I'm not a big Mark Hughes fan, and the game's not over, but the team that so dreadfully treated Hughes three years ago is about to feel his vengeance, if things stand as they are.
Not sure what I wanted more. QPR to go down or City to win the league. Disappointed QPR stayed up but City have deserved it over the course of the season. What an incredible finish.
Sounds like Bolton had two dubious goals against, balanced by two freak goals for. Ultimately,though, Bolton weren't good enough to stay up. Sadly.
Incredible finish, but ultimately the worst results for me. I wanted QPR down and United to win the league (if that was possible). At least Everton finished above Liverpool, taht made me smile.
Bidley ... I'm with you. I was hoping Bolton would stay up and, for reasons I can't explain, was hoping Man City wouldn't win the league. For the first year in many, Man U get's no silverware.
How can any neutral have wanted united to win the league? When it comes to football I have forever maintained 3 words in the back of my mind 'ANYONE BUT UNITED!!' So happy city won, would've have been even better if that had sent down sparky as well.
Bolton have only themselves to blame, they were winning against WBA and let it slip. They gave themselves too much to do on the last day, and let QPR have the lifeline, if they drew against Stoke it wouldn't be enough. I wanted Man City to win the Premier, as I for one was glad that they broke the monopoly of the Man Utd and Chelsea and the other 3 or 4 top teams, who will now find that to compete with the City cash, they will have to stretch themselves financially to get the Euro places they so need. But of course give 3 or 4 years everyone (including myself) will be wanting City to fail.
I am waiting for the day, when the premiership fans are saying it would be nice if someone other than Fulham kept winning.
If you go on QPR forums someone said on there that MH is a legend and he got his tactics spot on. They lost 3-2 and only in the PL because Bolton didn't win. Now tell me how can he get his tactics spot on if they lost?
Once there was a time when I felt the same. What changed that for me was the many years when the title - even before Christmas - was clearly going to be between Chelsea and United. I had so many seasons of 'supporting' them for the title as the lesser of two evils, that I completely lost the ability to intrinsically dislike them.
By the alternative being a club who have quite literally bought the title. I know we did similar back in the lower leagues, and Chelsea did similar (even though they were thereabouts to start with), but the fact they've from being the dictionary definition of mediocrity to heavyweights in, what, 4/5 years? just spells out how football is these days. It's barely won on the pitch at all, but by money. And that makes me sad. Saying this though, hats off to Everton and David Moyes. No money to spend for the last couple of years but look at them. The difference between them and Liverpool is quite stark.
A fair point but I've gotta be honest I dislike United and Liverpool more than Chelsea, probably due to the number of people I grew up with in Surrey who supported them for no reason whatsoever. Delighted for city to get one over their rivals, though I dare say in 3 or 4 years I won't be all too fond of city.
Every club effetely buys the title. Everyone points the finger at City saying they bought it this year and at Chelsea before that, you can even go back to Blackburn 20 years ago. UTD have been doing it for years too. Look at the money Fergie has spent year on year. He’s spent over £100 Mill just maintaining his squad the last 3 and £200 Mill if you back 5 seasons. Of course City are going to have to spend big as they are starting from a lower position and have to get up to UTDs level what wrong with that? You have to buy the right plays through to build a team which is what City have done and what Fergie consistently does. Look at the money Liverpool spent this season you’d expect them to be top 4 but they haven’t bought the right players so they are not. You do get exceptions like Moyes at Everton and also Martinez at Wigan but unless you have the £££ to buy the best you’re not going to win the title.
But United's money has come from genuine success, they've been a top club for 20 years and their dominance came from a crop of youngsters who came through the ranks. City were fighting relegation 5 years ago (I think) and now they're the top club in England, purely because they've had money pumped into them from a rich owner and a very dodgey sponsorship deal. And City 'buying the right players'? They bought a hell of a lot of 'wrong ones' before they got to where they are. Bellamy, Santa Cruz, Adebayor to name £60million's worth alone! Simply buying all the players doing well and flogging off the few that fail is different than making sensible signings.
I do agree with TMH in that every club buys the title, but I think wages are more significant than transfer fees. Although some clubs - like Newcastle this year - beat the odds now and again, over time there is a very strong correlation between the size of the total wage bill and final league position. It's always been the case and it probably always will. We can argue over questions of scale, but the game is and always has been driven by money. The football league itself was formed because the professional clubs wanted the income generated by regular competitive fixtures, and were frustrated by the amateur FA's reluctance to provide for them. I take your point about signings, Bidley, but isn't that what most clubs do? If you're contrasting Silva, Aguero and Yaya Toure with Bellamy, Santa Cruz and Adebayor, you could just as easily say Roy's signings of Hangeland, Schwarzer and Duff contrast with Riise the younger, David Elm and that Swedish right back who was so bad I can't even remember his name (sorry, can't be bothered to look him up either). Granted, we paid a hell of a lot less for our flops, but all transfers are a gamble. Some of them won't work out. It's all just a matter of scale.
So, you'd say that both buying players to supplement your squad and buying a new squad (with the exception of Micah Richards and Joe Hart) are one and the same? If you can't see that Man City are doing anything different to anyone else, then more power to you. Roll on Financial Fair Play.
