Match Day Thread General matchday thread.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Solid_Air 2 said:
So we weren't buying success rather we were successful so generated more revenue unlike City who were taken over by a country and had huge sums pumped in to make them successful .Arguing about the need for FFP type rules is one thing ,though iirc it was the EFL who led the way with that ,but to equate the way we were and City now are financed is just bollox.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duggie2000, brb and FosseFilberto
FadgewackeR said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD, duggie2000, Bumps and 1 other person
Treble said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps, FosseFilberto and Treble
FadgewackeR said:
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.
Click to expand...

^^^^^

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 ... <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock, haslam, duggie2000 and 2 others
Treble said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who, me? <whistle>

... 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 ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Treble
FadgewackeR said:
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.
Click to expand...

Best post on the whole FFP debacle / issue so far ... <applause>
 
  • Like
Reactions: FadgewackeR
FadgewackeR said:
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 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FadgewackeR
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 <doh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps and PINKIE
Sucky said:
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 <doh>
Click to expand...

You must log in or register to see media
 
  • Like
Reactions: duggie2000 and brb
Treble said:
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.
Click to expand...

Awwww shucks ... :emoticon-0115-inlov

... 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 ....<laugh>
 
FosseFilberto said:
As I said - Pep has won 4 PL titles on the bounce with a squad costing the same as yours - in contrast you've only won the one since the new league competition evolved from the old football league - despite spending an astronomical amount ...

Seeking to hamstring the competition by moaning about them being able to spend as much as you must be a scouse thing - ...

Rest of the football World just accepts that those that spend the most have the best chance of success - same as it ever was - no point crying about it ...

If you really want 'Fair Play' simply apply a universal cap on transfers in a season (net spend) across the league - and get an annual guarantee from each club owner to underwrite that amount ... proper level playing field then <cheers>
Click to expand...
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: FosseFilberto
Bumps said:
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
Click to expand...

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 ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps and Edelman
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back