View attachment 106220
The bat shit crazy thought bank has spoken, they were more than happy hoovering up all those trophies when they could spend as much as they wanted of their Littlewoods Pools money. When someone else is doing it, it’s wrong.
The really stupid stupid comment in this is that another Leicester can't happen because of City. Leicester City didn't win the league in the 10 years preceding City's takeover and spend but in the 10 years post takeover. So Leicester only happened whilst City have been City. In fact since City were taken over the Premier League has been won 3 times by a team for the first time.
From the foundation of the league until 2012 the League had only been won by 4 different teams. So you could argue that City have made the league more competitive.
But the critic would reply that City have one 3 in a row! How's that competitive? United won 4 of the first 5 league titles and have won three in a row twice. No one complained then. In fact no one complained when the first 12 league titles were won be either United or Arsenal 11 times.
Since the EPL started it has been won by 7 different teams by contrast La Liga has been won by 5 different teams, Seria A by 6 and the Bundesliga by 6. So at the very least the EPL is just normal for an elite league if you don't want to argue it's actually more competitive. If you take away City's disruption of the league and remove those 3 teams who won it for the first time then we look ultra uncompetitive.
Or course the last few years have been skewed by this version of City being an absolute beast (but not unusual - United have done similar). The argument being made seems to be that City are too good and should be less good. This would arguably make the league less competitive - you'd just lower the standard required to win it rather than raise the competition. You'd actually then encourage the race to the bottom as quality would no longer matter.
In fact lets not bother with any competition at all and just award it to those trying the hardest. You could then do away with actual matches because if a team has more natural ability or better tactics that gives an unfair advantage over "trying hard.
Get rid of those and then you can judge "trying hard" based on a different metric than actual results and award points for goals scored outside of the box, chest thumps, hendo style leadership, magical nights under the lights, fighting pigeons, fan poetry and stuff just generally meaning more.
Of course this would sadly exclude Leicester as they weren't on TV in the 70's and 80's, Steven Gerrard didn't play for them and not a single one of their fans robbed Italian clothes shops.
Also you can argue you won't complain about finishing second if the previous paragraph is a complaint about not finishing first.
