Man City Premier League Champions!!!!

alihisgreat

verylonglegs wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I do indeed. OTOH, Man City's owners seem to know what they're doing and are willing to give managers a bit of time.

We'll have to see.

I thought what Fergie really craves is another European Cup and whilst I don't doubt they will be challenging for a while longer domestically I can't see another CL win soon, not without upping the levels of investment considerably.

He's definitely spending in the summer... the team needs reinforcing especially as Giggs and Scholes are only getting older, Fletcher has a serious illness, Vidic is missing the summer tour through injury and Smalling is missing the Euros.. so that could be serious.

Its quite funny that the injuries of Vidic, Anderson, Cleverly etc. and Fletcher's illness haven't been mentioned more this season... Its impressive that Utd managed to get the points that they did with the injuries that they had -> espeically as Cleverly and Anderson were on top form at the beginning of the season before their injuries.

I'm sure City wouldn't have done so well with Kompany out for the season... or if any of their key midfield players were out.

OffTheBackAdam

Following their FA Cup win, Chelsea fans have signed a 1 year extension to remain at the club. They had been strongly linked to Man City.

finchy

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Following their FA Cup win, Chelsea fans have signed a 1 year extension to remain at the club. They had been strongly linked to Man City.

ilm_zero7

vs wrote:

City bought the title.

rubbish ! - no more bought than Untied's years of title buying due to them being the most wealthy club in Europe, the fact that they now have the ability to splash the cash on players to steel them financially from others just puts them in a situation United had for a decade or more.

Sour grapes united - seems to be common amongst the fans and manager too

beverick

I think in many ways, the money side of things has made the premier league more competetive than it was up to two or three years ago - for the European places and from 6th or 7th place downwards at least.

This year's PL was basically a three stage competition with the Manchester teams fighting for the no 1 spot realistically from as early as December whilst, Arsenal, Spurs, Newcastle, Chelsea and, up to their collapse from January onwards, Liverpool fighting for the other European places. Everyone else was effectively closer to relegation than Europe (remembering that, as late as the middle of March, Everton could still have been dragged into the relegation dog-fight - Jelavic, who prompted Everton to match Man City's performance of losing only one game over the last 10 games, has to join Newcastle's Papiss Cisse as being joint purchases of the season).

That said, the route to winning the PL is no different now as at any time in the past. Winning the title relies on buying the best players. It's just that the £440,000 Liverpool paid for Dalglish in 1977 (and the £3m-£5m they paid between 1976 and 1991 to 'buy' success) pales into insignificance to the cost of assembling a squad these days. Basically, the £35m Manchester City paid for Sergio Agüero overshadows the cost of Dalglish in the same way that the fee paid for Dalglish overshadows the £8k Liverpool paid Man City for a certain Matt Busby in 1936.

The fee is relative to the prevailing economy in the game. It's just the source of the payment and the size of the number that alters. Whether it's a single wealthy benefactor or from other foreign earned income, success will continue to be bought using money from abroad (including Murdoch's TV Millions) rather than UK earned income. That is the way of the modern game. We may as well live with it.

Bob

Gazzetta67

For all their £Millions City struggled to beat a "Relegation threatened TEN man team, One of the worst Man United teams for years with a out of retirement Scholes & both over the hill Ferdinand and Giggs....United threw the title away over a month ago and no i am NOT a united fan....Mancini and the other`s are deluded if they are going to be as big as Barca & Real Madrid.

finchy

^^^Give them a bit of time to gel, kick out any troublesome elements (Balotelli, Tevez) and see what happens then. The squad is still quite young and Rome wasn't built in a day.

redjeepǃ

Gazzetta67 wrote:

For all their £Millions City struggled to beat a "Relegation threatened TEN man team, One of the worst Man United teams for years with a out of retirement Scholes & both over the hill Ferdinand and Giggs....United threw the title away over a month ago and no i am NOT a united fan....Mancini and the other`s are deluded if they are going to be as big as Barca & Real Madrid.

