Topic: General Manchester City thread

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Are you seriously suggesting that Montpellier winning Ligue 1 (before PSG had built a decent team) is more impressive than Leicester winning the PL in 2016? Seriously?

far far better comparison than Atlético and Valencia no?

[Timbo's Goals]

Why the hate for pep? Genuine question.

Where on earth did I say I hated the precocious jumped up inestimably overrated arselicked c*nt of a man?

 

[Xabi Gerrard]

far far better comparison than Atlético and Valencia no?

Oh yeah definitely. All 3 though are a long way off Leicester's achievement in terms of impressiveness.

[Timbo's Goals]

The bitterness don`t suit you.

Ha ha. You're too kind

 

[owens_2k]

he mentioned LFC 1987 side as the best he has ever seen.

This never happened.

[NaivetyinBlack]

So who has said that exactly ?

Exhibit A

If your the second coming of Jesus then move to a club with modest finances, modest everything really. Just bang average and build them up, or restore them greatness. He is so far from a Shankly, Busby, Paisley, Ferguson, Wenger, even Clough (who I dislike) it's fucking untrue.

Klopp took Dortmund from 20th to back to back bundesliga. Do that then I'll change my fucking opinion. Self centred prick is pep.

This thread is filled with multiple posts slagging off Pep for somehow chosing to spend money which is available. Absolute and utter nonsense. I have no love for City, but nothing but admiration for Pep and how much he has achieved in his career already.

We spend more than 3/4th of the league ourselves and (if we buy VvD) will set the record for buying the most expensive defender in history. Let's see how many of you desert our soul-less club then. And do not give me that bullshit of spending more than what is earned. Your issues are with Pep spending the money, not with where it's coming from, right ?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Exhibit A

This thread is filled with multiple posts slagging off Pep for somehow chosing to spend money which is available. Absolute and utter nonsense. I have no love for City, but nothing but admiration for Pep and how much he has achieved in his career already.

We spend more than 3/4th of the league ourselves and (if we buy VvD) will set the record for buying the most expensive defender in history. Let's see how many of you desert our soul-less club then. And do not give me that bullshit of spending more than what is earned. Your issues are with Pep spending the money, not with where it's coming from, right ?

What is all this your bollocks ?

And do you seriously think us spending money that Klopp seems to have rolled over from other windows & money that the club has earned (not bullshit at all) is the same as the Prince spunking his countries money ?

Because that Sir is bullshit.

[Timbo's Goals]

Love the way you have an opinion and don't hold back from letting us all know what it is.

Just like Pep talking to Nathan Redmond really.

 

Well spotted.

 

Only difference being the jumped up c*nt was completely out of order whereas myself and others are 100% justified in calling out the pompous overrated prick and the slime-fest cesspit of a regime to which he sold his soul.

[CraigDS]

We spend more than 3/4th of the league ourselves and (if we buy VvD) will set the record for buying the most expensive defender in history. Let's see how many of you desert our soul-less club then. And do not give me that bullshit of spending more than what is earned. Your issues are with Pep spending the money, not with where it's coming from, right ?

City spent Ł230m this year, Ł200m before that, Ł200m before that, Ł90m before that, Ł115m before that, Ł60m before that, Ł90m before that, Ł180m before that, Ł150m before that, Ł160m before that and finally Ł80m before that. Recouping just a fraction of that in sales.

So they are a fair bit ahead of comparing to our spending, signing VVD for a record figure or not.

 

[NaivetyinBlack]

City spent Ł230m this year, Ł200m before that, Ł200m before that, Ł90m before that, Ł115m before that, Ł60m before that, Ł90m before that, Ł180m before that, Ł150m before that, Ł160m before that and finally Ł80m before that. Recouping just a fraction of that in sales.

So they are a fair bit ahead of comparing to our spending, signing VVD for a record figure or not.

Completely agree with you.

But my point was, we are still spending more than all but 3 teams in the league. Why is Pep somehow to blame for wanting to buy the best available players when we strive to do the same ? Its an incredible piece of hypocrisy when fans comment on how abhorrent it is that City bought all these players for all this money and putting the game in disrepute, while turning around and slagging off FSG for not spending enough money.

[NaivetyinBlack]

And do you seriously think us spending money that Klopp seems to have rolled over from other windows & money that the club has earned (not bullshit at all) is the same as the Prince spunking his countries money ?

