Premier League 18/19: Page 144 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Premier League 18/19

QuincyAbeyie

deardevil wrote:
As much as it would have been to my chagrin, it would have been better if Liverpool won the league. I daresay, at least they are a football club. Much like Chelsea before them and along with their cohorts PSG, Man City are a cancer to football. They are a soulless club without any history or identity who have completely cheated their way to the top of the league, distorting the transfer market, hording top quality players and ensuring that we don't have a sniff at the league for the next decade at the very least. Whilst, we all enjoy competing against Man Utd, Spurs and Liverpool, they are relatively normal clubs, whereas Chelsea and Man City are leeches who have done more to send us down the pyramid than all the other factors put together. Take away the Russian roubles and the petro dollars from the past 2 decades, and we would be sitting on a couple more titles. I know where I would rather direct my dislike, and to be perfectly honest, the most satisfying moment of this entire season thus far, was seeing the Sterling winner against Tottenham ruled offside.

How come City have ensured that we won't win the title for the next decade, while they haven't ensured the same for Liverpool? We shouldn't blame City for our failures.

deardevil

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
deardevil wrote:
As much as it would have been to my chagrin, it would have been better if Liverpool won the league. I daresay, at least they are a football club. Much like Chelsea before them and along with their cohorts PSG, Man City are a cancer to football. They are a soulless club without any history or identity who have completely cheated their way to the top of the league, distorting the transfer market, hording top quality players and ensuring that we don't have a sniff at the league for the next decade at the very least. Whilst, we all enjoy competing against Man Utd, Spurs and Liverpool, they are relatively normal clubs, whereas Chelsea and Man City are leeches who have done more to send us down the pyramid than all the other factors put together. Take away the Russian roubles and the petro dollars from the past 2 decades, and we would be sitting on a couple more titles. I know where I would rather direct my dislike, and to be perfectly honest, the most satisfying moment of this entire season thus far, was seeing the Sterling winner against Tottenham ruled offside.

How come City have ensured that we won't win the title for the next decade, while they haven't ensured the same for Liverpool? We shouldn't blame City for our failures.

This is Liverpool's first title challenge in 5 years and only their second this entire decade, and they have yet to win the title. Kudos to them, they managed to break the trend this season, a trend which has seen Arsenal, Man Utd and now Chelsea (more recently, since they stopped investing) pretty much falter away over the past decade. Liverpool have been fortunate that their recent recruitment has been near perfect.

Man City are a cancer to football. They aren't the lesser of all the evils, they are Satan himself.

goon

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
deardevil wrote:
As much as it would have been to my chagrin, it would have been better if Liverpool won the league. I daresay, at least they are a football club. Much like Chelsea before them and along with their cohorts PSG, Man City are a cancer to football. They are a soulless club without any history or identity who have completely cheated their way to the top of the league, distorting the transfer market, hording top quality players and ensuring that we don't have a sniff at the league for the next decade at the very least. Whilst, we all enjoy competing against Man Utd, Spurs and Liverpool, they are relatively normal clubs, whereas Chelsea and Man City are leeches who have done more to send us down the pyramid than all the other factors put together. Take away the Russian roubles and the petro dollars from the past 2 decades, and we would be sitting on a couple more titles. I know where I would rather direct my dislike, and to be perfectly honest, the most satisfying moment of this entire season thus far, was seeing the Sterling winner against Tottenham ruled offside.

How come City have ensured that we won't win the title for the next decade, while they haven't ensured the same for Liverpool? We shouldn't blame City for our failures.

Liverpool have had to have an insane season to even compete, it's probably as good as it will get for them and they failed to win.

I don't necessarily agree that we won't win a title for the next decade, but if City continue to spend money at the rate they have then we will be lucky to win more than once or twice. Think of Dortmund competing with Bayern. Yeah, they do well enough to take advantage of Bayern's low points etc but ultimately in the last decade they've won just twice.

