Manchester City Champions League

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

11 hours ago, ziggyram59 said:

As a English team do you want Manchester City to finally win the Champions League? I am definitely supporting them I believe they are the best team in Europe at present and would be deserved champions. But I can understand a lot of fans of other clubs are jealous of Man City's success and don't want them to win the Champions League. 

I struggle to get behind a team going for a Treble having been up on over 100 breaches of FFP for 2 years and continuing to spend with no comeback .  We were docked 9 points, however, for sod all on retrospective rule changes.  

[Day]

6 minutes ago, Will the Ram said:

I’m just putting this out there. In 1913 Arsenal literally bought promotion. They finished 5th but the authorities at the time decided they were to be promoted because their owner had spent a lot of money on the team. They’ve never been relegated since. Do you dislike them too?

No. I mean you're talking about something that happened like 120 years ago, if that's what happened.

Just like I don't dislike Derby County for doing a Nazi salute on the pitch 20 years later.

I would find it hard to hold sport grudges for that long, especially since we're also talking about events that predate even my parents. 

My dislike for "Dirty" Leeds has nothing to do with the old stuff, mine is more recent with Bielsa days and I don't have any feelings towards Juventus either whilst we're at it.

I dislike Chelsea and Man City, the way the clubs are now. It's more than simply buying success, it's the knock on effect it has had and how they are seemingly untouchable.

The stockpiling of youngsters is another major issue, especially when it's clubs like ourselves that are being raided. In fairness Chelsea were punished with an embargo.

Also, it's just a standard dislike, not a deep rooted hatred where I hate the colour blue and spit on the badges if I see them. 

[WTF]

11 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

I struggle to get behind a team going for a Treble having been up on over 100 breaches of FFP for 2 years and continuing to spend with no comeback .  We were docked 9 points, however, for sod all on retrospective rule changes.  

They're just a bunch of cheating ducking  shytalks!

Hope they lose!

 

[Highgate]

8 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Who is going to win the league this year? Oh its Bayern Munich... again... for the millionth time in a row.... how fun.

We might only have a handful of teams that the title rotates around but its infinitely better than watching the turgid s*** the bundesliga serves up.

Its excellent that teams like Man City, Chelsea, Newcastle, etc now have resources to compete with the established clubs and make the league at least semi interesting

Bayern's dominance often makes the title race in Germany boring it's true. Although this season there is only 2 points between themselves and Dortmund at the top.

However, the Bundesliga is actually a great league. Very entertaining games, in packed stadiums with great atmospheres. As well as that, ticket prices are affordable, and the teams are predominantly fan owned. It's actually an example of how football should be done. A much better model than the Premier League in my opinion.

[richinspain]

2 minutes ago, David said:

No. I mean you're talking about something that happened like 120 years ago, if that's what happened.

Just like I don't dislike Derby County for doing a Nazi salute on the pitch 20 years later.

I would find it hard to hold sport grudges for that long, especially since we're also talking about events that predate even my parents. 

My dislike for "Dirty" Leeds has nothing to do with the old stuff, mine is more recent with Bielsa days and I don't have any feelings towards Juventus either whilst we're at it.

I dislike Chelsea and Man City, the way the clubs are now. It's more than simply buying success, it's the knock on effect it has had and how they are seemingly untouchable.

The stockpiling of youngsters is another major issue, especially when it's clubs like ourselves that are being raided. In fairness Chelsea were punished with an embargo.

Also, it's just a standard dislike, not a deep rooted hatred where I hate the colour blue and spit on the badges if I see them. 

Phew, that's a relief. What would you do when we go back to our proper colours?

[Day]

2 minutes ago, richinspain said:

Phew, that's a relief. What would you do when we go back to our proper colours?

The brown yellow and blue? I would just listen to games on Radio Derby. Especially if we went with those daft collars as well.

[Will the Ram]

6 minutes ago, David said:

No. I mean you're talking about something that happened like 120 years ago, if that's what happened.

Just like I don't dislike Derby County for doing a Nazi salute on the pitch 20 years later.

I would find it hard to hold sport grudges for that long, especially since we're also talking about events that predate even my parents. 

My dislike for "Dirty" Leeds has nothing to do with the old stuff, mine is more recent with Bielsa days and I don't have any feelings towards Juventus either whilst we're at it.

I dislike Chelsea and Man City, the way the clubs are now. It's more than simply buying success, it's the knock on effect it has had and how they are seemingly untouchable.

The stockpiling of youngsters is another major issue, especially when it's clubs like ourselves that are being raided. In fairness Chelsea were punished with an embargo.

Also, it's just a standard dislike, not a deep rooted hatred where I hate the colour blue and spit on the badges if I see them. 

It just means teams have always spent money to be successful. I don’t get why Chelsea & Man City doing it relatively quickly makes a difference or why you exclude Arsenal because it was so long ago tbh.

 

Real Madrid & Barcelona spend money like it’s going out of fashion but they’re  nearly £1Bn in debt each. Is that really better than Chelsea winning something?

