****ing deluded. Any club in the World who is bought out by a multi billionaire and has billions thrown at them is going to win the title eventually. That is not an achievment, it won't have been earnt and it won't be deserved.
Ah come on mate, doesn't it make you just a little bit happy that they're top of the league undefeated and yet some of their fans still come crawling around desperately trying to get any of us to notice and care about them? Don't get me wrong, some City fans have taken their newfound wealth very graciously. But some are still showing the pain and bitterness of half a century in our shadow
but how is it fair that the current incumbant top 4 will keep the champions league money, spend it, stay there and keep spending it and staying there, preventing any other club from having any hope of breaking into that established champions league places, let alone challenging for the league. take away man city's money and it would just be arsenal liverpool man u and chelsea year in year out, now you can say those clubs are earning their money they spend (apart from chelsea) but if you had your way the PL would be SPL esque, and i'd probably cancel my sky sports subscription, which helps fund every PL clubs obscene (apart from a select few clubs, like blackpool when they were there etc) spending. sure, every few years you'll get a spurs or everton sneaking a 4th place but then again if man city are accused of 'buying the league' its the ONLY way that a club outside the top 4 can ever break up the monopoly, and though i hate seeing crap players like bridge being on massive money, its good to see a team finally shaking up the pack
For the sake of football I think we should go back to the days when Utd and Arse were assured of the top two spots, it was so much more exciting then for other teams supporters, along with the knowledge that the EPL was being represented by the only 2 sides who could guarantee prolonged success in the CL! Can't you see you F-----g idiot it's always been about money, do you think AC Milan and Real Madrid have won all those Euro Cups without being the richest at that time? and don't tell me they earned it, that will really piss me off you Dickhead. To conclude this is just a moment in time and it happens to be ours, still no guarantee to win anything, but rest assured someone will come along and buy another club, prob utd the irony, and things will change again. You may be happy with your Mega Rich owners not investing, it's only been 7 years since you won something wait till it's 35 and you may change your opinion or probably be supporting another team by then.
How fair is it that the only way a club can possibly challenge the top four is to be bought by billionaires? At least Everton used to be able to dream of getting a top four finish with wise investment and shrewd management. Now they are for sale to the next bored billionaire, as they just can't be run sustainably any more now Chelsea and City have jacked the transfer fees up so much that decent squad players now cost around £10 million. City have cracked the pseudo monopoly at the top, but in doing so they have made it that much harder for anyone else to aspire to do the same, and pushed even more clubs into financial difficulties trying to stay competitive. And if City keep spending as they are doing they will not shake things up, they will just dominate, year in year out, winning the league every year, sucking up players from every club with no one else getting near. It will be like Utd's dominance of the last twenty years, but twice as uncompetitive. How will that be good for the excitement of the league?
I'll tell you in 20 years, glad you have admitted it's not been competitive for the last 20, perhaps it's fear your feeling!
Its hard to find words for such astounding levels of stupidity. Im going to settle for "window licker".
Who are using the bank's money? This should be good It has been competitive for the past 20 years, barring 2000 and 2001, and 2004-2006 when Arsenal and Chelsea were dominant. Pretty much every title has been competitively contested over the past 20 years, and Utd have rarely strolled to the title. The fact City never stood a chance didn't mean other clubs, including Blackburn, Newcastle and Leeds, weren't able to have a crack as well. In fact, the top four only really got uncompetitive and predictable when Abramovich bought Chelsea, inflated wages, and made finances much more critical in determining the top four. The whole league was certainly more competitive that it will be if City are allowed to buy players just to stop other clubs having them.
Spurs and Everton cracked the top four without spending obscene amounts of someone elses money. Chelsea were already established in the top four before they were bankrolled by Abramovich. City are the only side in English football to buy their way from midtable obscurity to the top of the league using money they have not earned.
They used the banks' money to buy the club and are paying it back. They are not using the banks' money to buy players or pay for wages.
what part of 'sure every few years' do you not understand? they are the exeptions, and tottenham were only there because the then owners of liverpool pulled the plug in terms of putting money into the team, that wont happen at arsenal, chelsea man u etc. chelsea were hovering around 4th-5th place werent they, i remember newcastle being 4th at one point. both man city and chelsea are doing the same, thing, though you believe that because chelsea were 5th instead of say, 10th, it makes it more acceptable for them to 'buy the league'. in my opinion if you get an arab sheikh injecting money you've 'bought the title' whether you are 4th or 14th prior to the investment. are man united actually reducing the debt? or are they just paying back the £50m or so in interest to simply keep the debt at a constant level? anyway, who are man united to preach about owners and money when they have probably along with the previous liverpool owners the epitome of what every fan fears in a foreign owner?
The debt has reduced is now between £300m and £500m. This isn't about foreign owners, it's about clubs who spend beyond their means and spend money that isn't theirs and that they haven't earnt.