Because that Sir is bullshit.

Oh so it is the source of the money spent which is the problem, not its actual spending. But that has nothing to do with Pep, is it ? Like I said, sure, one might believe Ranieri's Leicester win was more 'impressive' but Pep shouldn't be somehow vilified for doing it the way City are. (I know you might not be, but a lot of posters think its a personal insult to praise him).

[CraigDS]

But my point was, we are still spending more than all but 3 teams in the league. Why is Pep somehow to blame for wanting to buy the best available players when we strive to do the same ? Its an incredible piece of hypocrisy when fans comment on how abhorrent it is that City bought all these players for all this money and putting the game in disrepute, while turning around and slagging off FSG for not spending enough money.

I think you're mixing two arguments there though mate and creating a new one that no one (or few, anyway) are making.

Yes some have questioned if Pep could do it without being at a club that isn't spending the most in the league, or just happens to have a handful of the best players in the world when he takes charge. I think that's a valid point to form an argument around, although it's obviously debatable - could he do a Leicester, or a Simeone, or a Klopp, or a 2005 Rafa? I don't think anyone is saying he shouldn't spend the money, or questioning, in the context of Pep, where that money is coming from.

The other argument, regarding City's spending in general, is another argument people make regarding the club, but not Pep, as I've said just above. The fact they ridiculously laugh at FFP and have side stepped the rules countless times (shifting a good chunk of the wages to another company, clearly above market rates for sponsorship from owner related companies, etc.) is 100% a valid argument over other clubs spending what they earn (to a large degree).

[Gerry Attrick]

They only need 53 points from the last 23 games to break the Premier League record that's currently held by the 2004/05 Chelsea team. That Chelsea side finished with a GD of +57, Man City's is already at +36. Most competitive league in the world and all that.

[Timbo's Goals]

Exhibit A

This thread is filled with multiple posts slagging off Pep for somehow chosing to spend money which is available. Absolute and utter nonsense. I have no love for City, but nothing but admiration for Pep and how much he has achieved in his career already.

We spend more than 3/4th of the league ourselves and (if we buy VvD) will set the record for buying the most expensive defender in history. Let's see how many of you desert our soul-less club then. And do not give me that bullshit of spending more than what is earned. Your issues are with Pep spending the money, not with where it's coming from, right ?

If I can be moderately restrained for a moment. Though it is hard for an old soul when these distasteful matters are being discussed, believe me you.

There is, of course, the somewhat inevitable underlying and uncomfortable distaste which I think most time served traditional fans harbour for the game's remorseless over commercialisation/gentrification which has - surely to anybody's criteria save for those financially benefitting from it - spiralled ridiculously out of control.

The specific problem with Man City and PSG and, prior to them, Chelsea is their emergence as footballing powers has not been organic in the same way as, say, Man United and Liverpool whose growth to their particular wealth levels is a reflection of hard earned success across the many decades preceeding the recent one and a half wherein the clubs in question have been transformed completely out of context to represent merely playthings of their unscrupulous and often tainted owners. Fans like myself can simply never regard such institutions with an ounce of respect or credibility and certainly not a football manager of one of them who purports to hold dear the precious underlying core tenets of the game.

And please don't start me on Real Madrid and Barcelona and their contaminated pathways to glory. Not sure about Bayern but I also have my suspicions there too.

[Timbo's Goals]

Completely agree with you.

But my point was, we are still spending more than all but 3 teams in the league. Why is Pep somehow to blame for wanting to buy the best available players when we strive to do the same ? Its an incredible piece of hypocrisy when fans comment on how abhorrent it is that City bought all these players for all this money and putting the game in disrepute, while turning around and slagging off FSG for not spending enough money.

The huge distinction for which you appear to have a blind spot is that demonic institutions such as City, PSG and Chelsea spending oligarch/oil subsidized wealth is an entirely different proposition to proper footy clubs spending organically grown wealth such as that acquired due to untold decades of playing success etc as in the case of Man United and LFC   

[El Lobo]

The huge distinction for which you appear to have a blind spot is that demonic institutions such as City, PSG and Chelsea spending oligarch/oil subsidized wealth is an entirely different proposition to proper footy clubs spending organically grown wealth such as that acquired due to untold decades of playing success etc as in the case of Man United and LFC   

You're honestly pissing into the wind with this one Timbo

I dare say he'll harp back some 100 years or something to our once mega rich owner, or how many transfer records we have broken, or 'so its not the money, but its where it came from' sort of argument. 'People weren't moaning when we broke the transfer record to sign Stan Collymore, were we a demonic club then?' Etc.