[Day]

1 minute ago, Will the Ram said:

It just means teams have always spent money to be successful. I don’t get why Chelsea & Man City doing it relatively quickly makes a difference or why you exclude Arsenal because it was so long ago tbh.

 

Real Madrid & Barcelona spend money like it’s going out of fashion but they’re  nearly £1Bn in debt each. Is that really better than Chelsea winning something?

I'm not sure why you think anyone would dislike a club for something that happened 120 years ago, or even try to compare the two.

What next, comparing Steve Bloomers goals with McGoldrick?

I'm also not arsed what happens in other countries, it's the English football pyramid which I'm interested in as it's being ruined.

Real and Barcelona's actions are not inflating prices down into the Championship for example.

Real and Barcelona are not raiding academies in this country outside the PL, offering insane money to young players that haven't even broke through to the first team.

There is also an argument to be had, it's the actions of Premier League clubs that is seeing clubs in Europe spend insane money that they do not have to compete in the CL.

I'm not actually that arsed about who actually wins the Champions League, I just don't want Man City to do it. 

Be nice to see Tomori lift it, but you'll probably hit me with something AC Milan did in 1890 that I should dislike them for next. Before you do, this is Tomori personally.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

13 minutes ago, Will the Ram said:

It just means teams have always spent money to be successful. I don’t get why Chelsea & Man City doing it relatively quickly makes a difference or why you exclude Arsenal because it was so long ago tbh.

 

Real Madrid & Barcelona spend money like it’s going out of fashion but they’re  nearly £1Bn in debt each. Is that really better than Chelsea winning something?

To be honest it's the new money situation which annoys people- well me.  Perfect storm was Lampard as an example.  Put aside it was him it was a month of Chelseas huge , Chelseas massive,  chelseas the dogs b******* and Derby are an insignificance in this s*** show.  Well I remember Chelsea pre 96 playing second division football/lower half relegation struggling in the 1st division with one FA cup and one league title in the bank, serving up rank football in a stadium that was falling down filled with 10'000 cavemen using seats as frisbees. Chelsea will always have a more successful team than Derby now only thanks to the fact their a team in London and will attract investment.  That's it. 

15 years ago Man City were in our league having won nothing in 40 years and losing games to Gillingham.  Now they're ringing Talksport complaining about how much tickets to Wembley are costing them as they keep winning things, because their turds been given a lick of gold paint.

Suppose simply put, they get on my tits and are everything that's wrong in football today.   

 

[Will the Ram]

29 minutes ago, David said:

I'm not sure why you think anyone would dislike a club for something that happened 120 years ago, or even try to compare the two.

What next, comparing Steve Bloomers goals with McGoldrick?

I'm also not arsed what happens in other countries, it's the English football pyramid which I'm interested in as it's being ruined.

Real and Barcelona's actions are not inflating prices down into the Championship for example.

Real and Barcelona are not raiding academies in this country outside the PL, offering insane money to young players that haven't even broke through to the first team.

There is also an argument to be had, it's the actions of Premier League clubs that is seeing clubs in Europe spend insane money that they do not have to compete in the CL.

I'm not actually that arsed about who actually wins the Champions League, I just don't want Man City to do it. 

Be nice to see Tomori lift it, but you'll probably hit me with something AC Milan did in 1890 that I should dislike them for next. Before you do, this is Tomori personally.

I feel that you’re missing my point a bit. It’s not the time frame that’s relevant regarding Arsenal it’s the subject as it’s very similar in that success is usually bought by spending a lot of money.

McGoldrick v Bloomer isn’t relevant as McGoldrick isn’t scoring for us in the same division as Bloomer with the same number of teams and football now is a very different game physically.

Ok you don’t care about the Spainish teams. Man Utd then. £500M in debt but spending £80M on one player. Do you support them in Europe?

 

I wouldn’t mind if Milan won it. I’m not too fussed either way though.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Will the Ram

[Day]

2 minutes ago, Will the Ram said:

I feel that you’re missing my point a bit. It’s not the time frame that’s relevant regarding Arsenal it’s the subject as it’s very similar in that success is usually bought by spending a lot of money.

McGoldrick v Bloomer isn’t relevant as McGoldrick isn’t scoring for us in the same division as Bloomer with the same number of teams and football now is a very different game physically.

Ok you don’t care about the Spainish teams. Man Utd then. £500M in debt but spending £80M on one player. Do you support them in Europe?

It's not me that's missing the point here as my dislike is very much to do with the time frame. You keep throwing Arsenal in from 120 years ago, I'm not sure how else to say I'm not interested in what happened 120 years ago. 

[Will the Ram]

10 minutes ago, David said:

It's not me that's missing the point here as my dislike is very much to do with the time frame. You keep throwing Arsenal in from 120 years ago, I'm not sure how else to say I'm not interested in what happened 120 years ago. 

My point is that successful teams have always bought their success generally. Just because you’re not interested in things that happened a long time ago doesn’t make it irrelevant. It’s your choice to ignore it. I don’t hate arsenal for it but I don’t hate Chelsea or Man City either.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Will the Ram

[Day]

11 minutes ago, Will the Ram said:

My point is that successful teams have always bought their success generally. Just because you’re not interested in things that happened a long time ago doesn’t make it irrelevant. It’s your choice to ignore it.

