Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 116

Thread: UEFA To Abolish FFP?

  1. #51
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    120
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomsepho View Post
    Mate we are currently 21 points clear of you, a record margin, have won the league with a record 7 games to go and are the current European and World Champions... i think its safe to say we probably have players as good as if not better than those 3.
    You may win it again next season, either you or us, but i guarantee it won't be by such a big margin

  2. #52
    Got A Season Ticket BigTuna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Haydock
    Posts
    487
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Guessing City (along with United) will have to be spending big again next year in order to get anywhere near winning a trophy...
    I ate a tuna sandwich on my first day!

  3. #53
    Learning All The Songs barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ashton in Makerfield
    Posts
    1,517
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Just a quick note to say **** the EFL.

    Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

  4. #54
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,211
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    Just a quick note to say **** the EFL.

    Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk
    Got a feeling that if Wigan have a good solicitor to fight this then they could create merry hell for the EFL, even a blind person can see how the EFL failed in the due diligence over the change of ownership. This is the sort of thing that could end up in the courts for years, should Wigan fight on if the appeal is unsuccessful.

  5. #55
    Learning All The Songs barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ashton in Makerfield
    Posts
    1,517
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomsepho View Post
    Got a feeling that if Wigan have a good solicitor to fight this then they could create merry hell for the EFL, even a blind person can see how the EFL failed in the due diligence over the change of ownership. This is the sort of thing that could end up in the courts for years, should Wigan fight on if the appeal is unsuccessful.
    I don't believe we will. It costs millions in the long run and we have no money to fight it. This appeal costs around 450000 with all costs going to the EFL whether we win or lose. It stinks to high heaven and we won't be the last club. Change is needed but while the Premier League gets richer and richer year after year the other 72(1) clubs are left to rot.

    Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    He Pep, you chequebook-manager fraud, how times did Lyon score after your plastic club equalised?

    Last edited by Webbo Again; 16th August 2020 at 13:23.

  7. #57
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,211
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    He Pep, you chequebook-manager fraud, how times did Lyon score after your plastic club equalised?

    Think you’ve replied to the wrong bloke there Webbo, i am sure Barry is a Latics fan, its Colin you may want to reply to with that.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomsepho View Post
    Think you’ve replied to the wrong bloke there Webbo, i am sure Barry is a Latics fan, its Colin you may want to reply to with that.
    I hadn't meant to quote anyone

    I'll amend now

  9. #59
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,211
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    I hadn't meant to quote anyone

    I'll amend now
    No worries mate, its very similar to something i posted on Twitter last night, mine was, So Pep, by how many goals did the team that finished 7th in France beat you by... #fraud

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomsepho View Post
    No worries mate, its very similar to something i posted on Twitter last night, mine was, So Pep, by how many goals did the team that finished 7th in France beat you by... #fraud


    Terrific weekend of football.



  11. #61
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk DD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Newton-le-Willows; East Side of the Fence.
    Age
    51
    Posts
    12,863
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    He Pep, you chequebook-manager fraud, how times did Lyon score after your plastic club equalised?

    I think this is the kind of behaviour that makes our friends from Merseyside so dislikeable to everybody else. It's not good enough for them to just win themselves, they have to do it whilst going on the attack and insulting other clubs and their fans. It's in the DNA. It's the way they are. Childish! Angry! In your face! Abusive! No class!

    However, on a more civilised note. ;-)

    Pep's quality as a domestic manager isn't in doubt. He's perhaps the best there has ever been. Some of the football played over the last three years has been a joy to watch and there is no doubt they have been the most exciting, entertaining and magical team to watch in that period. Some of the systems that have been employed admittedly do take the best players to carry them out, but to teach a team to play out from the back like we do, well, no fraud can do that.

    For those who claim it's all about the chequebook, then that doesn't bear out in the facts, either. United have spent as much as us in the last five or six years for very little success and much less quality football, but more pertinently, if it was simply about that, the Champions League would have been in the bag by now.

    The reality is that he has an achilles heel, and a huge one. He's afraid of failure, and fear of failure makes it much more likely.

    How can anybody explain the change in tactics, the defensive formations and the negativity designed to stop lesser teams such as Liverpool in 2018, Spurs in 2019 and Lyon in 2020? He seems to go all fuzzy round the edges and doubt everything he has ever achieved when in the later stages of Europe. Instead of trusting our players to go out there and do their stuff, he overthinks things and starts to get more concerned about negating the opposition. This came about because of the 3-1 defeat at Monaco in 2017, and whilst I could understand it at Anfield, to a certain extent, doing it at Spurs and especially on Saturday was just ludicrous, and it's made him look a tit. I reckon that if any one of 54,000 fans and a few empty seats had been allowed to pick their preferred team on Saturday, we'd have won.

    As for the 'plastic club' jibes, well, as a season ticket holder for 41 years, one who watched us as continually the 4th best supported club in the country from the late 70s through to the dismal mid 1980s, and who, at that time were also one of the historically top 8 most successful clubs in the country, well, I think it takes a lack of understanding of football history to really believe that. It's always worth pointing out to those who talk about history but seem to know nothing about it, that the two biggest supported clubs in the inter-war era were Chelsea and Manchester City, those supposed plastic clubs with no history. You've got to laugh when the same people who used to talk about us as a "sleeping giant", now suggest we are "small", those that once praised us for 30,000 crowds in the Third Division now call the same people 'plastic' and those that constantly remind us of a few empty seats, follow it up by singing "where were you, when you were shit".

