City "have made the PL uncompetitive"

[eyalluvitt]

It is interesting that I quite often do interviews with overseas media and, unless the journalist is a dedicated fan of LFC, MUFC or AFC and makes a living from that connection (even then it's a personal choice), they tend to have a much more healthy and positive view of City. They are often baffled by the negativity and surprised that fans of other English clubs do not understand the history of it all.

It’s English tribalism , I have several American United fan friends who seem relatively normal people compared to the ex pat rags, who are just as bitter and hate filled as I am.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

It’s English tribalism , I have several American United fan friends who seem relatively normal people compared to the ex pat rags, who are just as bitter and hate filled as I am.

3 last day wins

One from 2.0 down scoring⁰ three goals in six minutes.

Another from 2.1 down in injury time, scoring twice including the winner on 93.20.

The CENTURIONS achievement was from a last minute winner in the last game of the season.

Additionally, we've created more meaniful performance records than any other English team in modern history.

Boring , boring City !!

 

[M23 Citizen]

United; won 7 league titles over the course of 10 years. "An example of the greatest football the world had ever seen! A truly remarkable football team with a manager who exemplifies what it means to nurture success and homegrown, young academy talent reaching the pinnacle of acheivement and recognition! A tremendous asset and advert for the English Premier League brand!"

Manchester City; wins 7 league titles over the course of 10 years. "The Premier League is now boring and uncompetitive and Manchester City have made it so. The players and manager are overrated and have only won it so often because they spent oil money to buy the best players. None of the success has been deserved and it paints a grim future for the English Premier League brand that success in football is now measured by how much money you spend."

All i'm doing is pointing out what we all already know about coverage regarding City.

Indeed.

Even stretch it out further:

Liverpool won the league 11 times in 17 years (1972-73, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1989-90).
That’s 64.7% of the time in that period.

United won the league 13 times in 21 years (1992-93, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13).
That’s 61.9% of the time in that period.

City have won the league 8 times in 13 years (2011-12, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24).
That’s 61.5% of the time in this period.

Top two clubs, that was alright, no problem.
Bottom one, that’s not alright, it is a problem.

Even if we win another four titles in the next six seasons to split the other two’s 17 and 21 years of dominance, calling ours 19 years of dominance with 12 league titles in this time period, that’s still only 63.1%.

 

[talkativesprout]

The only time where we 'allegedly' made it boring was the 100 points season - to be fair we smashed everyone that year and only a f*ck up against the rags stopped us winning the League in March (ISTR) - every other season its gone to the wire (or at worst the last 2 or 3 games of the season). That is NOT a set of boring seasons.

I don't remember Bookies ever paying out for a City title win before it was mathematically impossible for them to lose it. I seem to remember it happening at least twice under Fergie.

How short their memories are mate

 

[blue whippet]

The only time where we 'allegedly' made it boring was the 100 points season - to be fair we smashed everyone that year and only a f*ck up against the rags stopped us winning the League in March (ISTR) - every other season its gone to the wire (or at worst the last 2 or 3 games of the season). That is NOT a set of boring seasons.

That was a wonderful season, so exciting to watch every week. I am still pissed off we lost against them on that day though.

 

[TedofChume]

I don't remember Bookies ever paying out for a City title win before it was mathematically impossible for them to lose it. I seem to remember it happening at least twice under Fergie.

How short their memories are mate

They did it with Liverpool and Leicester...

 

[Vic]

That was a wonderful season, so exciting to watch every week. I am still pissed off we lost against them on that day though.

Eased a bit by them losing it instead in front of their own fans while Vinnie was in his local pub...

 

[TedofChume]

I'm pretty sure the Premier League is more competitive now than ever, and it is down to the money invested in City.

Older fans will know what I'm about to say, but younger fans might not.

When the Premier League started in 92-93, Liverpool and and United were live on tv all the time. Closely followed by Arsenal, Everton and Spurs. These five clubs started pushing for an English Super League in they 80s, the Premier League was the 4th attempt. They ran it and have done since. Everton should have been relegated twice but have stayed up...

Live football on BBC/ITV arrived in 83-84. These five self styled "Glamour Clubs" were on tv all the time. I'm pretty sure the tv companies had picked City as well, because you'd have the three biggest derbies to show, but City had other plans....

They were each shown at 2-3 times a month out of 8 games, they quickly built up armchair supporters around the UK, who'd buy shirts, programmes and other merchandise. So being on TV the most was the holy grail.

Elitism had started before this with home gate receipts, end of maximum wage etc. but live matches on tv accelerated this.

Back to the Premier League:

United won 7 of the first 9 titles, and as the Champions League had started at the same time and only the champions entered, they shot ahead financially. It would have been 8/9, if Jack Walker hadn't bankrolled Blackburn.

During this time Chelsea (£400m) and Leeds (£200m), almost went bust, trying to keep up. Leeds went down and Chelsea were saved by Abramovich. If it hadn't been for Abramovich's money, the following decade would have been 8/10 for United. Newcastle had been back rolled by John Hall in the 90s, but when he stepped down Freddie Shepherd racked up £250m of debt before selling to Mike Ashley, who ran a tight ship and paid it off. Liverpool didn't do much better racking up almost £500m of debt before RBS/NatWest called in the debt.

We had a period in the 00s where the same four clubs qualified every year for the Champions League (Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and United). It was becoming very boring and predictable.

After almost 20 years only 4 teams had won it, two with massive cash injections.

The only thing that changed it was City joining the party. First City pushed Liverpool out of their regular Champions League slot, creating churn. Since the money came into City, 5c extra clubs (City, Spurs, Newcastle, Villa and Leicester).have all played in the Champions League, and three new teams City, Leicester and Liverpool have won the Premier League.

Currently we have Brighton really trying to break into the Champions League places.

As others have pointed out 5/8 titles that City have won have gone to the wire, 3 being the tightest Premier League title races ever.

If Newcastle had been allowed to spend like City, we'd have a much more competitive league.

I'm pretty certain over the last 8 years United and Chelsea have spent more on players than City every year, and Arsenal have in 6 of them too. It baffles me how City are accused of buying the league.

If it hadn't been for wealthy owners like John Hall, Abramovich and Sheik Mansour upsetting the apple cart, United would have won the Premier League over 20 times by now.
 
The reality is, it's not all about Arsenal, Liverpool and United anymore, and their owners and fans don't like it.

What does anything mean, basically? What is the Script of the Bridge, Strange Times indeed.

 

[trotsky]

What does anything mean, basically? What is the Script of the Bridge, Strange Times indeed.

They’ve tried to hamper us all the way, it’s been like running Up the Down Escalator

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Indeed.

Even stretch it out further:

Liverpool won the league 11 times in 17 years (1972-73, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1989-90).
That’s 64.7% of the time in that period.

United won the league 13 times in 21 years (1992-93, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13).
That’s 61.9% of the time in that period.

City have won the league 8 times in 13 years (2011-12, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24).
That’s 61.5% of the time in this period.

Top two clubs, that was alright, no problem.
Bottom one, that’s not alright, it is a problem.

Even if we win another four titles in the next six seasons to split the other two’s 17 and 21 years of dominance, calling ours 19 years of dominance with 12 league titles in this time period, that’s still only 63.1%.

Just look at those stats and think what we have achieved in such a short period.

What’s not to like, absolutely outstanding from us and probably the best return of any era.

Wait, what, did I say probably?