The Manchester City Thread

[K]

Because we deserve one of our own.

[andymacandy]

Because we deserve one of our own.

Yeah?
What have you ever won?

[Rory Bellows]

Congratulations . . What a finish !

[Diamond Dog]

You know I've just worked out - if City had only won the derby game early in the season 2-1 (instead of 6-1) United & City would have had exactly same points, goal difference and goals scored and conceded? When Fergie said after that game that sometimes you just have to accept the result and go into damage limitation mode, he wasn't far off right, wasn't he?

[K]

No.
But they didn't - so we won!

[Diamond Dog]

[K]

By the way, gang. I've never felt like I did when Aguero scored that goal. I saw City win at Wembly vs Gillingham, I ead there. This I saw on TV but danced a dance like no other when the ball hit the back of the net. For 20 mins all I could say was, "unbelievable "

[Jude]

You know I've just worked out - if City had only won the derby game early in the season 2-1 (instead of 6-1) United & City would have had exactly same points, goal difference and goals scored and conceded?

I don't follow the sport, but this intrigues me. How would the title be decided if this had been the case? What's the next criterion?

[Tapiocahead]

You know I've just worked out - if City had only won the derby game early in the season 2-1 (instead of 6-1) United & City would have had exactly same points, goal difference and goals scored and conceded?

I don't follow the sport, but this intrigues me. How would the title be decided if this had been the case? What's the next criterion?

Head to head record I think, which would have made City winners anyhow.

[Jude]

You know I've just worked out - if City had only won the derby game early in the season 2-1 (instead of 6-1) United & City would have had exactly same points, goal difference and goals scored and conceded?

I don't follow the sport, but this intrigues me. How would the title be decided if this had been the case? What's the next criterion?

Head to head record I think, which would have made City winners anyhow.

Interesting. Cheers.

[Geezee]

Apart from obvious congratulations, i have one question; on listening to 909 radio, which is how i was following events yesterday, the City fans kept talking about how City have been a "cursed" club, and in particular that it would have been "typical" for City to throw it away in the way that they have, or that "only City" could have won it like this. the subtext being that City have a long history of pain and near misses. now apart from the playoff win against Gillingham, and of course having a successful rival nearby, what is this history that they refer to?

[Minnie the Minx]

By the way, gang. I've never felt like I did when Aguero scored that goal. I saw City win at Wembly vs Gillingham, I ead there. This I saw on TV but danced a dance like no other when the ball hit the back of the net. For 20 mins all I could say was, "unbelievable "

Absolutely delighted for you mate, we were on the edge of the sofa over here - when that goal went in,bloody hell. a great season for you, enjoy your trophy!

[Rory Bellows]

[Diamond Dog]

How do you put the cork back on a champagne bottle?

Ask a United fan....

[Minnie the Minx]

There is a phenomenal amount of guff about City and money being splashed about in the press. Anybody who has the slightest idea of how football works and has been operating for the past - well, twenty years would be aware that although City have been lavish, they are in no way alone, certainly not greatly different from Utd. I can only concur such guff comes from those who don't actually know as much about football as they think they do. Saying 'city bought the title' is lazy and easy.

[Bleep]

City have spent an ENORMOUS amount of money (£650 million) in a very short period of time since Mansour bought the club in 2008.

However, Chelsea have spent since 1999, £1.3 billion. The same as Real Madrid and Barcelona over the same period of time.

Manchester United have spent around the same as City since 2000. Arsenal, virtually next to nothing.


I don't begrudge City winning the title at all by buying success; they did it in style, considerably more so than Chelsea did when they won under Mourinho. They have some class players and their best one, Kompany, cost only £6 million. Their fans have had a rollercoaster ride in the last few years and I think it's great that they have some silverware to cheer about. Sitting in the shadows of United for near 25 years must have been galling for them and why not have a bit of time in the sun?