    At the end of the day, though, I'd rather everyone hate us than be the lovable City that people liked because they rolled over and had their bellies tickled every week. It's all a sign of the times. I used to think Liverpool fans were great and i had no love of Everton. Now, Everton have become to many what City were in the 1990s, and Liverpool have been elevated up to the level of United as the team we'd like to beat for one reason and one reason only. The fans!
    Last edited by DD; 18th August 2020 at 16:38.
    THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football

  12. #62
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    When we were having the initial debate a few weeks ago I was hoping you’d have your say Dave.

    I said a couple of pages back that City got really good crowds in the 70s and were more or less in the mix around the Top 6 and were quite regularly in Europe, etc, so I agree with you about City being a club with pedigree and history. Where I disagreed was more to do with the last twenty years, as I simply don’t think City would have been a force without the money, but that can be said for any club that doesn’t have the size and drawing power of Man United, Liverpool and maybe Arsenal.

    You mentioned how much United have spent to justify City spending money, but all that does is show how badly United have wasted money. To give City credit you’ve brought in world class players like Aguero, KdB, Silva etc for very reasonable fees, but the money you’ve blown on full backs has been shocking, and only a club with endless wealth could really get away with that.

    As for Pep, he’s a great coach of good players, but he’s never taken a challenge to be a great coach with less talented players. We used to disagree about this years back when we had a decent football thread on here, and I still maintain that Pep will make a good player better more often than not, but that doesn’t prove that he is the best coach. The improvements seen in players like Robertson, Henderson, Wijnaldum etc at Liverpool (players who I doubt Pep would ever have gone in for) far exceeds what Pep has done, because the lads he’s improved at City were already solid players. The ones who weren’t as solid (Stones, Otamendi, etc) haven’t progressed under Pep, and defensively you are far from were you should be given the money spent.

    But I know you rate Klopp very highly from his time at BVB and won’t be denigrating the job he’s done, but if both of them quit tomorrow who would be regarded as having done the better job with what they had at their disposal?

  13. #63
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk DD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Newton-le-Willows; East Side of the Fence.
    Age
    51
    Posts
    12,863
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    When we were having the initial debate a few weeks ago I was hoping you’d have your say Dave.

    I said a couple of pages back that City got really good crowds in the 70s and were more or less in the mix around the Top 6 and were quite regularly in Europe, etc, so I agree with you about City being a club with pedigree and history. Where I disagreed was more to do with the last twenty years, as I simply don’t think City would have been a force without the money, but that can be said for any club that doesn’t have the size and drawing power of Man United, Liverpool and maybe Arsenal.

    You mentioned how much United have spent to justify City spending money, but all that does is show how badly United have wasted money. To give City credit you’ve brought in world class players like Aguero, KdB, Silva etc for very reasonable fees, but the money you’ve blown on full backs has been shocking, and only a club with endless wealth could really get away with that.

    As for Pep, he’s a great coach of good players, but he’s never taken a challenge to be a great coach with less talented players. We used to disagree about this years back when we had a decent football thread on here, and I still maintain that Pep will make a good player better more often than not, but that doesn’t prove that he is the best coach. The improvements seen in players like Robertson, Henderson, Wijnaldum etc at Liverpool (players who I doubt Pep would ever have gone in for) far exceeds what Pep has done, because the lads he’s improved at City were already solid players. The ones who weren’t as solid (Stones, Otamendi, etc) haven’t progressed under Pep, and defensively you are far from were you should be given the money spent.

    But I know you rate Klopp very highly from his time at BVB and won’t be denigrating the job he’s done, but if both of them quit tomorrow who would be regarded as having done the better job with what they had at their disposal?
    I think I went on record as saying that I wanted Klopp for our job back in 2015 and there is no better manager than he in the situations he has coached in.

    There is no doubt that Klopp is the best manager in terms of getting the best out of lesser talent. He improves players and makes things work for him. His style is about passion, aggression and tempo. His track record at Dortmund and Liverpool, neither of whom had the financial clout of their rivals, is testament to that, but one thing he and Liverpool will have to watch out for is burn out. By the end of his tenure at Signal Iduna Park, the team and coach himself were physically and mentally exhausted. There was simply nothing left in the tank. There is one way Klopp can play and I'm not sure he is tactically astute enough to play another way. However, as for a developer of talent and motivator, he is the best.

    Guardiola is totally different. His systems can only be worked by the best. He isn't going to turn rank average players into world beaters. The methods he uses to break down teams require a level of skill that cannot be coached. You look at some of the intricate passing in our own box that requires instant thought and millimetre precision. There's no place in there for duffers, so when the alleged wasted money is talked about, has it been because they are poor, or because they are not at the level of perfection he requires? I think Klopp sets the bar a lot lower in terms of the calibre of player he needs to play his systems, because Liverpool's system is much simpler than City's rather complicated approach.

    Of course, when ours works, we have no equal, but once he gets doubts about certain individuals to carry out his plan, then he also seems to doubt the quality of his own players further up the field to compensate for that. His non-acceptance of anything less than perfection is clouding his judgement badly.