That's a fair point about struggling to beat QPR, but the other side of the coin was that it'd have been the only time they lost at home this season, so it was probably more down to City's famous inconsistency than anything else.

Also in City's defence, they played United off the pitch twice this year, however I feel that United are such a strong team with a huge depth of experience that any talk of them being a spent force etc is complete rubbish.
I would however say that City are now a force to be reckoned with and next season will be interesting as both teams will be looking to reconsolidate and strengthen.

In reality City winning the Championship is good for both teams, and probably better for Manchester than had United won it ....again. City are currently pumping huge amounts of investment into East Manchester and the local community and this can only help them justify this.

(BTW I'm a lifelong City fan and haven't come down to earth yet).

CiB

QPR had form; they'd had a couple of decent performances before the final run in that showed they could probably cope with city, and let's not forget that v Man U the other week the ref gave Utd a goal start + a man advantage when he fell for Ashley Young's collapse in the box when violently touched gently in the back, and it still took Utd a long while to get a second and close the game out. At 11 a side without a goal start QPR could have hung on; that was the plan that may well have worked and nearly worked again on Sunday v City.

I'm not a City fan, nor Utd, but I've watched the end a million times and listened to Mike Ingham's commentary on R5 till my speakers have formed into the shape of his words. Awesome moment. I'm glad I was in a noisy pub when it happened.

beverick

Gazzetta67 wrote:

For all their £Millions City struggled to beat a "Relegation threatened TEN man team, One of the worst Man United teams for years with a out of retirement Scholes & both over the hill Ferdinand and Giggs....United threw the title away over a month ago and no i am NOT a united fan....Mancini and the other`s are deluded if they are going to be as big as Barca & Real Madrid.

Absolute rubbish. Man City won and that's all history needs to record - any win is a good one easy or not. It's 'digging deep' and winning with late goals also long been the mark of a good club.

Anyone expecting Man C to romp to a 4-0 win on Sunday was deluded. They always had their work cut out as QPR had a fight on their hands and played to the challenge. Both sides had to win which any football fan will tell you is a recipe for a tense, nervous and scrappy affair.

I think it was Vincent Kompany on the radio last Friday saying something along the lines of "we'd much prefer to be up against a team who have nothing to play for" - and as someone who missed out on promotion by goal average rather than goal difference (ok in Sunday league) having lead the division for most of the season been beaten at home in the last game of the season, after everyone else had finished their programme, by a club who's final stats read P18 W1, D5, L12 I have every sympathy with how the game was played. "Squeaky Bum" just doesn't cover it!

As far as "the worst Man Utd team for years" well, I can only refer you to Rooney, Evra, Smalling, Vidic, Nani, Young, Valencia, Rafael, Jones, Welbeck, Hernandez and Anderson all of whom would walk straight in to the first team of practially any other premier league team (with the exception of perhaps Man City) and probably most European teams as well - as would Giggs and Scholes. I do agree that their squad looks weak in relation to previous iterations though, especially in midfield and in goal.

As far as being as big as Barcelona or Real Madrid well, I'm not sure that's much of an ambition. Although Real Madrid won La Liga this year for the first time in four years, winning the Championship in Spain is akin to winning the Scottish Premier League only for Rangers and Celtic read Barcelona and Real Madrid. Real are also Spain's Liverpool insofar as although they classed as one of the three European Champions (with Bayern and Liverpool having won the champion's league / European Cup five times or three times in a row) their success in Europe is largely historic with six of their nine wins coming in the first ten years of the European Cup's history (and at a time when few domestic Champions actually entered the competition). Similarly, for all of their apparent might in recent years, Barcelona's European success has been at best modest against that of the true European legends such as Real, Inter, Liverpool and Bayern. They are the team to beat in European terms at the moment though, as are Manchester United at national level. Whether in need of rebuild Chelsea, inconsistent Arsenal, still to be proven Spurs and Newcastle, or misfiring Liverpool (or another emerging club such as Everton) can challenge Man City in the near future is doubtful.

