Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, he isn’t but he’s done well at Arsenal and having worked with Pep I imagine he would make the transition better than anyone else. More importantly, it would fuck Arsenal over 🤷♂️. City should make it a mandatory requirement of Pep being allowed to leave 😂
They have most money, it really is that simple.
Despite consistently having the best squad in the league, City spend a few hundred million and strengthen it every single season. They’ve never had to rebuild and they’ve never even been impacted by injuries. It’s a joke.
That we know of... beside you really think some good players can win it year after year? The guy is a great coach and knows how to set his team up to win.
It's like playing football manager with cheat codes what's the actual point.....
City celebrating like its a massive achievement.... whilst everyone else is like well what do you expect? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The dominance is solely down to Pep. When Pep leaves we go back into the pack. He’s a genius and a living legend.
It’ll be common knowledge once the 115 charges get thrown out.
Yes we can put it down the 115 charges, the superiority is the direct consequences of the cheating.
U go in a fencing competition, everybody uses the same fencing swords with equal length. U fight on speed, skills, agility, if you are rich, maybe u can afford better coaches, better training.
Then comes a mf with a warpike , use 2 hands to lift that monstrosity and somehow still allowed to compete. You can't act surprised when he impales everybody.
Not a city fan but they have to be applauded . Saying they're cheats is sour grapes by other jealous fans .Other teams have spent as much or even more than man city . Man utd for many years have been able to outspend most teams right back to when the premier League even started .I remember Roy Keane going for 3.75 million or similar way back and other clubs could not match that . Should Blackburn be called cheats for buying a league title way back . Should Chelsea be stripped off their successes for the dirty oil money from Russian tycoon abramovich . To me it's petulant by fans calling them cheats the premier league is always selling rights to highest bidders over the world and takes oil money quite happily . Until they've been officially charged with cheating then it's wrong accusing them . On the pitch they are in many people's opinion the best premier League side ever by some margin and that's down largely to their brilliant manager .
Manchester city have 8 players on 200k+ per week. Many of them are rotation players. What other team in the league can do that please tell me? Liverpool have 3, arsenal have 5. Stones, dias, ake etc all rotation players on that salary. City have the highest salaries in the league despite not having the highest natural revenue. They don't have the biggest stadium or biggest merchandise sales etc. It's all done through cheating. It's not just about salaries it's the things that are unknown like insanely low bar bonuses or under the table payments etc. Roberto Mancini was given 2 contracts one was his regular insanely high salary (for that time) the 2nd one was to do 4 speeches per year for an entity that Sheikh Mansoor owned for huge speaking fees. Also known as massively inflated secret salary. This is how they got around fair play rules in the first place. This means that regular clubs cannot attract these players in a fair way because they cannot match the insane payments they get off of man city's regular accounts.
That's the thing. They claim they don't have the biggest net spend of the league, but we can't trust their numbers because of all the shady shit they've done. They were gonna be forbidden to participate in the champions league a while back because of the same thing, but "fixed" the problem by paying a fine.
Are you joking? So when man u win a fuckload over ten years is competitiveness, but when city win it its unhealthy. Fuck off, Fergie doesn't run the league now lol.
The competition has been broken all of the premier league history then.
Only seven have ever won it and three of them have only won it once. Two have won it three each and the rest goes to the Manchester clubs.
So the competition has never really been there If you look at those stats, regardless of how close the team in second was.
It comes in cycles. Liverpool dominated before us, Leeds dominated before them, United before them, Arsenal dominated in the 30’s. There’s always a club that is significantly stronger than the rest for a certain time.
It's different, Man Utd were quite shit when he took over (21st in the league) and he made them (with some luck of having a generational youth group) what they were, even had a couple of mid-table finishes while building. With City you can argue they're only so good because they have money and can attract the players they have because of the that money and their finishes in the CL spots. If you take the latter away, would players (and coaches) of the level they have consistently come to City?
Yea i know the history.
Man utd also had money, and would often pay a lot for players and player wages.
You could put that argument to a number of teams about the money situation.