    In short, I think that technically and tactically (when thinking rationally), he is light years ahead of anyone, including Klopp. However, Klopp is the kind of manager who could improve Macclesfield Town, whereas Pep couldn't. His systems can only be employed by top players. This is why it is utterly ludicrous for anybody like Sam Allardyce to say that he could have done what Pep has done with his money. No he couldn't. He wouldn't have the intelligence to develop those systems. If it was all about the players and not the manager, City wouldn't keep getting undermined by the manager going crackers at the business end of the Champions League each year. However, would we have won the league with a different manager than Pep in 2019? I would say no. With the team running on empty through much of the last 14 games that were won, his constant evolution of tactics were a huge part in getting us over the line, with us often employing surprise formations and systems throughout. Through all of that, he called the shots, and the almost unique way that we played the Anfield game that season was a tactical masterclass that, in the end, proved pivotal. So why he goes all fuzzy round the edges when in Europe, I just don't know? Klopp certainly has the edge there. He never doubts himself.

    Of course, City wouldn't be the force without the money, but the landscape moved many years ago. The noble era when clubs could come off the canvas to form a dynasty without huge investment have gone, but that environment was created by clubs who happened to have become good at just the right point in football's history, who then tried every every last financial trick in the book to ring-fence themselves, especially after having been stung by, what was for them, the unwanted appearances of first Blackburn and then Chelsea.

    Once upon a time, football in England could produce great teams for short eras. Those who had great eras in the pre-television days going back to the 19th century such as Villa, Sunderland, Newcastle, Huddersfield, Arsenal, Portsmouth and Wolves could never sustain it, because the money wasn't in the game to allow them to build on that. They were just eras. Liverpool, United and the 1990s Arsenal all had one thing that was going for them. They were lucky enough that their eras came at the right time. They were the first clubs who could build organically, because English football was now televised nationwide and worldwide. It allowed them investment and to capture a fanbase that other previous great club sides couldn't. It gave them a head start. Then, those who happened to be big enough at the right time, concocted TV deals to take bigger shares of football's money and open up a gap between them and the rest.

    People forget that Liverpool and United had great but short-lived eras in the early part of the 20th century, but went on to be the second biggest club in their city for the next few decades, especially in terms of crowds and perceived glamour. Everton and City were undoubtedly seen as the bigger and better clubs in their respective cities all the way up to the post-war years. City until the 1940s and Everton up to the 1960s. However, for them, their bad luck is that their era, their "history", came along too soon. When Liverpool and United talk about their glorious "history", in reality they wipe out the many early years that don't suit them. The FA Cup was the be all and end all in football until Match of the Day came along in the 1960s. Liverpool managed to go a whole 73 years before first winning the game's stellar award. Take out 1963 to 1990 and Liverpool's history suddenly becomes little better than Aston Villa, who have won half a dozen trophies in the last century. Why, therefore, is that period deemed more important than the past or current ones?

    At the end of the day, "history" takes into account everything in football from 1871 to today. Only the totals between 1871 and 2020 matter. Whether your most successful eras were from 1880 to 1900, 1963 to 1990 or 2011 to 2020 is wholly irrelevant. Unfortunately, most people, when talking about "history", seem to think that "history" is purely defined by whether you were successful from the day of your first memory to a point in adulthood when you fancy drawing the line. If you weren't successful during their childhood and teen years, then the rest seemingly doesn't count.
    THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football

  14. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DD View Post
    I think this is the kind of behaviour that makes our friends from Merseyside so dislikeable to everybody else. It's not good enough for them to just win themselves, they have to do it whilst going on the attack and insulting other clubs and their fans. It's in the DNA. It's the way they are. Childish! Angry! In your face! Abusive! No class!

    We're always going to view our clubs through a rose-tinted prism, but please don't try to portray yourselves as angels.

    It was only last year your fans were singing songs laughing at Liverpool fans being 'battered in the streets' in a pretty sick jibe at Sean Cox, about Kompany injuring Salah, about Liverpool being 'victims' in reference to Hillsborough. Your players all sang it on a plane and your club Tweeted the footage. You lot still sing your delight at Man Utd players being killed in 1958.

    Your club is owned by a tyrannical, misogynistic, murderous, human-rights-denying dictatorship.

    They didn't buy Man City out of affection or even commercial opportunity. They bought them to try to launder their image as utter scumbags, hoping to buy on-field success so that that may improve their global standing and reputation. They are using your club, a club with, as you point out, a great tradition - tradition that's being used as a shitrag by horrible arseholes.

    I used to have a soft spot for City. You did have a great - and long-suffering - fanbase with humour and a dislike of Man U. But blimey, you've become entitled moaners over a few short years. I work in Manchester and for every new City fan I know who has jumped on the bandwagon, there's another who is a bit 'meh! it's not really the same'. I guess to some buying success tastes less sweet than actually earning.

    Because it's not like City have suddenly got money and been able to spend similar amounts to established big clubs so we're all competing on a broadly level playing field. You've obliterated other clubs in terms of net spend - even well surpassing the behemoth that is Man U.

    Guardiola has had a bigger defence budget than most countries (and he still can't get it right).

    It's also an odd thing to say in support of Guardiola and his managerial skills that his tactics can only work when using the best players. We could say that about any manager! And Allardyce's point was more that if he had the transfer-spend resources that Guardiola has had, he too could have a similar record of success. Guardiola has the 2nd highest net spend ever - behind his great chequebook-manager rival Mourinho. But whilst he's dominated domestically, he's come up short in the Champions League with both Bayern and City.

