Manchester City 22/24

[The39thStep]

You've really become quite unhinged in your blind support for your team. Any writer who dares criticise them or their dodgy owners is immediately dismissed as a hack or a worthless troll, and you're unable to take on board - or even comprehend - why football fans may be deeply alarmed at the worrying precedent Man City are setting.

But so long as they're lifting trophies, then that's all your interested in.

You're unable to grasp the concept that you can support a team while still being deeply critical of their owners, their funding or the wildly uneven playing field they're created with the near-unlimited wealth of their backers. And you can't even see why all this is bad for football in the first place.

I think the last paragraph makes some sense tbh .

 

[two sheds]

Haven't followed the thread, so not sure what City have done that others haven't before them, but I see Everton could be in trouble too.

Everton face threat of multimillion-pound legal bill from quartet over FFP case

Everton face legal action from Leicester, Leeds, Southampton and Burnley if they lose their case for an alleged breach of the Premier League’s financial fair play rules

www.theguardian.com

 

[RD2003]

Would I want similar for West Ham, no fucking way. I think that at the heart of that kind of success is an empty soul-destroying void which renders it all meaningless. It's bad enough that we're owned by a porn baron twat tbh, and he's small fry in comparison.

I know people say these things, and I don't doubt that you mean it, but if it ever happened then many who say the same, if not you, would be singing a different tune.

It's programmed in advance.

 

[RD2003]

I think the last paragraph makes some sense tbh .

As I said, while City's owners might have unlimited wealth, they are not allowed to spend it limitlessly, and the 'level playing field,' such as it ever existed, had been decimated by the formation of the PL de-facto closed shop and the CL format some years before it gave an opening for owners like City's. I do think this lack of opportunity for others to break through is bad for football in general.

 

[pbsmooth]

If you can't see what City have done that others haven't done before then sorry but you're just not paying attention. United spent a load of money in the 90s/00s that they earned by being successful. They then had owners bleed them dry, taking money out every year while loading the club with debt. City just spent money they'd not earnt, cooked the books, and all for the aggrandisement of a hateful regime.

 

[tommers]

I know people say these things, and I don't doubt that you mean it, but if it ever happened then many who say the same, if not you, would be singing a different tune.

It's programmed in advance.

Yeah, i mean, I know how I feel about it. I'd like to flip the tables with clubs like United, Liverpool, Chelsea - must be fun to beat them routinely. I think that's why winning the Conference was so emotional, we've spent my whole life getting bullied by clubs like that and it was great to actually win something. But if that's just bought then, I mean that's what they do too, but I dunno it would feel soulless to me. Lots of West ham fans would love it though, look at Newcastle and (more disturbingly) Man Utd for examples.

 

[friedaweed]

So, we have a contender for 'Most Urban' thread of the year then.

 

[planetgeli]

As I said, while City's owners might have unlimited wealth, they are not allowed to spend it limitlessly,

I liked your post, except this bit.

You can spend what you like on lawyers. And will/do. And as we all know about power, that matters.

 

[RD2003]

If you can't see what City have done that others haven't done before then sorry but you're just not paying attention. United spent a load of money in the 90s/00s that they earned by being successful. They then had owners bleed them dry, taking money out every year while loading the club with debt. City just spent money they'd not earnt, cooked the books, and all for the aggrandisement of a hateful regime.

United were instrumental in creating the de-facto PL closed shop. It was meant to be an international TV spectacle, with them winning the PL every season apart from the odd one when the likes of Arsenal got a look-in. When Chelsea did so too, it was due to the attraction of the newly TV-driven spectacle for their new owner.

