But then confuse it with competition in the league. It's not.

General Mirth wrote:

But then confuse it with competition in the league. It's not.

What do you mean?

General Mirth wrote:

Bullshit.

😆 Your standard knee jerk reaction to anything I post.
Then you go on to basically agree with me.

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.

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.

Personally I've always wanted us to maintain our moral backbone and win stuff without a sugar daddy.

That is looking more and more unlikely and hey if you can't beat them.....

Chelsea are destroying the Villa team we couldn't penetrate 8-0, if you wouldn't swap places with them you're a fucking liar.

I wouldn't swap teams with them.

Oh you fucking liar Klaus Daimler.

Biggus wrote:

Chelsea are destroying the Villa team we couldn't penetrate 8-0, if you wouldn't swap places with them you're a fucking liar.

I wouldn't want to swap places with them either.

Or maybe some of us have principles which doesn't correlate to any general sweeping statement you make. I'm fine with being called pretentious or idealistic - I'd view it as a compliment even - but I'm not a liar. What would be the point of lying? Why would I give a shit about what people think of me on a message board?

I'd hate to be a Chelsea fan. Look at them all still waving their Rafa out placards today, they're not happy in general but they don't know where to aim their frustration. If we won the CL I reckon I'd be content for about 3 years after it no matter what.

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

Tony Montana wrote:
General Mirth wrote:

But then confuse it with competition in the league. It's not.

What do you mean?

Because even in a free capitalist country there's still regulation in place to maintain competition.

[Apologies for the initial post, wrote it in a hurry]

qs! wrote:

I'd hate to be a Chelsea fan. Look at them all still waving their Rafa out placards today, they're not happy in general but they don't know where to aim their frustration. If we won the CL I reckon I'd be content for about 3 years after it no matter what.

But then the players and management should never be satisfied. It doesn't mean sack staff if you don't win the CL again the season after, but don't settle for less straight away.

Arsenal have been content over the years resulting in no retained title.

Do not mistake sugardaddy football with capitalism. Instead, it is the spoils of capitalism at work. In capitalism, the best companies make the most money. Here, a few fortunate teams just pour money into transfers and leapfrog everyone.
I still feel football needs better financial regulation, and maybe the combination of FFP and Premier League agreements will achieve it. We need to move more towards a US-style system with firm salary (and transfer) caps. This league is boring to an extent. At the start of every season, you can predict where teams would finish up, and on average, you wouldn't be more than about one or two places off from the final league table. That's simply because there is 10x difference between the lowest and highest wage bills and everyone else lines up in between. Has to change.

a month later

what about the dodgy Chevy deal for mancs?

Expert panels will assess the "fair value" of sponsorship deals and if related party transactions breach them, the relevant amount will be deducted from the break-even calculations.

😆 They don't get it do they?
Within which legal framework will these "experts" operate in?

As was proved when they tried to introduce quotas for nationalities within teams- Sporting federation laws cannot override civil laws and international treaties on free trade.

It's a different case altogether. These are conditions of membership.

Like everything Capi- Thats for the courts to decide.