Klaus wrote:
Tony Montana wrote:
You mean to say that they're one of the richest clubs and one of the best teams. Sure. But their riches never made them the best team in Europe and for many years not even the best team in England.
It made them one of the best teams in the world, period. The fact that they haven't picked up every single title since Abramovich started pumping money into the club means nothing in that context. They were on Newcastle's level before he took over. Since then they've won three league titles, three FA Cups and played one Champions League final.
If anything, the fact that they haven't won everything says more about how hard it is to do it in today's climate, especially if you're working with (relatively speaking) limited funds.
You've basically quoted me agreeing with you. The point is they are not THE best team in the world which before City, they should have been with all that money. They were the richest club in the world with the highest wage bill at least in England.
But to contradict myself it is not just about money. The manager, tactics and the actual player mix make a massive difference. Abramovich has sacked managers for not playing good enough football or not winning the CL or failing in the EPL. They have not done as well as they should have done with all that money because, quite frankly, it's not all about money.
And they were better than Newcastle before 2003/04 because they actually won trophies here and there and were more consistent in their league position. Not much in it though so it doesn't matter.