    There've been a number of reports from past players about his autocratic style and micro-managing to an increasingly obsessive degree. He left Barca through mental exhaustion - and in each of the 3 clubs he's managed, there's been a distinct curve about his teams' performances (upwards, then downwards) as his players begin to fade.

    He's a very good manager for sure, but he's also been lucky and careful with his career choices. He inherited a Barca team where several 'generational talents' were approaching their peak years (then left when some were starting to decline); he then went to Bayern who already absolutely dominate the Bundesliga both financially and on the field; then onto City where he knew he could outspend every other club by a distance.
    Last edited by Webbo Again; 19th August 2020 at 18:12.

  15. #65
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Just on peoples perceptions of footballing eras, I'm doing something related to the 1970s at the moment and was amazed at the parity in English football during that decade. I know my history and knew it was a special decade, but the figures surprised me nonetheless.

    In the ten years 1969-70 - 1978-79...

    6 different clubs won the league
    15 different clubs finished in the Top 4

    9 different clubs won the FA Cup
    6 different clubs won the League Cup

    7 different English clubs won a European trophy
    20 different clubs qualified for Europe (in an era where only Top 4 or a domestic Cup guaranteed it)

    Of the 30 domestic trophies on offer Liverpool only won 5 of them, in a decade where they are said to have dominated English football, which shows how competitive that decade was.

    Now of course, they also won 2 European Cups and 2 UEFA Cups, but if they'd achieved 4 league titles and an FA Cup in the pre-European era we may not look back on it with such awe. I think the 1960s onwards is judged differently because Europe has become a big part of what we consider success now. A club that merely achieved domestic success is graded below those that did both, and I think that is why Liverpool's era from the mid-1960s to 1990 is regarded as extra special because it came with loads of success in Europe, which those before it didn't (and couldn't) achieve.

  16. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    Just on peoples perceptions of footballing eras, I'm doing something related to the 1970s at the moment and was amazed at the parity in English football during that decade. I know my history and knew it was a special decade, but the figures surprised me nonetheless.

    In the ten years 1969-70 - 1978-79...

    6 different clubs won the league
    15 different clubs finished in the Top 4

    9 different clubs won the FA Cup
    6 different clubs won the League Cup

    7 different English clubs won a European trophy
    20 different clubs qualified for Europe (in an era where only Top 4 or a domestic Cup guaranteed it)

    Of the 30 domestic trophies on offer Liverpool only won 5 of them, in a decade where they are said to have dominated English football, which shows how competitive that decade was.

    Now of course, they also won 2 European Cups and 2 UEFA Cups, but if they'd achieved 4 league titles and an FA Cup in the pre-European era we may not look back on it with such awe. I think the 1960s onwards is judged differently because Europe has become a big part of what we consider success now. A club that merely achieved domestic success is graded below those that did both, and I think that is why Liverpool's era from the mid-1960s to 1990 is regarded as extra special because it came with loads of success in Europe, which those before it didn't (and couldn't) achieve.
    And then you have Notts Forest not just winning the European Cup, but defending it (knocking out Liverpool in the process), as well as Villa.

    Was much more open then. I would have much preferred going back to that rather than our hated rivals taking over 'our' perch.

    DD mentioned about Liverpool becoming dominant at the right time, from a money perspective. That's not really true - the big bucks only started flowing once the TV rights were sold to Sky, by which time Man U were on their way to dominating. Of course, Liverpool's successful era (especially in Europe) brought a global fanbase that they maintained even during the barren years (barren is relative - they still won 17 trophies in the 30 years between league championships, including 2 European Cups as well as beaten finalists twice) and helped keep their profile and commercial income higher than one would expect.

  17. #67
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    And then you have Notts Forest not just winning the European Cup, but defending it (knocking out Liverpool in the process), as well as Villa.

    Was much more open then. I would have much preferred going back to that rather than our hated rivals taking over 'our' perch.

    DD mentioned about Liverpool becoming dominant at the right time, from a money perspective. That's not really true - the big bucks only started flowing once the TV rights were sold to Sky, by which time Man U were on their way to dominating. Of course, Liverpool's successful era (especially in Europe) brought a global fanbase that they maintained even during the barren years (barren is relative - they still won 17 trophies in the 30 years between league championships, including 2 European Cups as well as beaten finalists twice) and helped keep their profile and commercial income higher than one would expect.
    Gate receipts and prize money were the big thing in the 1970s before stuff like shirt sponsorship (which Liverpool pioneered with the Hitachi deal), and a run in Europe or a Cup Final at Wembley was huge. You couldn't sustain a big turnover unless you were doing well and getting decent crowds. Clubs could have bursts of 3-4 years (Derby for example) if they picked the right managers, were shrewd in the transfer market and got a bit of luck, because the likes of Liverpool simply didn't have the commercial might to blow other clubs out of the water, but for a longer stretch Liverpool could outlast the likes of Derby because they were generating more money from having bigger crowds and picking up money from European runs etc. Success bred success on and off the field, but any single big club in the 70s (Man United, Leeds, Man City, Arsenal etc) could have matched Liverpool pound for pound if they'd have ran themselves better.