Mirth

deardevil wrote:
As much as it would have been to my chagrin, it would have been better if Liverpool won the league. I daresay, at least they are a football club. Much like Chelsea before them and along with their cohorts PSG, Man City are a cancer to football. They are a soulless club without any history or identity who have completely cheated their way to the top of the league, distorting the transfer market, hording top quality players and ensuring that we don't have a sniff at the league for the next decade at the very least. Whilst, we all enjoy competing against Man Utd, Spurs and Liverpool, they are relatively normal clubs, whereas Chelsea and Man City are leeches who have done more to send us down the pyramid than all the other factors put together. Take away the Russian roubles and the petro dollars from the past 2 decades, and we would be sitting on a couple more titles. I know where I would rather direct my dislike, and to be perfectly honest, the most satisfying moment of this entire season thus far, was seeing the Sterling winner against Tottenham ruled offside.

To play devil's advocate, Man City have done more to shake up the league than anyone else. This league could have quickly ended up being dominated by a handful of big clubs with the rest of the mid table clubs never having a chance to break in through the monopoly which in turn would hasten the process to have a European Super League.

There's plenty to object about the owners of Man City and Chelsea themselves but fundamentally I don't think investment in the club, the league and the surrounding area is a bad thing generally speaking. If Man City and Chelsea are a cancer on football then so are Leicester and Bournemouth and nearly all the other teams in this league.

arsedocmd

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
deardevil wrote:
As much as it would have been to my chagrin, it would have been better if Liverpool won the league. I daresay, at least they are a football club. Much like Chelsea before them and along with their cohorts PSG, Man City are a cancer to football. They are a soulless club without any history or identity who have completely cheated their way to the top of the league, distorting the transfer market, hording top quality players and ensuring that we don't have a sniff at the league for the next decade at the very least. Whilst, we all enjoy competing against Man Utd, Spurs and Liverpool, they are relatively normal clubs, whereas Chelsea and Man City are leeches who have done more to send us down the pyramid than all the other factors put together. Take away the Russian roubles and the petro dollars from the past 2 decades, and we would be sitting on a couple more titles. I know where I would rather direct my dislike, and to be perfectly honest, the most satisfying moment of this entire season thus far, was seeing the Sterling winner against Tottenham ruled offside.

How come City have ensured that we won't win the title for the next decade, while they haven't ensured the same for Liverpool? We shouldn't blame City for our failures.

Obviously you seem to have taken a liking to City. I can understand you like their football but how/what/why do you like anything else about them? Genuine question.

I wonder with the transfer ban if Pep has started making plans to flee. Hope they're keeping an eye on the red-eye flights.

goon

Mirth wrote:
To play devil's advocate, Man City have done more to shake up the league than anyone else. This league could have quickly ended up being dominated by a handful of big clubs with the rest of the mid table clubs never having a chance to break in

Hang on, how have City changed this exactly? It's still dominated by big clubs, they've just added to it. If anything all they've done is make it more difficult for mid table clubs to break through by raising the bar significantly. All the TV money in the world pales in comparison to a club backed by a nation state.

Investment in a club isn't a bad thing, but there's levels to these things. The likes of City and PSG are spending on players, salaries and agents double what most others are despite the restrictions, can you imagine if they had a free hand? They could literally afford to drop a couple of billion in a transfer window without blinking an eye. Anyone who thinks this is good for football is a madman, they need to be restrained.

I'm amazed by how blase folks are about them flagrantly breaking and bending the rules but blow their top because Liverpool kept one of their players.

Bold Tone

The thing is many of us oldies have grown up with manu, liverpool and spuds as our rivals so learning to dislike these new "rich" takes some adjustment.

QuincyAbeyie

arsedoc md wrote:
Quincy Abeyie wrote:
How come City have ensured that we won't win the title for the next decade, while they haven't ensured the same for Liverpool? We shouldn't blame City for our failures.

Obviously you seem to have taken a liking to City. I can understand you like their football but how/what/why do you like anything else about them? Genuine question.