So can Man City challenge the current best teams at National? Well, they are doing already. They've won two trophies in two years and with money in the bank to again strengthen their squad I predict more silverware in 2013 onwards.

Will this translate into European success? Well that's more difficult to predict. For all their domination of the English game Man Utd remain also-rans in terms of European success. Chelsea and Arsenal, although they have sat at Europe's top table at regular intervals (and have had occasional minor European success) they have failed to win Europe's, and arguable the world's, largest club prize.

For some reason, despite regular and consistent visits to European finals English clubs have failed to win and despite teams representing England seven times in the last twelve CL finals, we still only have one European Championship club and personally, I can't see Man City changing that.

As far as being a 'big club' well you can buy success but I wouldn't imagine you can buy support - football just doesn't work like that. Their eventual size in terms of wealth will also revolve as much around national an international FA's ability, desire and want to enforce 'fit and proper' financial rules as any onfield success.

Bob

DavidBelcher

johnfinch wrote:

Man U fans really shouldn't be complaining about City buying the title - they were quite happy for the past 2 decades when the increasingly anti-competitive set up of modern football (top 4 going into "Champions" League, etc.) made it virtually impossible for a latter-day Nottingham Forest/Leeds/Derby County style team to come up and challenge them through nothing more than good management.

Forest and Derby weren't averse to splashing the cash back in the day though - they both broke transfer records with Trevor Francis and David Nish respectively. As for Leeds, less said about how they went about winning stuff the better, suffice to say that the manager who spent time with all three of the above clubs didn't like the way Don Revie did it.

David

rick_chasey

DavidBelcher wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Man U fans really shouldn't be complaining about City buying the title - they were quite happy for the past 2 decades when the increasingly anti-competitive set up of modern football (top 4 going into "Champions" League, etc.) made it virtually impossible for a latter-day Nottingham Forest/Leeds/Derby County style team to come up and challenge them through nothing more than good management.

Forest and Derby weren't averse to splashing the cash back in the day though - they both broke transfer records with Trevor Francis and David Nish respectively. As for Leeds, less said about how they went about winning stuff the better, suffice to say that the manager who spent time with all three of the above clubs didn't like the way Don Revie did it.

David

It was Utd's own cash though wasn't it John?

finchy

DavidBelcher wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Man U fans really shouldn't be complaining about City buying the title - they were quite happy for the past 2 decades when the increasingly anti-competitive set up of modern football (top 4 going into "Champions" League, etc.) made it virtually impossible for a latter-day Nottingham Forest/Leeds/Derby County style team to come up and challenge them through nothing more than good management.

Forest and Derby weren't averse to splashing the cash back in the day though - they both broke transfer records with Trevor Francis and David Nish respectively. As for Leeds, less said about how they went about winning stuff the better, suffice to say that the manager who spent time with all three of the above clubs didn't like the way Don Revie did it.

David

The difference in spending though is nowhere near the same. When Forest and Derby won the league, they didn't do it by spending 10x more than most of the other teams and you didn't have such a concentration of talent in the hands of a very small number of teams.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

DavidBelcher wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Man U fans really shouldn't be complaining about City buying the title - they were quite happy for the past 2 decades when the increasingly anti-competitive set up of modern football (top 4 going into "Champions" League, etc.) made it virtually impossible for a latter-day Nottingham Forest/Leeds/Derby County style team to come up and challenge them through nothing more than good management.

Forest and Derby weren't averse to splashing the cash back in the day though - they both broke transfer records with Trevor Francis and David Nish respectively. As for Leeds, less said about how they went about winning stuff the better, suffice to say that the manager who spent time with all three of the above clubs didn't like the way Don Revie did it.

David

It was Utd's own cash though wasn't it John?