[owens_2k]

If I can be moderately restrained for a moment. Though it is hard for an old soul when these distasteful matters are being discussed, believe me you.

There is, of course, the somewhat inevitable underlying and uncomfortable distaste which I think most time served traditional fans harbour for the game's remorseless over commercialisation/gentrification which has - surely to anybody's criteria save for those financially benefitting from it - spiralled ridiculously out of control.

The specific problem with Man City and PSG and, prior to them, Chelsea is their emergence as footballing powers has not been organic in the same way as, say, Man United and Liverpool whose growth to their particular wealth levels is a reflection of hard earned success across the many decades preceeding the recent one and a half wherein the clubs in question have been transformed completely out of context to represent merely playthings of their unscrupulous and often tainted owners. Fans like myself can simply never regard such institutions with an ounce of respect or credibility and certainly not a football manager who purports to hold dear the precious underlying core tenets of the game.

And please don't start me on Real Madrid and Barcelona and their contaminated pathways to glory. Not sure about Bayern but I also have my suspicions there too.

Agree with everything. To the point where I was gutted to see city beat united to the title that year. And I hate united.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Oh so it is the source of the money spent which is the problem, not its actual spending. But that has nothing to do with Pep, is it ? Like I said, sure, one might believe Ranieri's Leicester win was more 'impressive' but Pep shouldn't be somehow vilified for doing it the way City are. (I know you might not be, but a lot of posters think its a personal insult to praise him).

I was only half joking when I mentioned him complaining about the football but after seeing him shouting at Redmond (because that wasn't a chat) whilst bouncing around like Martin O'Neill on speed I really have taken a disliking to him.

[El Lobo]

Agree with everything. To the point where I was gutted to see city beat united to the title that year. And I hate united.

What, when Aguero scored? 

That was honestly one of the funniest things I've ever seen in football. It was fucking splendid. Any notion of not valuing what Manchester City have done was blown away with the absolute fewm of Yernited. So worth it.

[NaivetyinBlack]

The specific problem with Man City and PSG and, prior to them, Chelsea is their emergence as footballing powers has not been organic in the same way as, say, Man United and Liverpool whose growth to their particular wealth levels is a reflection of hard earned success across the many decades preceeding the recent one and a half wherein the clubs in question have been transformed completely out of context to represent merely playthings of their unscrupulous and often tainted owners. Fans like myself can simply never regard such institutions with an ounce of respect or credibility and certainly not a football manager who purports to hold dear the precious underlying core tenets of the game.

And please don't start me on Real Madrid and Barcelona and their contaminated pathways to glory. Not sure about Bayern but I also have my suspicions there too.

Problem is, football is commercialised to the point of clubs being a shiny badge for billionaires to show off. You are absolutely correct in that their growth into these high spending 'brands' might push away people who still view it as community based institutions for the working class. Still, money doesn't guarantee success, or PSG and City would have been winning multiple CLs now, shouldn't they ?

But how is it a problem with Pep ? Why does he 'sell his soul' if he joins a club where he can drive himself to success ? Wouldn't you do it in your profession, work for the highest paying employer, with the best resources available ? Wouldn't be unethical or illegal would it ? What the are core tenets of football and since when did spending more become one of the 'thou shalt not...' commandments for football purism ? Its nothing but elitism mate and really doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm too young I guess.

Oh and I prefer you moderately restrained. 

[Xabi Gerrard]

If I can be moderately restrained for a moment. Though it is hard for an old soul when these distasteful matters are being discussed, believe me you.

There is, of course, the somewhat inevitable underlying and uncomfortable distaste which I think most time served traditional fans harbour for the game's remorseless over commercialisation/gentrification which has - surely to anybody's criteria save for those financially benefitting from it - spiralled ridiculously out of control.

The specific problem with Man City and PSG and, prior to them, Chelsea is their emergence as footballing powers has not been organic in the same way as, say, Man United and Liverpool whose growth to their particular wealth levels is a reflection of hard earned success across the many decades preceeding the recent one and a half wherein the clubs in question have been transformed completely out of context to represent merely playthings of their unscrupulous and often tainted owners. Fans like myself can simply never regard such institutions with an ounce of respect or credibility and certainly not a football manager of one of them who purports to hold dear the precious underlying core tenets of the game.