    Another difference in terms of money was TV, which was pretty much a non-factor back then. Nowadays the entire game bows at the feet of TV, but in the 1970s it was treated as an annoyance by most clubs as it potentially kept punters out of the ground. MOTD couldn't announce which two games it was showing on a Saturday night until the games had kicked off on Saturday because clubs feared lower crowds if fans knew their game was on that night. When science gives us the chance to do the 'Life on Mars' time travel I'll spend a few years in the 1970s, it will be fun!

  18. #68
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk DD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Newton-le-Willows; East Side of the Fence.
    Age
    51
    Posts
    12,863
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    We're always going to view our clubs through a rose-tinted prism, but please don't try to portray yourselves as angels.
    It was only last year your fans were singing songs laughing at Liverpool fans being 'battered in the streets' in a pretty sick jibe at Sean Cox, about Kompany injuring Salah, about Liverpool being 'victims' in reference to Hillsborough. Your players all sang it on a plane and your club Tweeted the footage. You lot still sing your delight at Man Utd players being killed in 1958.
    Liverpool fans claim this was about Sean Cox in order to take the moral high ground. This song was never about Sean Cox and his family went on record as saying they fully accepted it was not.

    Similarly, Liverpool fans claim the “victims” song is about Hillsborough. Again, this is to take the moral high ground. The song is not about Hillsborough. The “victims” song came about after the Luis Suarez-Patrice Evra affair, at which point the majority of Liverpool fans blamed Evra for provoking Suarez into being racist or trotted out the pathetic line that “negreto” was a term of endearment. Of course, once he’d celebrated a goal against Liverpool then he was racist after all. It’s a long-standing joke that whatever Liverpool fans have done wrong, they try and justify it by dragging up obscure instances to demonstrate that somebody out there is worse. They even attack buses and go on victory celebrations when they should be socially distancing and claim it’s not their fault. No, it’s Everton fans disguised as Liverpool fans just to give them a bad name.

    Munich songs were an embarrassing part of our history that is now relegated to a few imbeciles in pubs. Liverpool fans used to sing songs about Munich too until they had their own disaster and decided it was best to stop, although I know more Liverpool fans these days who refer to United as “Munichs” than City fans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    Your club is owned by a tyrannical, misogynistic, murderous, human-rights-denying dictatorship.
    It seems that there is a strange thing going on where the Left can complain about Sharia Law in Qatar, which is the main source of legislation there, because "it's wrong", but if anybody flags up cases of Sharia Law being applied in civil cases in the UK as being "wrong", then they must be Right Wing - and probably far right at that.
    Personally, I think that human rights issues in Qatar and the UAE are a massive concern, just like I always did in Saudi, Iran and Afghanistan (plus North Korea and China). It's prehistoric behaviour based upon a radical version of Islam that has no place in the modern world (if you judge them by Western standards), but you can't say that under normal circumstances, because people would be down on you like a ton of bricks for being racist.

    Different religions have different standards and different morals. A few years ago, when people judged the Taliban or the strict Islamic law in Iran, they were told by many over here that we shouldn't judge them by our own beliefs. They were their traditions and customs. Now, it seems, because football teams have been taken over by them, and they are a threat to the elite, all of a sudden, those who expressed concerns were right after all. However, now as it's not "right wing racists" pointing out the issues, but "left wing socialists", then all of the sudden, it's acceptable to question their lifestyle.

    Let’s not beat about the bush here. Few really care about the human rights in countries of other cultures, or if they do then they only pick the select ones that help back up whatever their agenda is today. They just use it as a stick to beat us with because it’s there.

    The reality is that condemning parts of Islamic culture is considered racist until such point they own a football team that challenges your own, at which point it becomes an outrage to a person who previously considered that you should never judge a culture by comparing it to your own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    They didn't buy Man City out of affection or even commercial opportunity. They bought them to try to launder their image as utter scumbags, hoping to buy on-field success so that that may improve their global standing and reputation. They are using your club, a club with, as you point out, a great tradition - tradition that's being used as a shitrag by horrible arseholes.
    So, I assume the Americans bought Liverpool with no vested interest for themselves.

    If they are “using” our club, then I’m happy to be used. When you see the money that they have invested in the local community, the urban regeneration, and if you’ve used the MIHP and the other facilities in that area, then you’d appreciate all that they are doing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    I used to have a soft spot for City. You did have a great - and long-suffering - fanbase with humour and a dislike of Man U. But blimey, you've become entitled moaners over a few short years. I work in Manchester and for every new City fan I know who has jumped on the bandwagon, there's another who is a bit 'meh! it's not really the same'. I guess to some buying success tastes less sweet than actually earning.
    I used to have a soft spot for Liverpool, but their fans have become everything I used to hate about United. Nasty, spiteful, condescending and self-righteous, who see nothing wrong with themselves. Always on the attack, always vitriolic, full of hate and venom.

    It's funny really, because Liverpool fans orgasm over empty seats, but now you are inferring that bandwagon jumpers are somehow a lower breed. Yet surely the fact that we do often struggle to sell out indicates we need more bandwagon jumpers, and your fans criticism is affectively because we haven’t enough bandwagon jumpers.

    As for buying success. Well, after years of failure, you just did that yourselves.

