coulsonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 1,519
apart from the fact that this benefits spurs rather than us.
Stevie G said:I agree that it's not Manchester City's fault. I'm just calling for a bit of reasoning here. For years, ourselves, City supporters, Arsenal supporters etc took the piss out of Chelsea for "buying trophies" and that they wouldn't be anywhere without money because they were a medium sized club compared to the likes of Arsenal.
This now applies to Manchester City, who, if we're being honest, isn't even the biggest club in Manchester.-- Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:04 pm --
KansasCITY said:at least City are spending money on good players, Liverpool are spending money on pure shjt...
Yep you're right - Gareth Barry, Jolean Lescott, Gael Clichy and Savic would get into any team in Europe.
Would you be referring to Arsenal there? The club where a director gave them £50m for team building when they were mid-table in the mid-90's? Make that apart from none.Citysmith said:If it were not for 'rich owners' the Premiership would have been won EVERY year apart from 3 by Manchester United. How is that good for the game?
Not heard about that. I remember them spending big on Platt and Bergkamp under Rioch but not £50m. I'm not saying your wrong but would you care to expand on the point.Prestwich_Blue said:Would you be referring to Arsenal there? The club where a director gave them £50m for team building when they were mid-table in the mid-90's? Make that apart from none.Citysmith said:If it were not for 'rich owners' the Premiership would have been won EVERY year apart from 3 by Manchester United. How is that good for the game?
Citysmith said:If it were not for 'rich owners' the Premiership would have been won EVERY year apart from 3 by Manchester United.
I think I wrote about it on the blog last month.Citysmith said:Not heard about that. I remember them spending big on Platt and Bergkamp under Rioch but not £50m. I'm not saying your wrong but would you care to expand on the point.Prestwich_Blue said:Would you be referring to Arsenal there? The club where a director gave them £50m for team building when they were mid-table in the mid-90's? Make that apart from none.Citysmith said:If it were not for 'rich owners' the Premiership would have been won EVERY year apart from 3 by Manchester United. How is that good for the game?
Prestwich_Blue said:Stevie G said:This is what a lot of City fans seem to think, that we're jealous of your money. We're not in any way. Your stadium is still half empty every other week. There's still no atmosphere at the COMS. Your supporters even copy another clubs celebration when your team scores. Whenever I go on holiday, I still see Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal shirts in many bars and resorts. Not a City one in sight.
I'd never trade our history, reputation and honours for oil money. Never.
So you campaigned vigorously in favour of selling to Hicks & Gillett and against DIC I assume?
bluevengence said:History eh...we were founded before LFC
we won a european trophy before them
we won the FA cup before them
we won the league cup before them
and our record attendance is 84,509
compared to the scousers 61,905
looks like we have a bit of history afrer all
Hamann Pineapple said:Stevie G said:So are you saying that City would be challenging for honours now without oil money?
No, saying Liverpool wouldn't have been where they were without the Moores.