What other things? It's literally the only thing to like about them. That and how non-cancerous their fanbase is since it doesn't exist.

Ray

goon wrote:
Mirth wrote:
To play devil's advocate, Man City have done more to shake up the league than anyone else. This league could have quickly ended up being dominated by a handful of big clubs with the rest of the mid table clubs never having a chance to break in

Hang on, how have City changed this exactly? It's still dominated by big clubs, they've just added to it. If anything all they've done is make it more difficult for mid table clubs to break through by raising the bar significantly. All the TV money in the world pales in comparison to a club backed by a nation state.

Investment in a club isn't a bad thing, but there's levels to these things. The likes of City and PSG are spending on players, salaries and agents double what most others are despite the restrictions, can you imagine if they had a free hand? They could literally afford to drop a couple of billion in a transfer window without blinking an eye. Anyone who thinks this is good for football is a madman, they need to be restrained.

I'm amazed by how blase folks are about them flagrantly breaking and bending the rules but blow their top because Liverpool kept one of their players.

No one has blown their top, most have said both are as bad as each other as they have both broken the rules. The Liverpool cult can't take the moral ground and claim to be "legitimate" when they themselves have broken the rules.

Bold Tone

Do you consider every rule infringement exactly the same level?

Ray

It's not the same level, but a criminal is a criminal.

Bold Tone

So is every criminal deserving of the same punishment/treatment?

QuincyAbeyie

Bold Tone wrote:
So is every criminal deserving of the same punishment/treatment?

Obviously he doesn't think that. But why is that Liverpool is the legimitate champion and not the highest placed non-cheating club, if you're going down that route? Saying that Liverpool are the legitimate champions because they are lesser criminals than City seems awfully convenient to me.

Bold Tone

I know he didn't mean that because that is ridiculous but i was just using the logic he used on goon.

Ray

That’s clearly not the logic I used, I didn’t say Man City and Liverpool are equal and deserve the same punishment, I said both have broken the rules and based on that Liverpool can’t take the moral high ground and claim to be more legitimate.

goon

This is sort of my point, everyone is so caught up on one tiny throwaway line about Liverpool that no one is interested in discussing City’s antics (who are also benign investigated by FIFA, the PL and the FA for breaking youth player rules). It’s an unhealthy obsession.

Claudius

Goon, I think people are satisfied that City are financial cheats. There isn't much to see there.
That one falls squarely at the Premier League's feet. They need to decide what kind of league they want to be. And based on that they can then take a consistent approach on teams like City. One feels that they want to be the biggest spectacle in the world with billions of fans, and feel that in order to to do this, they need to have the biggest superstars, and the only way to achieve this is having financially doped clubs that can compete with Barca and Real Madrid. This comes at the expense of fair competition, and creates a stratification of clubs with a Big 4 or Big 6 and also-rans, and inequality even within that.

jones

goon wrote:
This is sort of my point, everyone is so caught up on one tiny throwaway line about Liverpool that no one is interested in discussing City’s antics (who are also benign investigated by FIFA, the PL and the FA for breaking youth player rules). It’s an unhealthy obsession.

Fuck Manchester City.

You happy now bitch?

goon

I mean, yeah.

goon

Claudius wrote:
Goon, I think people are satisfied that City are financial cheats. There isn't much to see there.
That one falls squarely at the Premier League's feet. They need to decide what kind of league they want to be. And based on that they can then take a consistent approach on teams like City. One feels that they want to be the biggest spectacle in the world with billions of fans, and feel that in order to to do this, they need to have the biggest superstars, and the only way to achieve this is having financially doped clubs that can compete with Barca and Real Madrid. This comes at the expense of fair competition, and creates a stratification of clubs with a Big 4 or Big 6 and also-rans, and inequality even within that.

I don't know, the PL already has shit loads more money than anyone else without needing Abu Dhabi's wealth. You also have UEFA to restrain others in Europe.

« Previous Page Next Page »