The thing is, it is completely irrelevant to my personal dislikes and you are choosing to ignore that, sending us around in circles trying to hammer in 120 years ago historical events into this.

I just don't dislike Arsenal, I'm sorry, I hope they win the Premier League this season. 

[Will the Ram]

24 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

To be honest it's the new money situation which annoys people- well me.  Perfect storm was Lampard as an example.  Put aside it was him it was a month of Chelseas huge , Chelseas massive,  chelseas the dogs b******* and Derby are an insignificance in this s*** show.  Well I remember Chelsea pre 96 playing second division football/lower half relegation struggling in the 1st division with one FA cup and one league title in the bank, serving up rank football in a stadium that was falling down filled with 10'000 cavemen using seats as frisbees. Chelsea will always have a more successful team than Derby now only thanks to the fact their a team in London and will attract investment.  That's it. 

15 years ago Man City were in our league having won nothing in 40 years and losing games to Gillingham.  Now they're ringing Talksport complaining about how much tickets to Wembley are costing them as they keep winning things, because their turds been given a lick of gold paint.

Suppose simply put, they get on my tits and are everything that's wrong in football today.   

 

I get your dislike for Chelsea. A lot of fans just care about recent history these days. Same people that probably think Leicester are a “big club” because the won the league.

 

Man City in division two was 24 years ago though so their younger fans won’t know about it (they beat Gillingham too).

[Will the Ram]

1 minute ago, David said:

The thing is, it is completely irrelevant to my personal dislikes and you are choosing to ignore that, sending us around in circles trying to hammer in 120 years ago historical events into this.

I just don't dislike Arsenal, I'm sorry, I hope they win the Premier League this season. 

That’s your personal choice to dislike a team but it was the reason for your dislike I was talking about. Singling them out when others have done it (and probably will in the future) just seems harsh. Blackburn did it (just one other example).

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

6 minutes ago, David said:

The thing is, it is completely irrelevant to my personal dislikes and you are choosing to ignore that, sending us around in circles trying to hammer in 120 years ago historical events into this.

I just don't dislike Arsenal, I'm sorry, I hope they win the Premier League this season. 

I agree on West Ham.  Shithouses.  Taxpayer paid about 300 million for their stadium.  No ones moaning at them about taxpayer money being misused.   They can get lost as well.  Big club may arse. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

Liverpool sell their players to Madrid, then they buy from Spurs, Derby, Villa and Forest.   Derby, Forest, Villa and Spurs buy from Norwich, Southampton and Leicester.  Leicester and Southampton buy from etc.  It was model that worked for 100 years.  When you've got players who are signing for Bournemouth, Watford and Brentford ahead of Derby something's got broken somewhere.  It's against the law of natural gravity.  Money over substance and it's got worse. 

[Day]

5 minutes ago, Will the Ram said:

That’s your personal choice to dislike a team but it was the reason for your dislike I was talking about. Singling them out when others have done it (and probably will in the future) just seems harsh. Blackburn did it (just one other example).

You're focusing too much on the trophies that buying success brings, not the bigger picture.

It's the cost of those trophies and the impact it's having down the football pyramid right now with the inflated transfer fees which has seen player demands increase.

Back when Blackburn were buying success, the youngsters who haven't even made the first team wouldn't be driving around in Porsches as they are now down Cobham.

When they don't make it to the first team and have little first team experience out on loan to show for it, they will turn up at a Championship club asking for 10k pw. It's madness.

Other clubs have spend big money, they have, but Chelsea and Man City have done it at an astronomical level in such a short period of time it's messed the market up.

[Day]

34 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

I agree on West Ham.  Shithouses.  Taxpayer paid about 300 million for their stadium.  No ones moaning at them about taxpayer money being misused.   They can get lost as well.  Big club may arse. 

The City of Manchester stadium cost about £110 million. £77 million of that was paid by Sport England and the rest was paid by the Manchester City Council.

Then the council paid £22m to have it converted to a football stadium, Man City paying just £20m.

5 years later they get taken over and go spend £150m in the transfer window and haven't stopped since.

[Highgate]

59 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Liverpool sell their players to Madrid, then they buy from Spurs, Derby, Villa and Forest.   Derby, Forest, Villa and Spurs buy from Norwich, Southampton and Leicester.  Leicester and Southampton buy from etc.  It was model that worked for 100 years.  When you've got players who are signing for Bournemouth, Watford and Brentford ahead of Derby something's got broken somewhere.  It's against the law of natural gravity.  Money over substance and it's got worse. 

Aren't they all in a higher division than Derby?  So it seems natural that players would want to sign for them rather than Derby (at the moment).  There shouldn't be any law in football that predetermines a permanent hierarchy.  In fact that's precisely the opposite of what football should be. It should be based on how the team has traditionally performed on the pitch..aswell as the natural size of their fanbase I guess.

 Regrettably a sport that was once as much about the fans as anything else is fast becoming a plaything for billionaires, who use their (nearly always) ill-gotten wealth to arbitrarily turn previously obscure clubs into powerhouses overnight.