And please don't start me on Real Madrid and Barcelona and their contaminated pathways to glory. Not sure about Bayern but I also have my suspicions there too.

I think the days in which football clubs in England can grow to the very top organically are long gone. Money's changed the game so much that it's unrecognisable from the days that a Shankly or Busby could rock up at a struggling club and make them sustainably the best team in England.

So now we're past that point of teams being able to become the best organically we're left with two choices.

1) Other clubs can enjoy success but can only do this via sugar daddies.

2) We don't allow sugar daddies because it's not "right". But this means that only clubs that were lucky enough to previously get established (i.e. us, Man Utd and Arsenal) are able to enjoy success.

Neither option is good, but for me option 2) is arguably worse as it's stinks of elitism. The only way it's possible now for a new club to become one of the big boys is through massive unorganic spending.

[The Test]

Don't let Stan Collymore hear you say that. According to Stan Leeds should be automatically back in the top flight and there should be no relegation or promotion... ever. You have to listen to people like Stan. he's played the game.

[Xabi Gerrard]

Don't let Stan Collymore hear you say that. According to Stan Leeds should be automatically back in the top flight and there should be no relegation or promotion... ever. You have to listen to people like Stan. he's played the game.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/PSqMsG_MwRA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/PSqMsG_MwRA</a>

[The Test]

  Collymore's response in the miror. The very definition of petulant.

[thisyearisouryear]

I'm gonna take a wild swing in the dark.....

Barcelona (a few years ago)  And Bayern Munich (a few years ago)  And Man City, if they win it this season. And Barcelona B a good few years ago.

'Since you've gone I been lost without a trace
I dream at night I can only see your face
I look around but it's you I can't replace
I feel so cold and I long for your embrace
I keep crying baby, Peppy, pleeeeeeeeease'

 

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

They were already a team with lots of quality though. He's never had an average group of players at his disposal lol

If he's so good why spunk 130 million on three fullbacks? Surely just improve the likes you already have.

tbf, they didn't really have any. Kolarov and zabaleta were the only ones and both were slow and ageing. Sagna's contract ran out and had injury problems.

Pep I think is almost like a victim of his own success. Succeeded at barca, and from then has never had to take anything less than top jobs.

[puroresu_kid]

I think the days in which football clubs in England can grow to the very top organically are long gone. Money's changed the game so much that it's unrecognisable from the days that a Shankly or Busby could rock up at a struggling club and make them sustainably the best team in England.

So now we're past that point of teams being able to become the best organically we're left with two choices.

1) Other clubs can enjoy success but can only do this via sugar daddies.

2) We don't allow sugar daddies because it's not "right". But this means that only clubs that were lucky enough to previously get established (i.e. us, Man Utd and Arsenal) are able to enjoy success.

Neither option is good, but for me option 2) is arguably worse as it's stinks of elitism. The only way it's possible now for a new club to become one of the big boys is through massive unorganic spending.

I agree. There has to be a chance for the less established clubs to go higher.  It may take a billionaire but rather that than having to feed of the scraps and hope they get lucky for a season or two.

PSG only came into existence in the 1970's while they play in a French League which commercially cannot compete with England, Spain or Italy.

The only chance they had or any other French club for that matter had of being able to compete at the top end of European Football year in year out was from a very wealthy person funding it all. There is no romance to it but what other choice is there for a club like PSG?

[thisyearisouryear]

I think the days in which football clubs in England can grow to the very top organically are long gone. Money's changed the game so much that it's unrecognisable from the days that a Shankly or Busby could rock up at a struggling club and make them sustainably the best team in England.

So now we're past that point of teams being able to become the best organically we're left with two choices.

1) Other clubs can enjoy success but can only do this via sugar daddies.

2) We don't allow sugar daddies because it's not "right". But this means that only clubs that were lucky enough to previously get established (i.e. us, Man Utd and Arsenal) are able to enjoy success.

Neither option is good, but for me option 2) is arguably worse as it's stinks of elitism. The only way it's possible now for a new club to become one of the big boys is through massive unorganic spending.

Aptly put.

[Xxavi]

Like?

