IF City ever win the Champions league?

johnnytapia said:
Which one? I used to think winning the European Cup meant you'd reached the top. But that was in the day when you had to win the league. Or. like Forrest, win the European Cup. None of this contrived utter bullshit. Finish 4th, group stages, finish 6th, qualify through another cup. It should, like all cups, be a straight knockout. Name in the pot, pull them out. Win, you're through. Lose you're out. And to be in it: win your league.
The league for me though, is the absolute best: 39 games, home and away. It's a fucking marathon. A slog. And you have to beat your most bitter rivals to do it. NOTHING could ever match pipping those ****s. Nothing. Ever. Ever, ever, ever, ever. FUCK THEM. Not. In. My. Lifetime. Do you want a fucking bet you miserable scottish ****?
Click to expand...
How many games? :)

I couldn't agree with you more about the league. Back in 2012 I was posting, on Chelsea fan sites, to say that I would have gladly given up the two trophies we won that year, for the one you took home. I couldn't disagree with you more however about the comparison between the Champions Cup and the Champions League. For me, the the Champions Cup was a Mickey Mouse tournament compared to its successor.

Back in the day it was a widely, near universally, held view that the UEFA Cup was harder to win than the European Champions Cup. This was one of those opinions people used to say in a manner which suggested they thought it set them apart as being particularly discerning and knowledgeable. Problem was that everybody said it, so not all that discerning after all. Bob Paisley himself expressed that opinion. Why? Precisely because all those second, third & fourth placed sides from the major nations took part and therefore gave the competition a far stronger, far far stronger, field of entrants than the one which battled it out for the big pot.

By contrast the Champions Cup had a very small group of strong sides, padded out by total no hopers in the form of the Champions of Europe's weaker national leagues. This meant that typically the better sides faced two rounds before Christmas which were glorified byes. That's when they weren't actual byes of course because Liverpool were given a first round bye during one of their title winning campaigns. So big was the gap that, at least once, Liverpool put double figures past their opponents in a pre-Christmas tie. It was a Joke.

The Champions Cup took a break after the second round in October and didn't resume until March. Only then was it likely that the better sides would face serious competition because, contrary to a repeatedly stated claim, the competition draw in those years was most definitely seeded. Only twice did Liverpool face decent sides before Christmas. They lost on both occasions. Nottingham Forrest & Dynamo Tiblisi developed great sides so quickly that they did not gather enough coefficient points to be seeded in the draw. Bad luck for Liverpool.

For me the gap between the two competitions is not even close.
 
OhForAGreavsie said:
How many games? :)

I couldn't agree with you more about the league. Back in 2012 I was posting, on Chelsea fan sites, to say that I would have gladly given up the two trophies we won that year, for the one you took home. I couldn't disagree with you more however about the comparison between the Champions Cup and the Champions League. For me, the the Champions Cup was a Mickey Mouse tournament compared to its successor.

Back in the day it was a widely, near universally, held view that the UEFA Cup was harder to win than the European Champions Cup. This was one of those opinions people used to say in a manner which suggested they thought it set them apart as being particularly discerning and knowledgeable. Problem was that everybody said it, so not all that discerning after all. Bob Paisley himself expressed that opinion. Why? Precisely because all those second, third & fourth placed sides from the major nations took part and therefore gave the competition a far stronger, far far stronger, field of entrants than the one which battled it out for the big pot.

By contrast the Champions Cup had a very small group of strong sides, padded out by total no hopers in the form of the Champions of Europe's weaker national leagues. This meant that typically the better sides faced two rounds before Christmas which were glorified byes. That's when they weren't actual byes of course because Liverpool were given a first round bye during one of their title winning campaigns. So big was the gap that, at least once, Liverpool put double figures past their opponents in a pre-Christmas tie. It was a Joke.

The Champions Cup took a break after the second round in October and didn't resume until March. Only then was it likely that the better sides would face serious competition because, contrary to a repeatedly stated claim, the competition draw in those years was most definitely seeded. Only twice did Liverpool face decent sides before Christmas. They lost on both occasions. Nottingham Forrest & Dynamo Tiblisi developed great sides so quickly that they did not gather enough coefficient points to be seeded in the draw. Bad luck for Liverpool.

For me the gap between the two competitions is not even close.
Click to expand...

To be honest I always guessed it must have been an easier comp to win because of this, despite all the teams technically being 'champions' in their own right. Of course it's all down to money but the current champions league seems a hell of a lot harder to win, hence why I'd love to see us win it.
 
johnnytapia said:
Which one? I used to think winning the European Cup meant you'd reached the top. But that was in the day when you had to win the league. Or. like Forrest, win the European Cup. None of this contrived utter bullshit. Finish 4th, group stages, finish 6th, qualify through another cup. It should, like all cups, be a straight knockout. Name in the pot, pull them out. Win, you're through. Lose you're out. And to be in it: win your league.
The league for me though, is the absolute best: 39 games, home and away. It's a fucking marathon. A slog. And you have to beat your most bitter rivals to do it. NOTHING could ever match pipping those ****s. Nothing. Ever. Ever, ever, ever, ever. FUCK THEM. Not. In. My. Lifetime. Do you want a fucking bet you miserable scottish ****?
Click to expand...
Did you see the array of shite that Forest beat to get to the 1980 European Cup final?
 
I'd see it as the completion of a journey from third division to the top of Europe. I know all the arguments but it is still the pinnacle for me. we can still win leagues and cups but winning that cup is still the hardest thing to win.
 
I feel like we will... eventually. Probably by 2025. Not expecting anything soon though. Although it is possible to do it with a bit of luck ala Chelsea.
 
Could we unveil a huge flag that simply reads either 'Up yours' or 'Why always us'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.