Are City really ruining football?

cptaidan88 said:
Without looking into it in depth, there are a couple of United players out on loan listed in that (and have been all season) so wouldn't be on the PL squad list (if thats a thing). The twitter user states they have compiled the list themself. I can see a couple in each list that I dont think have made a single appearance.

We've got a similar squad size to the others. Ours has quality spread more evenly, and we utilise it more effectively.
Click to expand...
Why are you defending them?

We all hear them say we have a bigger squad, not a squad with more quality but a BIGGER squad and even if you want to be the pedant then at worst we all have 25 man squad's but it seems we only have 18 atm
 
We’re our own worst enemy. Shite like this and the equally abysmal media thread. Just enjoy it.
 
Stoned Rose said:
Really good find that mate.
Click to expand...
That is really interesting

Basically it shows how poorly managed the Rags and Dippers squads are. A lot of "signings" that hardly get any game time, what is the point.

We ship out those that don't quite cut the mustard where as the others hang onto them, can't get rid.

The old adage "buy cheap buy twice" is so apparent here.

We rarely make a big signing that doesn't work out these days.
 
Scaring Europe to Death said:
City's squad was undeniably bigger and bloated in the Hughes/Mancini era, but this has slowly diminished over a period of time, and it's now United who suffer from peripheral discontented squad members such as Martial, Jones, Lingard, and Mata.

I don't recall much media sympathy when Laporte and Sane both missed 2019-20, and similarly I now view every Liverpool and Chelsea injury as an advantage to City.

Whether City are ruining football is one of those perennial fabrications whereby nobody can actually say why, and I'm starting to believe that Guardiola is deliberately not buying anybody (and probably won't even replace Fernandinho when he retires) just to make a point.

However, I also believe that despite the latest bollocks, the media's attitude is slowly softening towards City, especially as a whole new generation have only ever known the club to be successful.
Eventually, it will be counter productive to publish so many anti-City articles.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with the last paragraph any more. I hope that we are right and believe that we will be. Naviete I'm sure,but you never know.
 
Its the case in most leagues the teams with the most money are the ones that win titles. Of course our owners deep pocket are the root course of our success, but the same is true for Chelsea and United. United becoming a commercial machine in the Sky Sports era allowed Ferguson to break the British transfer record multiple times. Of course there are exceptions, Leicester City triumph was amazing for football, Arsenal under Wenger never really had deep pockets and they achieved amazing things in the late 1990s to early 2000's. Atletico Madrid under Simeone have managed two league titles with no real budget behind them. Who else is going to win the league if not for the teams that spend the most cash?

If by 'ruining football' people mean us just accumulating big money signings, well F them because that's they way its done. Were not the first club to use our deep pockets to gain an edge.

West Ham were pillaged of Joe Cole, Frank Lampard, Rio Ferdinand, Defoe, Carrick, who if they had kept, could have competed for the top 4 or even won the league. They will probably lose Declan Rice soon too. From this point of view I can see the criticism, its not really fair a club can produce all this talent and not the the beneficiaries of it. It sucks when the cashed up clubs hoover up the top talent, it happened to us with SWP when we had no financial power.

Even though we are apex predators in the transfer market, I would still prefer a more egalitarian league. Where all clubs spending power was closer together. A salary cap or a wage cap to limit the advantage of extra resources. I want to be more than just a team that averages 50m per player. More Fodens, more academy products and shrewd bargain signings. Ill never be a fan of Grealish. A 100m player who rotates in and out of the team. The collective cost of our current squad is just short of 1 billion pounds. Cant we win the league spending only 500m? Leicester City did it spending less than 50m.

Anyway, I used to watch us when Richard Dunne was tripping over his own feet, and Damarcus Beasley was crossing the ball into the stands. I still lust after the 'old' City, but then again the modern version smack the rags, rather than the other way around, so I prefer the modern version

Lets bid 250m For Haaland in the summer & that way we can smugly say to other teams our centre forward cost more than your stadium. And it will be funny because its true
 
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.