The point I'm trying to make is that football over the last 20 years has effectively destroyed the chances of anybody else coming up to challenge the big boys. In the 20 years before the PL was established, 7 teams won the 1st Division and 11 the FA Cup. Since the PL was established it has been won by 5 teams, 3 of which have been rich men's playthings and the FA Cup has been won by 7 teams. Of these 7, one has virtually put itself out of business and 2 have sugar daddies. Really, only Everton and the '96 Chelsea team have broken the stranglehold of the big boys.

Now, if Man Utd have been taking advantage of a system which has been put in place really for the benefit of a few big clubs, and which has made it impossible for anyone to challenge their dominance without hundreds of millions of pounds being injected, then I can't see why their fans should complain.

RideOnTime

oh yes!!!

verylonglegs

Rick Chasey wrote:

DavidBelcher wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Man U fans really shouldn't be complaining about City buying the title - they were quite happy for the past 2 decades when the increasingly anti-competitive set up of modern football (top 4 going into "Champions" League, etc.) made it virtually impossible for a latter-day Nottingham Forest/Leeds/Derby County style team to come up and challenge them through nothing more than good management.

Forest and Derby weren't averse to splashing the cash back in the day though - they both broke transfer records with Trevor Francis and David Nish respectively. As for Leeds, less said about how they went about winning stuff the better, suffice to say that the manager who spent time with all three of the above clubs didn't like the way Don Revie did it.

David

It was Utd's own cash though wasn't it John?

I have to say I really don't see any point in drawing any distinction between the sources of clubs revenues, Man City and Chelsea benefit from a rich owner where as Man United benefit from selling replica shirts in places like Asia. Why is Man United's source of income seen as more legitimate and fair than those of clubs like Chelsea? I mean, I can see why Man United fans squeal about it but I'm not sure what Platini's case is.

izza

How does anyone take a team seriously when they are named after a gay bar?

DavidBelcher

johnfinch wrote:

you didn't have such a concentration of talent in the hands of a very small number of teams.

That's a valid point, things seemed more evenly spread and the fact that both League Cup and FA Cup winners seemed to be drawn from a more varied pool (occasionally - and refreshingly - outside of the top flight) back then is ample evidence.

David

finchy

DavidBelcher wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

you didn't have such a concentration of talent in the hands of a very small number of teams.

That's a valid point, things seemed more evenly spread and the fact that both League Cup and FA Cup winners seemed to be drawn from a more varied pool (occasionally - and refreshingly - outside of the top flight) back then is ample evidence.

David

Indeed, and according to reports even teams like Tottenham look to be in danger of losing star players over the close season. If this carries on we might end up with a league like Scotland's, albeit richer.

Ben6899

verylonglegs wrote:

Why is Man United's source of income seen as more legitimate and fair than those of clubs like Chelsea?

Depends how far you're looking to prove legitimacy, I suppose. But as far as your general example is concerned, I agree there is no difference in United, City or Chelsea spending loads of cash. Source is irrelevant at that level of questioning.

DavidBelcher

izza wrote:

How does anyone take a team seriously when they are named after a gay bar?

Which only reinforces any claims that City bought the title in view of the Electric Six lyric "I want to spend all your money in the gay bar".

David

DavidBelcher

johnfinch wrote:

If this carries on we might end up with a league like Scotland's, albeit richer.

Eek. No thanks! Motherwell did give breaking the usual top two SPL dominance their best shot this season but didn't quite pull it off.

David

beverick

[quote="johnfinch..................
The point I'm trying to make is that football over the last 20 years has effectively destroyed the chances of anybody else coming up to challenge the big boys. In the 20 years before the PL was established, 7 teams won the 1st Division and 11 the FA Cup. Since the PL was established it has been won by 5 teams, 3 of which have been rich men's playthings and the FA Cup has been won by 7 teams. Of these 7, one has virtually put itself out of business and 2 have sugar daddies. Really, only Everton and the '96 Chelsea team have broken the stranglehold of the big boys.

