Biggus wrote:
General Mirth wrote:
Bullshit.
😆 Your standard knee jerk reaction to anything I post.
Then you go on to basically agree with me.
Pull the other one.
Biggus wrote:General Mirth wrote:
Every time a club like City and Chelsea changes the dynamic of this league, there's a knock down effect on clubs that they climb on the backs of.
Yes of course, just like in nature when there is a change of circumstances some animals will benefit and some will be disadvantaged, because of the money flowing out of the likes of City the league in general and teams like us in particular have benefited immensely, lower teams pick up their decent rejects cheaply- There are more mid standard teams now.
Of course, money flows in and the clubs are relatively well off. Excellent - if every club is only interested in turning a profit. In relative terms it's only a pittance anyway.
However, Man City will still always have the financial advantage by picking off the best prospects if Everton were to re-invest in the new Lescott or whatever. Which is fine, all teams do that and I hope we do as well. But crucially, the only reason Man City are capable of doing this is because they're run by a bunch of billionaires.
Like you said, Everton and Villa have become mid-table standard now. But I don't think that's particularly fair from a sporting point of view. They developed a model and built towards breaking into the CL places over the course of a few years only to find City suddenly in front of them, taking their best players and also taking up a Champions league spot.
In other words, 'allow clubs to grow and build a foundation for success',
Biggus wrote:General Mirth wrote:
I totally get that it's good to see more contenders for the title but, really, does anyone have any interest in Manchester city? Watching them celebrate their league win was such an empty feeling. At least whenever United or Chelsea or Spurs win something I go through feeling envious and angry. City could have been anyone.
.....Then you go on to admit also that more competition is a good thing (which was my point that you dismissed as bullshit), whilst contradicting yourself by admitting that Chelsea "deserve" to win things.
Man City are where Chelsea were 5-6 years ago and with a good manager could become a very attractive team to watch.
Yes. I said more competition is a good thing - as a concept.
After explicitly stating that what Manchester City do is not what I consider to be healthy competition. :hmm:
I see no contradiction, unless you insist on selectively quoting each line.
I also don't see anything about Chelsea deserving their wins. I was just trying to highlight that I was envious that they were the first London club to win the CL. I don't think the last 6 years of Chelsea's history is any different to Man City. The difference is Chelsea have antagonized us more throughout whereas City are an irrelevance. It could have been Fulham lifting the league last season for all I care