What success did United have prior to the PL carve-up? They had big support deriving from the ongoing exploitation of the Munich tragedy (never once before had they been the best-supported club in England-check the stats), a period of 1950s and '60s success to look back on, an occasional cup win, and pretty much nothing else. Everton, for example, had more league titles to their name prior to the PL formation. But after the mess they were in in the 1970s, they had gradually put in place people with the business acumen to realise they were best placed to benefit from the PL carve-up. The contradiction within the United fanbase is that they venerate the very people-Ferguson, Charlton et al-who backed the Glazer's bid and defended their ownership to the hilt, while a minority constantly cried about the owners. And the owners of the club and the ever-present (why?) old guard rested on their laurels, 'only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air,' apparently blind to the way that what they had engineered for the game had opened the way for people with better, more advanced ideas. And the only answer they had was to pressure the weak authorities who preside over football to shut out new investment and invent rules to impede those who got in before they got the drawbridge pulled up.

Without Chelsea and City the PL would have become a Bundesliga-style one-club league, as Martin Samuel (West Ham supporter), the only contemporary football journalist worth a shit, recognises.

'Money not earned?' As if the establishment clubs never had investment in the first place, and the opportunity to increase it due to their domination of the PL/CL de-facto closed shop, resulting, inevitably, in their ability to cream off other clubs' best players, thus perpetuating the status quo.

 

[RD2003]

I liked your post, except this bit.

You can spend what you like on lawyers. And will/do. And as we all know about power, that matters.

True. If City's owners had anything about them they would go to a no-win-no-fee setup to defend themselves from the anti-competion cartel.

 

[planetgeli]

True. If City's owners had anything about them they would go to a no-win-no-fee setup to defend themselves from the anti-competion cartel.

Ok man, I tried to be nice and you come back with heavy sarcasm ignoring any class aspect of law because your beloved team is obviously above your supposed revolutionary politics.

Fuck off like.

 

[RD2003]

Ok man, I tried to be nice and you come back with heavy sarcasm ignoring any class aspect of law because your beloved team is obviously above your supposed revolutionary politics.

Fuck off like.

No need to be touchy; it was a light-hearted remark. And you know as well as I do that class politics is nowhere in this ongoing war between multinational businesses.

 

[belboid]

I don't get the particular vitriol for City tbh. They're just the latest manifestation of a process that has been going on for the last thirty years. Chelsea were probably a turning point I guess and the concentration of wealth into a few clubs has definitely become more pronounced over that time. That will carry on with Newcastle and whoever else gets taken into similar ownership.

FFP is absolutely a way to limit who can join the club, but is still less perfidious than the direct lobbying by the big clubs (and Spurs for some reason) which determines how competitions themselves are structured. The Euro Super League thing is the ultimate product of that and the sooner they get on with it the better.

Would I want similar for West Ham, no fucking way. I think that at the heart of that kind of success is an empty soul-destroying void which renders it all meaningless. It's bad enough that we're owned by a porn baron twat tbh, and he's small fry in comparison.

City are a symptom rather than a cause,and it is quite funny to see the clubs who were traditionally in their place get all upset about it.

The thing is, this is another step up and beyond. I don't think anyone here will say that the Premier & Champions League were a good thing, but there is still a pretty fundamental difference between even a porn baron and a nation state. Not to mention that the PL/CL was, to a large extent, just a continuation of tendencies that had already been happening. Notably through TV money, but also, further back, partly due to the end of the maximum wage - an undoubtedly right thing to do, but one which allowed clubs with bigger gates (and smarter bosses) to start buying their way to success. Liverpool were one of the first to take advantage of that.

TV money and especially big European nights then helped Liverpool and then Man U to such massive domination. But even then there was still a greater variety of challengers, the likes of Villa and Ipswich, Nottingham Forest, that could upset the apple cart. The PL and more especially, imo, the expansion of the CL made for a fundamental shift in the possibilities of 'outsiders' coming through. Clubs being bought by nation states looking to ameliorate their image take it to another level again. And shrugging off the fact that they are owned by nation states, not the front operation whose obviousness the Chingford mafia would be embarrassed about, just lets it carry on apace.

Good ol' Uncle Vlad once said that capitalism will survive for ever, if we let it. Same goes for their ownership of football (and various other sports). If we don't at least vaguely oppose it, how is it gonna get any better?