    It’s not the same for one reason, once you start to have lots of success, you expect it. The thrill of the chase has gone. Whether you class it as being “bought” or not isn’t my concern. The emotions are still the same. Believe me, when Sergio scored the winner against QPR, it never crossed my mind to temper the celebration because we spent money to do it. It still felt the same. It always will. After 32 years of shit, I’ve loved every minute of it, being there in the flesh to watch my team win trophies, like proper supporters do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    Because it's not like City have suddenly got money and been able to spend similar amounts to established big clubs so we're all competing on a broadly level playing field. You've obliterated other clubs in terms of net spend - even well surpassing the behemoth that is Man U.
    After the initial big hit spend period, research will tell you that’s not the case. We spent very highly to get ourselves to the top table. Back in 1992, certain clubs cosied up to formulate a plan that would carve all the money up for themselves, create a ring fence and cut the others adrift. It created a huge money game that spiralled out of control and meant that the only way for outsiders to join their self-appointed party was to have enormous investment. If it wasn’t for the selfish actions of the former big five and the G18, then this would never have happened. You created the monster you hate. Nobody to blame but yourselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    Guardiola has had a bigger defence budget than most countries (and he still can't get it right).
    You had to call something right. ;-)
    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    It's also an odd thing to say in support of Guardiola and his managerial skills that his tactics can only work when using the best players. We could say that about any manager! And Allardyce's point was more that if he had the transfer-spend resources that Guardiola has had, he too could have a similar record of success. Guardiola has the 2nd highest net spend ever - behind his great chequebook-manager rival Mourinho. But whilst he's dominated domestically, he's come up short in the Champions League with both Bayern and City.
    Allardyce couldn’t coach the one touch passing game and complex formulas. He would not have had the same success. Coaching and tactics are part of the game. Guardiola has come up short in Europe, though. He overthinks things. He’s got an achilles heel.
    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    He left Barca through mental exhaustion - and in each of the 3 clubs he's managed, there's been a distinct curve about his teams' performances (upwards, then downwards) as his players begin to fade.
    That did happen at Dortmund with Klopp. It’s an intensity that cannot be maintained. You can only sink or swim with such high intensity managers. Eventually, though, a player will run out of steam.
    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    He's a very good manager for sure, but he's also been lucky and careful with his career choices. He inherited a Barca team where several 'generational talents' were approaching their peak years (then left when some were starting to decline); he then went to Bayern who already absolutely dominate the Bundesliga both financially and on the field; then onto City where he knew he could outspend every other club by a distance.
    All true bar the last bit.

    If we could outspend everybody by a distance, can you tell me why our record transfer isn’t even close to the records in this country, let alone up to the levels of PSG? Can you tell me why we pulled out of the running for the likes of VVD, Jorginho, Harry Maguire, balked at the wages for Sanchez, and previously got priced out of the likes of RVP and Eden Hazard? Why do we never bid for stellar players? Why will we not pay the £70, £80 and £90 million fees that some other clubs will?
    THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football

  19. #69
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk DD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Newton-le-Willows; East Side of the Fence.
    Age
    51
    Posts
    12,863
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    And then you have Notts Forest not just winning the European Cup, but defending it (knocking out Liverpool in the process), as well as Villa.

    Was much more open then. I would have much preferred going back to that rather than our hated rivals taking over 'our' perch.

    DD mentioned about Liverpool becoming dominant at the right time, from a money perspective. That's not really true - the big bucks only started flowing once the TV rights were sold to Sky, by which time Man U were on their way to dominating. Of course, Liverpool's successful era (especially in Europe) brought a global fanbase that they maintained even during the barren years (barren is relative - they still won 17 trophies in the 30 years between league championships, including 2 European Cups as well as beaten finalists twice) and helped keep their profile and commercial income higher than one would expect.
    1992 was the cut-off era, but the big five (which at the time comprised of United, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs and Arsenal) had been leading the call for the breakaway since the mid-1980s. When you consider that 1992 was two years since the last title win, but 25 for United, then arguably it was Liverpool who were the prime team for the glory-hunting world audience to pick at that time.

    However, the Scandinavian market in the 1980s really kicked the ball rolling for forieign support and that legacy is certainly felt today with a very large LFC support base over there.

    Liverpool's glory era was more importantly at the right time because it came about as league football was being regularly beamed into homes for the first time, via Match of the Day and the Big Match throughout the 70s and then onto their live TV versions in the 1980s. Manchester United (post-Munich) were the only club that had grown a national fan base at that time. Liverpool's success in the 70s, at an age when celebrity impression upon kids was possibly at its highest level in history, enabled them to follow suit with one of their own. That also helped fashion a club rivalry between the two that was previously non-existent.

    All that has enabled those two to build foundations that few else could follow up with and ever will be able to. All about being in the right place at the right time.

    However, through all of that, Liverpool's era was longer than all those previously through their own brilliance, in an era when the big clubs hadn't started their own greed league. Nobody will ever take that away from them, and that is why the Liverpool side from 1973-90 has never been bettered and probably never will.
    THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football

  20. #70
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Blobbynator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    9,220
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBT View Post
    Guessing City (along with United) will have to be spending big again next year in order to get anywhere near winning a trophy...
    This argument always makes me laugh

    Pretty much every successful club spends alot of money.

    Liverpool have not built their side in a romantic, noble way. They've done it by spending a fortune.

