Man City Premier League Champions!!!!

beverick

johnfinch wrote:

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?

I'm not sure what point you're arguing. if you're saying that, unless you have a billionaire backer you won't win the PL then, on the whole, I agree.

What I am maintaining is that the fact you now need a billionaire is no different to needing multi-millionaires in the 80's and 90's, millionaires in the 70's and the people with a few hundred grand in the 60's and 70's. It goes all the way back through the then landmark fee paid for Matt Busby in the 30's to the £2,500 put in to Newton Heath in 190? (bearing in mind that the average wage at the time was probably less than £40 per year).

The most succesful clubs, with the notable exception of Arsenal, have always been, and will continue to be, not those with the deepest pockets themselves but the ones with the richest benefactor.

In my opinion, the possibility of a team leaping from lower league obscurity to winning the PL is no more or less likely now than it has ever been. It's just the amount of money needed that's changed. As has happened this year, I can almost guarantee that the PL will be won by a club languishing in the lower divisions 5 or 10 years earlier.

It could be Newcastle's "turn" in 2013 or possibly Southampton.

Bob

finchy

beverick wrote:

I'm not sure what point you're arguing. if you're saying that, unless you have a billionaire backer you won't win the PL then, on the whole, I agree.

What I am maintaining is that the fact you now need a billionaire is no different to needing multi-millionaires in the 80's and 90's, millionaires in the 70's and the people with a few hundred grand in the 60's and 70's. It goes all the way back through the then landmark fee paid for Matt Busby in the 30's to the £2,500 put in to Newton Heath in 190? (bearing in mind that the average wage at the time was probably less than £40 per year).

The most succesful clubs, with the notable exception of Arsenal, have always been, and will continue to be, not those with the deepest pockets themselves but the ones with the richest benefactor.

In my opinion, the possibility of a team leaping from lower league obscurity to winning the PL is no more or less likely now than it has ever been. It's just the amount of money needed that's changed. As has happened this year, I can almost guarantee that the PL will be won by a club languishing in the lower divisions 5 or 10 years earlier.

It could be Newcastle's "turn" in 2013 or possibly Southampton.

Bob

The point I'm making is that the difference between the very few at the top and everybody else is so much greater these days. The likes of Forest, Derby and Ipswich could not, as I have already said, just go out and buy 11 of the world's best players and then 8 more to act as bench warmers, thus preventing other clubs from getting their hands on some decent players.

Are you seriously saying that football is as competitive now as it used to be?

finchy

derekgalor7 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.

That's what I said.

Ben6899

This thread is worth resurrecting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC8FET-EGVM

EDIT: mods, can we edit the thread title?

alihisgreat

So happy - almost makes up for the joke of a champions league exit.

and Van Persie's second goal was a stunner.

Ben6899

It's quiet in here, Ali.

alihisgreat

Well everyone does love to hate United!

cornerblock

This season has been a complete contrast to last year, dull dull dull. Not that I would expect any MU fan to care, I wouldn't if Chelsea had won it in similar circumstances. The title has been wrapped up for weeks not because MU have been brilliant but because all the other potential candidates have been so poor, for one reason or another, and inconsistent. I honestly would struggle to think of 5 brilliant matches this season. Even Sky have been unable to hype up this one, and if they can't polish a turd nobody can! Even the relegation battle has been a foregone conclusion bar one place for ages. Be glad when it's over.

Roll on to the Giro and Le Tour.

finchy

Football has been absolutely f**king shite this year - every major championship more or less wrapped up by the turn of the year. At least the Champions League seems a bit more exciting.

Ben6899

johnfinch wrote:

Football has been absolutely f**king shite this year - every major championship more or less wrapped up by the turn of the year. At least the Champions League seems a bit more exciting.

Some truth here, I stand by the fact the only domestic team - United aside - to impress me this season was Spurs. But a team can only beat what is thrown in front of them. I once played for a side that cleared up one season, but we still had to turn up and do a job even against the shite teams.

Champions League has been cracking. I'm just hoping Miss6899's dad's team finish off Barca and then Múeller BVB. That'll round off the season nicely (couldn't give two f***s about City in the FA Cup)