 

[two sheds]

the end of the maximum wage - an undoubtedly right thing to do

Rot started setting in with Dennis Law much as I loved him as a player, cost £115,000. Do have respect for Greaves, had right idea nobody worth more than £100,000.

 

[belboid]

We do need a separate sports washing/state of football(sport) thread, tbf. It's not entirely fair to say this is all Citeh and that they're the worst ever, even if they are. a brilliant example.

 

[belboid]

Rot started setting in with Dennis Law much as I loved him as a player, cost £115,000. Do have respect for Greaves, had right idea nobody worth more than £100,000.

I remember Keegan going for 500k. No one at school could believe, it, it must have been 50k, ten times that would be absurd.

 

[RD2003]

The thing is, this is another step up and beyond. I don't think anyone here will say that the Premier & Champions League were a good thing, but there is still a pretty fundamental difference between even a porn baron and a nation state. Not to mention that the PL/CL was, to a large extent, just a continuation of tendencies that had already been happening. Notably through TV money, but also, further back, partly due to the end of the maximum wage - an undoubtedly right thing to do, but one which allowed clubs with bigger gates (and smarter bosses) to start buying their way to success. Liverpool were one of the first to take advantage of that.

TV money and especially big European nights then helped Liverpool and then Man U to such massive domination. But even then there was still a greater variety of challengers, the likes of Villa and Ipswich, Nottingham Forest, that could upset the apple cart. The PL and more especially, imo, the expansion of the CL made for a fundamental shift in the possibilities of 'outsiders' coming through. Clubs being bought by nation states looking to ameliorate their image take it to another level again. And shrugging off the fact that they are owned by nation states, not the front operation whose obviousness the Chingford mafia would be embarrassed about, just lets it carry on apace.

Good ol' Uncle Vlad once said that capitalism will survive for ever, if we let it. Same goes for their ownership of football (and various other sports). If we don't at least vaguely oppose it, how is it gonna get any better?

Actually a really good post apart from the usual inaccuracy about City being owned by a nation state (even if you want to equate ADUG with Abu Dhabi as a whole, AD is not a nation state but a component of a state.) But your (our?) opposing it, while it amounts to nothing beyond online griping and cheering on one or another side in an ongoing business war, will make as much difference to what happens in football as it does to anything else.

 

[RD2003]

I remember Keegan going for 500k. No one at school could believe, it, it must have been 50k, ten times that would be absurd.

I remember Alan Ball going to Arsenal for a record £220,000. The game has lost its soul, I heard the grown-ups say (or words to that effect.)

 

[RD2003]

We do need a separate sports washing/state of football(sport) thread, tbf. It's not entirely fair to say this is all Citeh and that they're the worst ever, even if they are. a brilliant example.

Yes indeed, Please stop trying to piss on our bonfire, boys and girls.

 

[tommers]

The thing is, this is another step up and beyond. I don't think anyone here will say that the Premier & Champions League were a good thing, but there is still a pretty fundamental difference between even a porn baron and a nation state. Not to mention that the PL/CL was, to a large extent, just a continuation of tendencies that had already been happening. Notably through TV money, but also, further back, partly due to the end of the maximum wage - an undoubtedly right thing to do, but one which allowed clubs with bigger gates (and smarter bosses) to start buying their way to success. Liverpool were one of the first to take advantage of that.

TV money and especially big European nights then helped Liverpool and then Man U to such massive domination. But even then there was still a greater variety of challengers, the likes of Villa and Ipswich, Nottingham Forest, that could upset the apple cart. The PL and more especially, imo, the expansion of the CL made for a fundamental shift in the possibilities of 'outsiders' coming through. Clubs being bought by nation states looking to ameliorate their image take it to another level again. And shrugging off the fact that they are owned by nation states, not the front operation whose obviousness the Chingford mafia would be embarrassed about, just lets it carry on apace.

Good ol' Uncle Vlad once said that capitalism will survive for ever, if we let it. Same goes for their ownership of football (and various other sports). If we don't at least vaguely oppose it, how is it gonna get any better?

I'm a bit drunk now but I think you basically just said the same thing as me.

