on 30-04-2012 11:41 PM
on 30-04-2012 11:57 PM
we were in that position even before woy came on the scene..
We just need someone who has the balls to drop some of the older players tbh. If we can get Richards, Cahill, Walker and Sturridge in the team and then use the more experienced players (Terry, Gerrard, Parker, Rooney) as a base then we might have a decent chance at the World Cup.
Every manager seems scared to drop them though, like at Chelsea.
on 30-04-2012 11:59 PM
Terrible game, terrible selection. City deserved it but bad selections have cost United this season (Benfica, Bilbao etc). I guess City winning the league this season means they won't necessarily go out and spend another £50 million in the summer
on 01-05-2012 04:43 PM
on 02-05-2012 08:40 AM
on 02-05-2012 11:43 AM
Martin Samuel has written a great piece about Financial Fair Play, how it is going to ruin football, and how we are relatively lucky that City have made it just in time.
Imbued in City's moment of glory was inescapable sadness, too: because this club is the last. For as long as UEFA remain in charge of the purse strings of English football, we will never tread this path again. The door is shut now.
This is the last group of fans who can be lifted from mediocrity by the fairytale: the one where a very rich man flies in bearing gifts and transports a club to the heavens. And surveying the sheer pleasure that it brought one half of Manchester on Monday, we have to ask: how did football allow this to happen?
This is not about spending money a club does not have, or ruinous owner loans that are given and then just as unthinkingly recalled. The focus here, specifically, is on the Abu Dhabi project and others like it, when a very rich man gives - without expectation of return - money to a football club to have a right old go.
Take City away and what would this season have brought? A 13th Premier League title for Manchester United. Unlucky for some; mainly those who seek variety. Here comes another one, just like the other one.
Without owner investment and ambition, this is a one-team league. That slamming noise is the door shutting on the rest of football with City squeaking sideways through the diminishing gap just in time.
Every other club will have to do it the hard way now, even Liverpool, so the celebrations in Manchester marked the end of an era, too. It was an era dominated by the financial powerhouse that is Manchester United, but with the excitement of fresh faces and interlopers to at least keep them honest.
The biggest will have it easier from here, without having to meet the challenge of an equivalent to Roman Abramovich or Sheik Mansour's billions. Some talk of financial doping but it was never that. If you want to spend your money on your business, why not? If money that was beyond football arrives and stays, the industry thrives.
Fortunately, in the English game, City and Chelsea made it in before the deadline passed, so our league should have four, maybe five clubs, capable of contesting the title. They are not so lucky in Spain, for instance, where it will take a miracle for the duopoly of Barcelona and Real Madrid to be broken.
There are competitions throughout Europe that will become wholly one-dimensional after this. It is why we need City to finish this job now, to win at Newcastle United on Sunday, then against Queens Park Rangers and form a powerful rivalry across town.
We cannot rely on the old ways, football's natural rhythms, the ebbs and flows caused by successful investment or unfortunate mismanagement. UEFA will protect the worst from themselves and the best from the others, so City are the last of it. The era of austerity is upon us and there won't be too many singsongs from here.
02-05-2012 01:54 PM - edited 02-05-2012 01:59 PM
I disagree with what he said. I hate that people can come in and surpass other teams just because they've been bought by some rich billionaire and subsequently have more money than everyone else.
It seems like in his mind more "untouchable" clubs would be better for the league. I disagree. This season has been a good one for multiple reasons and the competition has been all over the place from relegation to champs league to the title. Contrary to what he thinks, the top of the table isn't where everyone is focused.
It won't result in endless domination, either. Furthermore, I wouldn't credit Man United's dominance solely to their wallet. That would be a slap in the face to the greatest manager in Premiership history (Fergie). I'd credit a get-rich-quick club like Man City with some praise too. Mancini has been pretty good after gaining some experience with the premiership and english football as a whole. Though still true, a large part of his achievement have been because of the few hundred million that has been spent on players (including wages, of course) in a season (Or two, if you give exception to one or two players who are still used every few weeks). He still needed to be a competent manager.
Even more to the point, another rich club such as Chelsea have found themselves struggling in the Prem. Did they spend? Yes. So why have the struggled? Because they had managerial problems. Money isn't the answer to everything like this guy suggests. These clubs are not indestructible or undefeatable, and the "lesser" clubs have put them in their place more than a few times, and are growing themselves without ridiculous financial aid.
When a club is run smoothly in the places that matter, that's when things end up going really well. Manchester United is pretty well run club when it comes to the footballing side of things, same with City. From managers, to coaches, to assistants. (eventually, City were pretty poor at the beginning/last season with everything off the pitch which they paid for). To suggest Man United would've completely dominated is ridiculous too. While it's blatantly obvious that Man United hold the power, they never win their titles without a fight from someone bar a few seasons here and there.
So yeah, I disagree. Yes, it will stop clubs winning the lottery (which I am glad for obviously being an Arsenal fan ) but as I understand it will also encourage all clubs including the rich ones, to spend what they earn and not what their owners have in their pocket.
Basically, I don't think it will cause any kind of outright overwhelming dominance from a single club or set of rich clubs, otherwise Chelsea wouldn't be 6th or wherever it is that they are. There is more to it than that. Nor will it kill english football.
For the latest news and updates on what is happening in the PlayStation community, head over to our Announcements & Events forum. To post a message, you will need to Sign In to the Forums using your PLAYSTATION®Network Sign In ID and password. If you do not yet have a PSN account, just click here to register.
Website ©2013 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
All content, game titles, trade names and/or trade dress, trademarks, artwork and associated imagery are trademarks and/or copyright material of their respective owners. All rights reserved. [more info]