    Allison £70m
    VVD £75M
    Oxlade Chamberlain £40m
    Fabinho £40m
    Keita £50m
    Wijnaldum £25m
    Salah £45m-£50m
    Mane £35m

    Could probably add the likes of Lallana, Lovren, Henderson who were all signed for big money at the time (before Klopp) and have played a part in Liverpool's success the last few years.

    Now I'm sure you'll tell us all how Liverpool earned their money and were able to pay for VVD, Fabinho, Allison, Keita etc because of the Coutinho money, but where did that money come from?

    It came from Barcelona who got the money from PSG (Neymar), so in effect "blood" money as some may term it.

    Liverpool are a very good side and Klopp has done a good job building a team over 5 years and has tactically got his players believing in a way of playing, but let's no pretend Liverpool haven't spent a f*ck load of cash either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    He Pep, you chequebook-manager fraud
    Chequebook fraud, ahh this always makes me chuckle aswell

    Money is not always a guarantee of success, look no further than Old Trafford for proof of that since 2013. They don't look any nearer to a title despite spending £200m last season, way more than City or anyone else for that matter.

    Guardiola has changed the mentality of the game over here. Southgate is trying to replicate the style of play with England and other teams have had to raise their game to match the standards set in 2017/18. 100pts and 98pts by playing some of the greatest football the English game has seen is not just because he's spent cash but because he's a great manager that can manage egos, he's tactically astute and has a winning mentality.

    Alot of players have developed hugely under Guardiola. KDB was a good player when we signed him but he's now arguably the best midfielder in the world and has moved from a right winger to a centre midfielder. Delph and Zinchenko became competent left backs converted from midfielders to play in a position never played in before and became 1st choice players for a period in a 100pt and 98pts title winning season. I could mention many others who have improved under him (players already there and players he's signed).

    Has he made mistakes along the way? Yes.

    Has Guardiola's clubs spent alot of money? Yes.

    Has he been fortunate to be at top clubs? Yes, but why would he go to other clubs when he's one of the most in demand coaches in the world?

    It'd be like having the option of owning a Ferrari or a Ford Fiesta, you wouldn't pick the fiesta would you?

    He has nothing to prove to anyone either, his trophy haul and success says everything. He will go down as one of the most successful managers ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by Despondent Dave
    Blobby is a man of style, panache and impeccable taste

  21. #71
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blobbynator View Post
    Now I'm sure you'll tell us all how Liverpool earned their money and were able to pay for VVD, Fabinho, Allison, Keita etc because of the Coutinho money, but where did that money come from?

    It came from Barcelona who got the money from PSG (Neymar), so in effect "blood" money as some may term it.
    That's a bit of a stretch there. Barcelona also signed Dembele for about the same amount as Coutinho in the same year, and have since spent over £220m on Griezmann, De Jong and Pjanic. Their net spend over the past 5 years is about £330m, but you're saying the only way they could sign Coutinho was blood money from PSG? Doesn't add up.

    And it's also not relevant to the argument IMO. Liverpool's net spend over the past 5 years is just over £100m, whilst City's is around £600m. Could Liverpool have afforded to buy Van Dijk and Alisson without selling Coutinho? Maybe, but they may have settled for Van Dijk and opted for a cheaper goalie. Do City ever need to sell anyone in order to buy? Never.

    I will agree with you and Dave (and have done earlier in the thread) that City's transfer business in the last few years has been more evolution than revolution, picking up players to strengthen areas rather than buying for the sake of it (with the exception of the full back areas), but you're now doing so because you are in a position of strength and don't need to revamp a squad with big money signings. When you were getting up to that level you spent more money than anyone other than United could compete with.

    Pep inherited a side containing Kompany, Fernandinho, Silva, De Bruyne, Sterling and Aguero, the best 'spine' of a PL side in the last decade, at least. He still had a net spend of £350m in two summers getting that side to a position where you won 100points. £350m net spend when he already had the best CB, the best midfield trio, the best striker, etc. Imagine having those players and telling anyone that you still needed to spend another £350m to win the league! I imagine you'd have won the league in 17-18 having spent a fraction of that, because nearly £200m of that was on Stones, Mendy, Walker, Bravo, Nolito, etc. So you didn't actually need to spend that much money, but you could so he did.

    Compare to Liverpool (given that that's what the argument is about). Given that Pep joined City before the start of the 16-17 season and Klopp joined Liverpool a few months later it's fair to compare them IMO. If you'd taken City's and Liverpool's best XI's in the summer of 2016 and argued that within three years those two clubs would be battling it out in the one of the best title races of all time, one getting 98 points and the other 97, and had you been told one of them would spend £100m net to get there and one would spend £350m net, how would you ever believe Liverpool could compete if they were ones with the £100m net spend, given how better City's XI was to begin with, topped up with another 350m net worth of talent?

    Imagine giving Klopp City's team in 2016 and giving him £350m net spend over two summers and imagine giving Pep Liverpool's team in 2016 and giving him £100m net. All counter-factual guessing I appreciate, but do you reckon Liverpool would have pushed City to their limits in 18-19 and then beaten them to the league last season under such a scenario?

    Pep is a very good coach, his teams play sensational stuff and in some ways he's revolutionised the way the game is played. But he's never really had to work for it, and saying (as Dave said) that he needs the best players to implement his style isn't really a massive compliment to a coach who is regarded as one of the best ever, because brilliant coaches don't need world class players in every position surely? Unless he ever tries his arm at a club where he has to make do with lesser talent at his disposal, or is told that he only has a limited net spend to achieve his aims, then we'll never know if he could do what Klopp did at BVB and Liverpool, what Mourinho did at Porto, what Simeone has done at Atletico, etc.