Money and football has always been around and it's farcical to think of a hallowed time when it didn't. Why do you think clubs like Blackburn, Preston NE and Bolton do well during the 1880's? Because they were mill towns and had lots of money to buy the best players.

[Diamond Dog]

Don't get me wrong - of course City are going to have to change their wage structure etc, because i think they're the furthest away from the utopian 'financial fair play' criteria that kick in in a couple of years. They have spent oodles of money. But United really are not the club to complain about it, being tireless transgressers themselves for as long as I can remember. Arsenal maybe, United, no.

[Geezee]

There is a phenomenal amount of guff about City and money being splashed about in the press. Anybody who has the slightest idea of how football works and has been operating for the past - well, twenty years would be aware that although City have been lavish, they are in no way alone, certainly not greatly different from Utd. I can only concur such guff comes from those who don't actually know as much about football as they think they do. Saying 'city bought the title' is lazy and easy.

I don't understand this backlash against a perfectly valid description of how City won the title. You can't seriously mean that they are "not greatly different". There is one difference between the City that won the title, and the City that didn't: money. And there is an enormous difference between Utd - who seem to be the arch targets of people's ire over who should and should not be allowed to describe City's monetary power - and City's spend; really, it hardly bears comparison, and particularly so if you take salary into account, and particularly if you take into account that City's spend is hardly based on income at all. They are operating in a different environment; essentially they are a charity based on the generosity of their owners. Utd is a business where it's spend is balanced by its revenues (although much less so in the Glazer era given the debt situation).

Saying that city didn't buy the title is borderline psychotic distortion of reality. It doesn't make it any less glorious for a City fan, and it doesn't make players like Kompany any less special; it's just how things were done. I would argue that Utd haven't bought the title in the past, but i'm perfectly happy for others to judge that they have; obviously the income they've generated has been a massive difference in sustaining their dominance (just as it did with Liverpool in the past), even if other teams have spent significantly more. Lord knows it's on the list of general accusations levelled at Utd in the past, so I don't understand why City shouldn't have to face up to the same issue; they'd be idiots if they didn't, and I'm thankful to say that the City fans I know are certainly very mindful and concerned about how the business is being run.

If it's lazy and easy to say that City bought the title it's because, I'm afraid, it's true; although there are plenty of examples of teams that have spent alot and failed, nobody has spent even close to what City have spent. Of course there are more ingredients to it, and I admire significant parts to their team, but money is ultimately the driving factor here, and I'm amazed it's moderately controversial to say so. If it's a case of the tea calling the kettle black, so be it, it doesn't make it any less true.

[Bleep]

It's a bit of a ridiculous argument from both sides to be honest - there is no right and wrong.

To earn success in today's game, you have to have money. The days of Nottingham Forest or Ipswich Town, the last small clubs to realistically have a chance of supping at the top table (and doing so in the case of the former) and staying there have been and gone - no longer can you have a chance of keeping your players AND manager in the face of hugely inflated wages and the like.

I would argue that United, of all the clubs in the Premiership at the start, were the most well-placed to prosper from the Sky revenue. They upgraded Old Trafford to 75,000 without having to get finance for a new stadium altogether and didn't have any opposition to it, something that has significantly hampered the fortunes of clubs such as Liverpool and Arsenal, two clubs that have not had a financial backer like Abramovich or Mansour. There's no doubt that for most of it, they have spent their money well and didn't do a Leeds for example, but United had a combination of a superb manager, a great youth policy and the stadium capacity to make that extra revenue REALLY count. It's not luck, but there was a harmony of certain conditions that helped United enormously. Chelsea have had to spend twice what United have because they don't have the stadium revenue.

[K]

Ha ha ha!
City bought the title. That's the Premier League title!! The title that says "Champions of England".
Who gives a fuck? I suppose it adds a little to our negligible (132 year) history and it was the greatest match in the history of football!!!!
Shame we didn't do it through honest income like that given to United in the fifties by Louis (sells dodgy meat to schools) Edwards and his honest methods of bringing in youth team players - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Edwa ... alpractice