Are City really ruining football?

Big$pendingPeppers said:
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
Click to expand...
Simple answer is NO ! Man City
Big$pendingPeppers said:
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
Click to expand...
simple answer is NO ! Man City aren’t ruining football , it was ruined a long time before yous managed to jump the queue and piss all the ‘big’ boys off in the process. I only keep up with modern football from what laddo tells me about games , clubs, teams etc. He loves the blacknwhites (more fool him)! But loves watching Man City not just for the football but because he’s a football fan . If ‘ruining football’ is because you’re outspending everyone then basically tough fuckin shit to the rest. They’ve had it too good for too long and let’s face it it wasn’t because of bodies through the turnstiles it was because of lucrative commercial deals , Far East pre season tours TV money etc.
City just happened to join the party at the right time spent a few quid and overtook the ‘big’ boys . The shit that’s being thrown our way since this takeover makes me laugh, apparently ‘we’ve ruined football’ !!!!! Fuck me were 2nd bottom playing a team 2/3rds of which at best are championship standard but we’ve ruined football ??. I never once heard at the time (or since for that matter ) that Chelsea had ruined football from the London press , now theirs a fuckin surprise eh?
 
Big$pendingPeppers said:
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
Click to expand...
Some good points but Arsenal spent some huge sums, especially when the tax exile and blood diamond dealer Danny Fizsman invested heavily to sign the likes of Bergkamp, Platt, Viera etc (human rights, eh?)
Atletico have spent some huge sums under the current regime. Felix, Lemar, Costa, Griezmann etc
 
Is this really a topic to discuss for City supporters?

Maybe because I had almost forty years with very slim picking supporting my team, that the last ten are making up for it, and long may it continue.

We have a tremendous squad that has been assembled, the best manager in the world, f*ck everyone else, I would be happy to win everything for the foreseeable future, and I would not blink an eye.
 
Ruining it for the old sky 4 and their mates in the media.

Fucking love it :-)
 
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.