Like for example Rubin Kazan's win of the Russian Premier League title. Rubin Kazan at the time was a newly promoted team (and before, they were in the 3rd division). They have been making very impressive progress and won the title against the heavyweights such as CSKA Moscow, Zenit and Spartak.

The same coach who was at the helm of Rubin then took over FC Rostov, who were bottom (I believe) mid-season in Russia. They were almost hopelessly relegated with players not getting paid for months and everybody giving up. He saved them from relegation that year, and the very next year, almost won the league (finished 2nd) and most likely they didn't win because of corruption in Russia. Some very powerful government people want certain teams to win there. So such achievements (yes, even the 2nd place of Rostov) is in a way more impressive than Leicester's purely sporting result.

Consider this, FC Rostov players were a bunch of loanees, crap players others have given up on, and on top, these players weren't getting paid for months. In CL, they went on to beat Bayern Munich, too.

[Xxavi]

The relative budget disbalance and getting the most out of his limited resources. As I said above, I'm just talking about it as an individual achievement, this doesn't mean Ranieri is the best manager of all time. If he did something like this a few times then he probably would be, but he hasn't. Leicester winning the league though is a much more impressive feat than any rich club doing a treble, Verona winning Serie A, or Denmark and Greece winning the Euros.

Please don't be so coy though - let us know these other teams that you know about that have achieved a feat more impressive than Leicester winning the title? Happy to admit I'm wrong, I just can't think of any.

The best example I know is from Russia, see above.

In Russia, the bottom teams are broke, and the top teams are government sponsored such as Zenit (Gazprom). Rubin Kazan itself was government sponsored (Tatarstan's oil companies), however, the magnitude was still far less compared to their traditional heavyweights. And as per usual, the rules and regulations (and refereeing) are bent toward these traditional teams there.

But I'd consider FC Rostov's 2nd place finish more impressive after they miraculously escaped relegation. The amount of scandals they had was staggering that year. Their main sponsor was (is?) some local crook who was throwing hissy fit even in their title campaign. They had to finance that year using CL money, since the region was broke, players weren't getting paid. This is nothing like modern day Premier League where bottom teams are still in top 20-30 rich teams in the world.

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

The Russian league is a bit shit tho. Even the strong clubs in that league aren't really that great

[Xxavi]

Are you seriously suggesting that Montpellier winning Ligue 1 (before PSG had built a decent team) is more impressive than Leicester winning the PL in 2016? Seriously?

Before PSG built a decent team? Come on, they had spent hundreds of millions and hired Ancelotti. If you are going to throw in conditionals, you have to admit that when Leicester won, literally every top team in England was far worse than what they are now. They needed the stars to align to do that.

The matter of fact is PSG had a huge budget and squad. That they cocked up is another matter. For Leicester to win, every top team had to cock up as well

[Xxavi]

The Russian league is a bit shit tho. Even the strong clubs in that league aren't really that great

True but everything is relative. You need to realize the magnitude of shitness of the likes of Rostov. I am saying these are almost semi-pro teams since they don't even pay their players regularly. Whereas Zenit has a huge budget and their stars get paid on par with most European top teams.

The likes of Hulk and Witsel went there for $$$. Only Madrid and Barca would be able to pay those salaries in Spain, for example.

So on one hand, you have a team that signed Hulk for 80m, on the other hand, you have FC Rostov that are almost going to go bankrupt.

[B0151?]

The Russian league is a bit shit tho. Even the strong clubs in that league aren't really that great

That was definitely also true of the Prem when Leicester won the title though.

[Xxavi]

That was definitely also true of the Prem when Leicester won the title though.

Correct.

People really need to realize at this point that EVERY Premier League team is very rich (and have been so for years). We can go further and say that even Championship teams are some of the richest teams on the planet.

It's a matter of question if they can spend money right. The likes of Eibar, Getafe and Real Sociedad have to do that every year to survive. If you want to see a real disadvantaged club, you really need to look at other leagues. Then, you may get to your senses and realize how bad it is elsewhere.

[Xabi Gerrard]

The best example I know is from Russia, see above.

In Russia, the bottom teams are broke, and the top teams are government sponsored such as Zenit (Gazprom). Rubin Kazan itself was government sponsored (Tatarstan's oil companies), however, the magnitude was still far less compared to their traditional heavyweights. And as per usual, the rules and regulations (and refereeing) are bent toward these traditional teams there.