Now, if Man Utd have been taking advantage of a system which has been put in place really for the benefit of a few big clubs, and which has made it impossible for anyone to challenge their dominance without hundreds of millions of pounds being injected, then I can't see why their fans should complain.[/quote]

I'm sorry, I disagree. I think the stats you mention just support the equilibrium.

Manchester City were a league one team a little over ten years ago but have used rich benefactors to 'buy' success. Chelsea came from the lower end of the Championship to win the title in the first few years of this century and Blackburn used Jack Walker's steel money to do the same in the 90's. Liverpool, with John Smith's beer money and Peter Robinson's acumen did the same in the 70's and 80's (albeit built on firm foundations).

The Moore's family 'bought' Everton success (on the back of the Littlewoods organisation) in the 80's and tried, and failed, with Liverpool ten years later. Derby bought the championship in the 70's on the back of Sam Longson's (?) haulage money. If you want to look at the icon of financial stability and consistency, ie a club that has won championships based on organic growth and financial probity over an extended period then there is actually only one club to look at - namely Arsenal (although I appreciate that the business model that maintained success from the early days of the 20th Century may now have changed).

Other than the north London club football has long since been the plaything of the rich businessman.

The Edward's family bought european success for Manchester United in the 50's and 60's and, as if to labour the point, Manchester United are only Manchester United because a benefactor bought Newton Heath's debts 100 years ago on the condition that the club was renamed (nb Leeds are United and not City for the more or less the same reasons).

I'm pretty sure that, in the not too distant future, a previously unfancied club will rise from the depths of the football league to win the PL on the back of a benefactor. Southampton could be that team as could QPR; you can't rule out Swansea also. If you want to look a little further down the leagues to the 2020 champions, MK Dons would be worth a 'punt' as would either of the Sheffield clubs. Doncaster's business model was also intriguing as, "outsourcing" your transfer strategy may well work as it worked for Swansea all too briefly inthe 1980's.

The only thing that has happened is that the numbers needed have increased to such an extent that the UK's rich are no longer rich enough to buy the championship.

Bob

finchy

beverick - I agree to you to some extent, that even going back decades, money being put into a football club could be used for success, BUT back then it wasn't impossible for a team to do so without that backing.

fast as fupp

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7092/7194 ... 35ee_o.gif


almost as funny as Michael Thomas in 1989

beverick

johnfinch wrote:

beverick - I agree to you to some extent, that even going back decades, money being put into a football club could be used for success, BUT back then it wasn't impossible for a team to do so without that backing.

I'm sorry, history wouldn't seem to back you up.

Bob

DavidBelcher

beverick wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

beverick - I agree to you to some extent, that even going back decades, money being put into a football club could be used for success, BUT back then it wasn't impossible for a team to do so without that backing.

I'm sorry, history wouldn't seem to back you up.

Bob

I was going to quote unfancied Ipswich Town from '62 under Alf Ramsey as an exception, though I believe the Cobbold family invested a fair bit of the money they made in the booze business (as owners of Greene King's now-defunct Suffolk brewing rival Tolly Cobbold) into the club.

Forest may come fairly close to ticking the boxes, I believe they were very late (1980s??) amongst League clubs in abandoning a traditional "mutual" structure in favour of the usual one of board, chairman, etc. and the big money-men that often come with such a set-up.

David

finchy

beverick wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

beverick - I agree to you to some extent, that even going back decades, money being put into a football club could be used for success, BUT back then it wasn't impossible for a team to do so without that backing.

I'm sorry, history wouldn't seem to back you up.

Bob

So of the teams I've mentioned, which ones got there using a billionaire backer to ensure that they had not only a starting XI of internationals, but also a bench which was worth more than all the opposition players put together, as has happened so often in the past decade?

willhub

I did not appreciate Manchester City causing me to have to ride an extra 1 mile to get to my destination because they closed access to Oxford Road and Deansgate.

finchy

And on that bombshell...