  22. #72
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Blobbynator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    9,220
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    That's a bit of a stretch there. Barcelona also signed Dembele for about the same amount as Coutinho in the same year, and have since spent over £220m on Griezmann, De Jong and Pjanic. Their net spend over the past 5 years is about £330m, but you're saying the only way they could sign Coutinho was blood money from PSG? Doesn't add up.
    Barca only signed Coutinho because they sold Neymar for £200m that summer. They wouldn't have forked out £140m for Coutinho in January if they didn't have that money.

    They spent money afterwards but similar to Liverpool using that £140m from Coutinho to finance deals for VVD, Allison, Keita and Fabinho the overall cost of that was over £140m. My point is that Liverpool haven't built a great side by some magic formula, they've done it by spending money and having a good manager.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray
    Liverpool's net spend over the past 5 years is just over £100m, whilst City's is around £600m.
    City have won 9 trophies to Liverpool's 4 in the period of Pep's reign compared to Klopp (who has been at Liverpool a year longer).

    I find the net spend argument to be one of the most boring in football. Man Utd spent around £200m last season for a net spend of about £120m, way more than anyone else yet won absolutely nothing and weren't even close.

    Spending money isn't always a guarantee of success. It's how you spend it and the quality of the manager you have that results in success.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray
    Pep inherited a side containing Kompany, Fernandinho, Silva, De Bruyne, Sterling and Aguero, the best 'spine' of a PL side in the last decade, at least. He still had a net spend of £350m in two summers getting that side to a position where you won 100points. £350m net spend when he already had the best CB, the best midfield trio, the best striker, etc. Imagine having those players and telling anyone that you still needed to spend another £350m to win the league! I imagine you'd have won the league in 17-18 having spent a fraction of that, because nearly £200m of that was on Stones, Mendy, Walker, Bravo, Nolito, etc. So you didn't actually need to spend that much money, but you could so he did.
    He inherited a good side, but it's worth pointing out we finished 4th the year before he came in and he had alot of ageing players that were way past their best. The likes of Kolarov, Clichy, Zabaleta, Demechelis, Kompany, Silva, Fernandinho, Toure and Navas (who he converted to a right back for a season - a position he now plays in La Liga) were all in their 30s when he came in. He was also dealing with some garbage that had flopped massively at City in Bony, Fernando and Mangala and were on their way out. Alot of players left basically for free or for small transfer fees and needed replacing.

    He's the 1st manager that has effectively dealt with the transition of the squad with the core of great players such as Toure, Hart, Zabaleta, Kompany, Silva and soon to be Fernandinho and Aguero leaving the club. All these players at their peak were £50m-£100m players yet haven't been sold because they've either retired or left at the end of their contract. City haven't been a selling club like Liverpool have been in recent years but have had to replace a core of great players with little money being recouped for those players. The only one that has really been sold that was a first reamer was Sane.

    City have mistakes with some of their signings as you have listed above but Walker has been fantastic for us, worth every penny of the money we paid.

    I just find it disrespectful when people say Pep hasn't had to work for his success or he always goes to the best teams never a team like Wolves for example. There's a reason he goes to the best sides - he is the most in demand manager in football. He could literally pick any club he wants so of course he's going to go to the bigger clubs who so happen to have the biggest budgets.

    Alex Ferguson was way outspending his rivals when he was manager at Utd. How many times did he break the British transfer record? How much did he spend on the likes of Veron, Van Nistelrooy etc. He was massively outspending Wenger during that period but Wenger competed with him and so did Blackburn for a small period aswell, even if Man Utd generally won more trophies yet Fergie didnt get the same lack of respect Pep gets. It took Fergie almost 15 years to win to win the CL yet because Pep hasn't win it in 4 years at City he's a failure and isn't considered one of the very best like Fergie was?

    This is similar to Pep and Klopp now. Klopp is competing and doing a very good at Liverpool on admittedly a smaller budget, but Guardiola has won more than double the amount he is in a shorter time and is dealing with alot more scrutiny from the media and fans of football who refer to him as a fraud.
    Quote Originally Posted by Despondent Dave
    Blobby is a man of style, panache and impeccable taste

  23. #73
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    I'll respond to that when I have more time, but...

    We seem to have our football thread back ;-)

  24. #74
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk DD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Newton-le-Willows; East Side of the Fence.
    Age
    51
    Posts
    12,863
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    The one thing I'd like to add is about Pep only being able to work with quality players being a 'sad indicment' on him. It isn't. Pep has some very complex ideas and those ideas can make us unplayable. However, for those complex ideas to work, he needs a certain calibre of player. One touch passing at pace cannot be undertaken by jobsworth players. I'm sure he could coach kick and rush if he wanted to, but that has never been required of him.
    THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football

  25. #75
    Got A Season Ticket BigTuna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Haydock
    Posts
    487
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    So, anyone interested in buying Messi? £700 million transfer fee and £1 million a week in wages - that's surely got to bring FFP to the door of whoever does get him?

    Not that I believe he will actually leave Barca mind, just a ploy to get rid of the President and get himself a new longer deal.
    I ate a tuna sandwich on my first day!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •