Manchester City - Premier League Champions 2022/23

[Stato]

First time that the year has ended in a "3" without a Rag title winning season!.

Apart from '83, '73, '63, '53, '43, '33, '1923, '1913, 1903 and 1983 you are correct

 

[Metalartin]

As I've said elsewhere, well done to everyone at the club for another well deserved title win. The best club in the land and all the world, is a fact now for me.

It didn't take long for the excuses to come out about spending. I've seen all sorts of mental gymnastics and compium over the last few days. They can't seem to make their mind up which timeframe they want to set on their comparisons anymore. I think 2011/12 is the most relevant time frame, it's where the major Etihad deal started and it's where the majority of success under Sheikh Mansour's ownership has come so far. "We cannot compete" they and their club reps tell us.

A 12 seasons (since 2011/12) top 5 spending comparison

Gross Spend(senior teams)

1: Chelsea €2.19bn
2: Manchester City €1.82bn
3: United €1.74bn
4: Arsenal €1.27bn
5: Liverpool €1.23bn

Net Spend(including academy sales)

1: United €-1,292.36m
2: Manchester City €-1,005.191m
3: Chelsea €-991.98m
4: Arsenal €-759.33m
5: Liverpool €-449.69m

Number of Times Top Gross Spenders - In that period

1: Chelsea 6
2: Manchester City 3
3: United 2
4: Arsenal 1

Number of Times Top Net Spenders - In that period

1: Chelsea 4
1: Manchester City 4
3: United 1
4: Arsenal 1
5: Liverpool 1
6: Villa 1

Major Honours - Won in that period

1: Manchester City 16
2: Chelsea 8
3: Liverpool 5
3: United 5
5: Arsenal 4

Net Spend Per Major Honour(lowest to highest)

1: Manchester City €62.82m per trophy
2: Liverpool €89.94m per trophy
3: Chelsea €124m per trophy
4: Arsenal €189.83m per trophy
5: United €258.47m per trophy

Edit: It just occurred to me that I haven't even thought about teams outside of the Big 6 like Leicester. If anyone else wants to work that out and add it (if it's worth it) feel free. Their story, this season, should be an example of what City fans were saying all along. The history clubs' idea of the right way, will ensure no other clubs can compete with them consistently.

Spoiler: Top 3 spenders since 2008 for those interested(the only narrative they have left)

I looked into this timeframe a month or so ago, so allow some margin for a slight changes in values, since it was written down according to transfermarkt.com at the time.

Gross spend(senior teams) since 2008 top 3

1: Chelsea €2.38bn - Difference to City = +€70m more
2: Manchester City €2.31bn
3: United €1.84bn - Difference to City = -€470m less

Net spend since 2008 top 3

1: Manchester City €-1,400.05m
2: United €-1,264.5m - Difference to City = -€135.55m less than City
3: Chelsea €-1,109.57m - Difference to City = -€290.48m less than City

So Chelsea already have a larger gross spend in the same period. United will likely decimate the difference in netspend in the summer transfer window. Unless City go on a big spree, which they are entitled to do, especially if they win a treble and the story that it will be worth £285m in prize money alone is accurate info(I took that at face value, we have already been saving in recent transfer windows).

Spoiler: Premier League era top 3 spenders comparison(because why not)

Data taken at the same time as the 2008 comparison.

Gross spend(senior teams) since 1992/93 top 3

1: Chelsea €3.14bn
2: Manchester City €2.55bn
3: United €2.37bn

Net spend(including academy sales) since 1992/93 top 3

1: Chelsea €-1,557.21m - Difference to City = €14.41m more than City
2: United €-1,556.08m - Difference to City = €13.28m more than City
3: Manchester City €-1,542.8m

So Chelsea again have a bigger gross spend than City. United's is pretty close to City's. Both clubs have overtaken City's net spend in the PL era. Pretty significant IMO because City had lots of catching up to do, in a market where those two clubs had done the most inflation of any English clubs(still true today I reckon... not seen any updates from that Tomkins guy though). The point being, they'd already be way out in front of City, if the values were adjusted for inflation. Nobody seems interested in those sort of comparisons funnily enough.

 

[ShorehamCitizen]

Apart from '83, '73, '63, '53, '43, '33, '1923, '1913, 1903 and 1983 you are correct

In the Premier League era of course (which is what I meant seeing that lot act as if football began in 1992)

 

[No1 was Colin bell]

All I have heard today is pep is ruining the league, fa allegations, Gundy & Bernie want out! Lol

Can’t wait till we win fa cup & champions league the piss will really start to boil.

Tossers all of them

Am sick of this yeah but nonsense each time media speak about us. Best team ever now let’s show it with two more trophies.

 

[jrb]

A bit premature. Lol!

“we won the league at Shitehart Lane!”

 

[ShorehamCitizen]

Robbie Savage was saying on BT yesterday that the game in 1998-99 was at its highest level?!.

Nope, the quality of the Champions League and Premier League has ridiculously increased since then and our current team would have wiped the floor with all those teams in the Prem and Champions League that season!.

If the 1998-99 Man United team put out a weak side in all competitions and only went full strength to only concentrate on the league, they no way would have got 100 points.

We have been involved in tougher European competitions than they have and Real as well as Barca in 1999 were not exactly the same level they are today, there was less competition. Even Dynamo Kiyv made the semis that year.

In addition, I would like to add, that while the raggies were dominating the league during the 90s, they didn't need very many points to win it, often ending up in the mid 70s bracket. The quality of the opposition, let alone the football on show was nowhere as good today as back then. These days you need 85 or more to win it on average, while the dippers got 97 the year we got 98.

Would love to see that "Fúck you, you Scouse cúnts!" Sky thing again, in which it cuts off to a rather pi$$ed off newsreader.

Edit:

Not as pi$$ed off as I remember it, but her reaction is still a classic.

 

[ShorehamCitizen]

A bit premature. Lol!

“we won the league at Shitehart Lane!”

LMFAO!!!

 

[big gaz]

Absolutely, but I was a bit shocked this guy made those comments admitting we are too good and not because of money.
Shocking parts were 1:18-1:45 and 3:00-3:20.

And I thought Harry Corbett was dead ;-)

 

[ilrm]

Entitlement is the price of success ... unless we don't win 5-0, there is no real joy, just a fleeting moment of happiness. Don't worry Citybros, if you work hard, you too will reach our level one day. Hopefully Madrid's greatness continues to inspire you :P

You have no idea how entitled you sound do you?

I hope City fans never feel that (entitled) way about winning titles. Where's the joy in that?

Plastic dick; we will NEVER be that entitled

 

[Chris in London]

Entitlement is the price of success ...

No it isn’t, it’s just the hallmark of arrogance, which is a particularly unattractive human quality.

look, I don’t know whether this is what you genuinely think or if you are just here to wind people up and get a reaction, but either way you might want to have a good look in the mirror because whether you’re a sad **** or an entitled ****, the bottom line is that you’re just a ****.