 

[RD2003]

I'm a bit drunk now but I think you basically just said the same thing as me.

It's no accident that the Lancashire mill town clubs, and other relatively small-time outfits who previously had some success, sank into obscurity after the abolition of the maximum wage. At least until recently, when some of them re-emerged on the strength, largely, of... massive investment.

 

[Humberto]

There's dozens of league clubs. Not owned by nation states.

 

[friedaweed]

Yes indeed, Please stop trying to piss on our bonfire, boys and girls.

View attachment 379183

Why's he standing at the front of the.bus with no shirt on and his undies showing?

No class. He should be in his best shirt and trousers.

 

[RD2003]

There's dozens of league clubs. Not owned by nation states.

Fucking hell, well-spotted.

 

[JimW]

No class. He should be in his best shirt and trousers.

matching ties and blazers in a brush-clean nylon.

 

[RD2003]

matching ties and blazers in a brush-clean nylon.

Standards have definitely plummeted in the past 89 years.

 

[friedaweed]

matching ties and blazers in a brush-clean nylon.

Just the weather for tweed. :

 

[planetgeli]

I remember Alan Ball going to Arsenal for a record £220,000. The game has lost its soul, I heard the grown-ups say (or words to that effect.)

I don't remember those words but fair enough, if you want to start from that point, let's pretend that's all where it began. In 1971. And let's throw in Trevor Francis, first million pound man, 1979 as another point of interest (and even I remember his transfer being spoken of 'stupid money')

£220,000 today = <4 million.

£1,000,000 today = 7 million.

Jack Grealish cost £100 million to sit on the bench for a year. PLUS another near 100 million in wages for that (and every other) year.

There's a magnitude of change. During which that soul most certainly did disappear.

Your use of 'people have always said this' is really a massive red herring and false comparison.

 

[RD2003]

I don't remember those words but fair enough, if you want to start from that point, let's pretend that's all where it began. In 1971. And let's throw in Trevor Francis, first million pound man, 1979 as another point of interest (and even I remember his transfer being spoken of 'stupid money')

£220,000 today = <4 million.

£1,000,000 today = 7 million.

Jack Grealish cost £100 million to sit on the bench for a year. PLUS another near 100 million in wages for that (and every other) year.

There's a magnitude of change. During which that soul most certainly did disappear.

Your use of 'people have always said this' is really a massive red herring and false comparison.

Don't know where you're getting your worth comparisons from, but I'll trust you on it. Having said that, it's irrelevant to the point you're making, as the AB fee was also representative of 'a magnitude of change' then. But as your real point seems to be to blame City, the you have to remember that transfer fees had had begun to spiral towards today's level long before City broke any records. I seem to remember it was during the period of United's dominance that the really daft money started to get thrown around, even if they weren't solely to blame. City, in fact, have broken few transfer records, and have been nowhere near the biggest spenders in recent years.

You have absolutely no way of knowing what Grealish is paid, and nor does anybody but the parties concerned. The same goes for any player. And it wasn't during City's dominance that wages also spiralled. Nor are City the only ones who pay high wages. City are neither top of the various so-called 'wages leagues' you see published here and there, nor the transfer ones.

He isn't sitting on the bench now, Grealish, is he, and nor did he do so for a whole season. Has it escaped your notice that City, like others, rotate the squad? Again, though, who plays and who is on the bench is not a matter of one club seeking to please/placate the fans of other clubs.

I suppose the idea of 'the soul of football' depends on whether you believe in the concept of a soul. Personally, I'm not religious.

 

[planetgeli]

No, the point is not to 'blame' City. You do seem to have a persecution complex. I am well aware of Utd's crap spending. Grealish's wages are a pretty open secret, if you think they are secret at all. Edit. His wages are 100 million over 6 years. So that's ok then.

But you're in denial about City's contribution to the spiral. To the point of defending "successful Arabs". And I had some idea you were into class politics. So it kinda makes you look very silly in my eyes. I'm sure you'll live with it. Reflected glory sure helps eh?