But I'd consider FC Rostov's 2nd place finish more impressive after they miraculously escaped relegation. The amount of scandals they had was staggering that year. Their main sponsor was (is?) some local crook who was throwing hissy fit even in their title campaign. They had to finance that year using CL money, since the region was broke, players weren't getting paid. This is nothing like modern day Premier League where bottom teams are still in top 20-30 rich teams in the world.

That's interesting, I'll look into them more. From what I know about the Russian league, a team like Rubin winning back then wasn't as much of a case of overcoming the odds as Leicester in 2016, but I'll see if I can dig out odds for it.

Before PSG built a decent team? Come on, they had spent hundreds of millions and hired Ancelotti. If you are going to throw in conditionals, you have to admit that when Leicester won, literally every top team in England was far worse than what they are now. They needed the stars to align to do that.

The matter of fact is PSG had a huge budget and squad. That they cocked up is another matter. For Leicester to win, every top team had to cock up as well

Here's their squad that season: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_Paris_Saint-Germain_F.C._season#Squad_information

Lets not pretend that they were a brilliant team or that surpassing them is anywhere close to being the equivalent of Leicester City winning the Premier League.


You're coming across as being very contrary because you can't seem to handle anything from the Premier League being considered impressive.

[Xxavi]

I think the days in which football clubs in England can grow to the very top organically are long gone. Money's changed the game so much that it's unrecognisable from the days that a Shankly or Busby could rock up at a struggling club and make them sustainably the best team in England.

So now we're past that point of teams being able to become the best organically we're left with two choices.

1) Other clubs can enjoy success but can only do this via sugar daddies.

2) We don't allow sugar daddies because it's not "right". But this means that only clubs that were lucky enough to previously get established (i.e. us, Man Utd and Arsenal) are able to enjoy success.

Neither option is good, but for me option 2) is arguably worse as it's stinks of elitism. The only way it's possible now for a new club to become one of the big boys is through massive unorganic spending.

This is spot on. The upward mobility is dead among clubs. And Timbo seems to advocate (maybe inadvertently) for the permanent death of upward mobility. Imagine if the clubs were people. And all these ManU's and Liverpool's have gotten rich by the book back in the day, but now are heading large monopolies. Is there any chance for a common person to get rich competing with monopolies? No.

England are lucky that sugar daddies choose Premiership. Other leagues would benefit from that, too. Otherwise, there is no end to Juventus, Bayern's and Madrid's hegemony. Long gone are the days of signing 2-3 great players and having a real chance of winning titles.

[Xxavi]

That's interesting, I'll look into them more. From what I know about the Russian league, a team like Rubin winning back then wasn't as much of a case of overcoming the odds as Leicester in 2016, but I'll see if I can dig out odds for it.

Here's their squad that season: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_Paris_Saint-Germain_F.C._season#Squad_information

Lets not pretend that they were a brilliant team or that surpassing them is anywhere close to being the equivalent of Leicester City winning the Premier League.


You're coming across as being very contrary because you can't seem to handle anything from the Premier League being considered impressive.

Not at all, I find Leicester's win impressive. And I am ready to accept it as "the most impressive" on condition that Ranieri doesn't suddenly become the best ever (which the other guy seems to claim but you don't).

SO on purely TITLE WINS, I concede that I don't know a more impressive case than Leicester's. But there are certainly other more impressive STORIES like FC Rostov's. It wasn't a title win, but it was a monumental achievement. FC Rostov are slowly back into being crap, too.

[Xabi Gerrard]

This is spot on. The upward mobility is dead among clubs. And Timbo seems to advocate (maybe inadvertently) for the permanent death of upward mobility. Imagine if the clubs were people. And all these ManU's and Liverpool's have gotten rich by the book back in the day, but now are heading large monopolies. Is there any chance for a common person to get rich competing with monopolies? No.

England are lucky that sugar daddies choose Premiership. Other leagues would benefit from that, too. Otherwise, there is no end to Juventus, Bayern's and Madrid's hegemony. Long gone are the days of signing 2-3 great players and having a real chance of winning titles.

Should I be worried that we agree on something 

[Xxavi]

Should I be worried that we agree on something 

We agree on many things, but then you team up with people who go way overboard on their claims (like Ranieri, Clough being the greatest managers), so I end up arguing the opposite because that's something just non-sensical to me.

I notice that you don't think Ranieri is the best ever so fine, Leicester's win is the most impressive then