You had money when others didn't - spent more and laid those foundations to be able to spend more over decades. City have just done it on a grander scale, and today's sums of money involved in the game are off the charts.
It's not so much the money but the fact City have 2 first teams as a squad. I don't think any club has ever been in this position, not Livpl, not United in their pomp. For any other club to compete that is unrealistic and an unsurmountable task. Now I appreciate that posters (like Fosse and others no disrespect to him or anyone) are making the argument to beat up on Livpl, but if you think it was bad enough back then, how do you feel about this now bcos the idea a club can buy and sell players on a whim and always maintain two high quality starting 11's may make things bloody hard for other so-called big clubs, but it absolutely shuts the door on yours.
I mean, it's completely rigged nowadays towards the top 6 - it's a piss take, but what City have done is spent their money more wisely than their competitors. Success breeds revenue perpetually moving forward and it's as you say, almost insurmountable. United, however, have spent as much as City, just very, very badly, and still due to the size of machine they are, find themselves in a position (of sorts) to address it. Utd should be competing with City, based on spend and starting point - even despite the Glazernomics. My point is that Liverpool, United, Arsenal and others for decades were allowed to spend what they wanted without any reigns whatsoever - this in the money rich PL era (and well before in the case of Liverpool) built their dynasty - which was just fine and dandy until someone else (Roman) turned up with more cash and upset the apple cart. That started the "Fair Play" movement - otherwise known as self protection of the top clubs. City increased the focus. This has permeated across Europe. The whole thing now is absolutely bent. Owners with ambition should be able to invest heavily, with guarantees and a plan to long term sustainability as just losing money hand over fist shouldn't be an option. The "big clubs" however, really don't want that. Instead of stopping City, this whole scenario has now hamstrung the pack to be able to catch up as they themselves haven't been as good at recruitment and development, and are now beginning to be hamstrung to a point with FFP.
^^^^^ This - the myth that the dominant Liverpool of the 80s somehow organically evolved from Wirral Boys Club FC is just that - a myth. Liverpool were able to cherry pick the very best British players every season due to the bang in their buck - these were players at the top of their game - not a gamble on youth - Dalglish, Beardsley, Souness, Houghton, Aldridge, Lawrensen, McMahon, Ray Kennedy, Gillespie and their ilk did not end up at Anfield due to the love of a bowl of scouse and a penchant for Gerry and the Pacemakers ...
Who, me? ... and I fully agree btw - whilst I may enjoy taking the piss out of the board's resident teenager (in a middle-aged decorator's bod) because he bleats and whines like a bitch the most - the bigger picture relates to how the Premier League can keep it's product competitive and exciting ... and hence my, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, comments about spending caps / some form of drafting system, on occasion ...
I'm not defending PSR, I think there's a good argument in what you and Fosse are saying, and there's probably better ways of having a fairer, level playing field. But as you've said there's more money in the game which means more clubs can compete. It doesn't matter that United are doing ****, in fact it enables clubs like yours, Spurs etc to compete at the higher level. Even if United got spending right we'll never have two starting 11's AND we'll certainly not be able to sell players who are still playing well to replace them with others on a whim which City have done and continue to do. So my point is that if you have more money in football, at various clubs, and that makes you more competitive, and you are able to close the gap with the likes of United and Livpl, which tbf is a positive, it does you no good to have City doing the things I've highlighted above. If you were unhappy with the diproprtionate advantage of 20/30/40 yrs ago then this is even bigger and I don't understand the animosity towards the historically successful big clubs but somehow the way City have taken it to the next level is ok. Think about every cup competition and succeeding in the league that this is hindering you in. Carabou Cup 3/4 in a row, league title 4 in a row, FA Cups less so but still 3 in the last 8 years.
None of any of that waffle from Fosset explains why city think the rules hey signed up for both in europe and the prem dont apply to them. Breaking those rules is not the same and not even closely related to a team spending more than another team pre ffp days. City are cheats Fosse- nah they just spent well, Liverpools spent well back in 1956 so lalallalala Is the wrong answer
I've been on the Ipswich board to welcome the new arrivals. A nice warm welcome and hopefully they'll post on here as well. Was going to do the same with Lesta and Saints but then decided on "oh great, you're back" instead.
Awwww shucks ... ... in fairness, doesn't really feel like we've been away ... this place looks pretty much the same ... bit damper underfoot due to some localised flooding ... but other than that ....
Agree with a lot of that As I keep saying - so not all LFC fans are the same but your lot broke those rules - what is looking like 3 times so you weren’t playing on the same level field as the rest of the teams whether the rule is £1 or a million - you guys have flouted that for the all the world it looks like you have continued after being caught too so therefore by definition the club are cheats but as I keep saying I do agree that it shouldn’t be cheating but that’s just how I feel
Some good points ... ... but we both know that nobody will ever win the Premier League with a sqyad costing as little as ours did (comparatively) again ...
