Media Thread 2017/18

[Palace glad all over]

We were widely acknowledged as one of the best teams of the 30’s, albeit that the 1 x league title and 1 x FA Cup does not reflect that sufficiently, we were a good side in the mid 50’s with successive cup finals, and of course we were the bees knees in the late 60’s winning everything.
It was only the second coming of Big Mal circa 1979,and Swales’ indulgence of his insane transfer dealings, that took the focus away from our achievements and left us completely holed beneath the water, financially speaking, for the next 25 years. As it turned out that demise could not have been more badly timed, because the dawn of the Premier League (and the Chimps League) quickly led to the establishment of a super rich cartel that we ultimately had to spend £500m just to join

cool,

Obviously I am not as versed to your history - but i know quite a bit.

My opinion on this 'money team' debate is that teams with massive potential are the teams that will/were bought up. This is due to your history , your location, your name, your city and potentially fan base.

Its not luck you were bought out - it wasn't luck that chelsea or paris were bought out - the names (manchester associated due to your rivalry and large uk city) chelsea and paris start the club of with global knowledge and awareness , as are such well known and respected places.


Rich buyers were not going to go and buy a team like (i might as well name mine) crystal palace instead of those 3 because it isnt a feasible investment for football and commercial success.

Croydon, bromley, lewisham, greenwich kids are constantly supporting chelsea , man u, arsenal, instead of palace or charlton.

It is great to be the best in south london though ;)

Unless you are a Tottenham fan who call Arsenal 'woolwich'!! as arsenal originally came from south london.

 

[Shirley]

cool,

Obviously I am not as versed to your history - but i know quite a bit.

My opinion on this 'money team' debate is that teams with massive potential are the teams that will/were bought up. This is due to your history , your location, your name, your city and potentially fan base.

Its not luck you were bought out - it wasn't luck that chelsea or paris were bought out - the names (manchester associated due to your rivalry and large uk city) chelsea and paris start the club of with global knowledge and awareness , as are such well known and respected places.


Rich buyers were not going to go and buy a team like (i might as well name mine) crystal palace instead of those 3 because it isnt a feasible investment for football and commercial success.

Croydon, bromley, lewisham, greenwich kids are constantly supporting chelsea , man u, arsenal, instead of palace or charlton.

It is great to be the best in south london though ;)

Unless you are a Tottenham fan who call Arsenal 'woolwich'!! as arsenal originally came from south london.

Your doing it again, Simon.

 

[Palace glad all over]

Your doing it again, Simon.

If you have an issue ignore or report me.

I truly can not understand how you can read my thread and get wound up by one statement which you took the wrong way.

This totally proved my point in my post earlier that some people are only ever looking for a negative twist .

 

[Henkeman]

Your doing it again, Simon.

I think it would be pretty naive not to recognise that the other lot's name added quite a bit to recognition potential for City around the world. Prospective investors would have noted that.

 

[journolud]

There's a very favourable story in the 442 weekly email, don't know if this is otherwise available online but basically says that City's improvement this season is nothing to do with money and all to do with Pep improving the players.

 

[Machiavelli]

What a bellend.

 

[Palace glad all over]

I think it would be pretty naive not to recognise that the other lot's name added quite a bit to recognition potential for City around the world. Prospective investors would have noted that.

Well of course and thanks for proving intelligence exists- however i also mentioned many other reasons as to why man city were a team investors would look at over others in european football.

 

[Palace glad all over]

There's a very favourable story in the 442 weekly email, don't know if this is otherwise available online but basically says that City's improvement this season is nothing to do with money and all to do with Pep improving the players.

]]

he is doing brilliantly in regards to improving players - and its also good for england as for me as Sterling and Stones have come on leaps and bounds. His defensive purchases where wise though, but when we factor in stones improvement , mendys injury so delph is filling in , he has a point but i couldnt say it has nothing to do with his purchases, but much les sto do with them than his management with the players he already had.

 

[slicky202]

We generated shooting chances last season but were inaccurate. This season we hit the target more often and goals are the result.
The Stoke game may well have been a draw or a loss last season because of our shooting problems, now we play with flair and confidence so that even 2 defensive lapses resulting in goals are nullified by seven at the other end.

Agreed. Baring in mind when those defensive errors occurred we were already 3 up, last season would have been a different story.

 

[Harvster]

Yep, the dippers didn't lose, Jon Moss cheated them out of a glorious victory

Did he really want to hurt them?