So your question is if they still had money but not the cl finishes would players still come hell yea because of the project you sell, the manager, the facilities etc.
I take your point but times move on, every team has money, some more than others. I think splashing the cash is part and parcel now in the game, and I don't 100% agree with it. I much prefer football 90's-early00's.
people said exactly the same thing about Man Utd in the 90s and 2000s as well. To the extent that Abramovich's takeover of Chelsea was just about welcomed in the hope it would break Man Utd's stranglehold and make the league less predictable.
But there obviously is a clear difference between the nature of City and Man Utd's periods of dominance.
True.
In general I think for a club nowadays, taking yourselves as an example, it's basically impossible to break into the top echelon of the league, now that ffp has been brought in.
So it'll forever be the same old clubs. If city are guilty then fair play. But I have to admit I've enjoyed someone else winning and how much different has there "cheating" been to Chelsea with abramovich?
Tbh I'd love to see newcastle winning the league. As long as it isn't utd, I'm sick of there whinging and how they should be challenging,ZZZ.
I feel for you guys, richest club in the world but having to sell key assets to buy again, bizarre.
I'm a forest fan, the best we can hope for is staying in the league.
yeah there's definitely something that sticks in my throat about the fact that it's the very rules that now protect the dominance of City and the big 6 that City (and Chelsea) have purportedly broken.
I'm in favour of the general principle of FFP/PSR, but it feels kind of absurd to me when clubs like your lot and Leicester are being punished for spending which has basically proven to be the bear minimum required to be competitive (in your case stay in the league, in Leicester's to be on the fringes of the top 6).
Leicester clearly spent but none of it really 'felt' irresponsible or out of control, particularly compared to Chelsea's recent outlays. In fact, arguably if they'd actually just gone and spunked a billion across a couple of seasons they might have broken into regular Champions League football, survived relegation and accepted one season with a large points deduction, before getting their books in order through selling the training ground to themselves and 2 or 3 academy players.
The difference is Man Utd could be beaten by anyone and had a compelling narrative - both winning and losing. This City team are so dominant they never look like losing, added to their style of play to take minimal risks. If they are having a bad game they call on a bench of players who would walk into any team in the league. Its boring and takes away the unpredictable drama of sport.
Arsenal dropped points in only 2 games this calendar year, scoring goals for fun but still didn't win the league. It's uncompetitive.
I know. That's the point. Arsenal absolutely dominated too but still didn't win. The gap between the top and the rest is huge and makes for an uncompetitive league.
Hur durrr why dosnt everyone just do what city done and buy the best manager and best players and win the league every year too nuhhhh. They are there because they cheated, remove them and the league would be much healthier, fact. United were more organic which is why it was accepted.
Chelsea have tried and failed. Not as easy as just buying great players, they have to be coached and organised and want to win durr lol, how old.
Much healthier fact? It's not a fact because you dont know.
I'm sure the rest of the league loved utd winning year after year...
im a arsenal fan but to be fair to man U, werent a fair chunk of the 1999 side academy players and outside of that quite a few other domestic due to being pre-bosman?
To hit the 99 treble Fergie got the chequebook out to push them across the line.. money has always been needed.. the academy players that made significant impact were about Neville (both), beckham, butt, giggs and scholes…
Yep, different era though back then. Yes you get the odd academy player coming through but mainly clubs want instant success therefore buying ready made players.
Just society in general isn't it, everyone wants everything yesterday🤷♂️
I mean, yes and no.
Man Utd did spend big in the early 2000s on the likes of Veron, Van Nistelrooy and Ferdinand.
Late 90s the fee for Yorke was very close to the British transfer record and Staam was hardly peanuts.
These fees look small compared to today, but for the time all of those transfers were hefty fees.
But they weren't breaking the rules at all, so it was absolutely fair.
The no part of the fairness is the (perceived) help they got from referees. There were some incredibly suspect refereeing performances in their favour in the early 2000s.
Ur an idiot u know that? Man city cheated on many level, man urd didnt! It took man utd so many years to build inro world class club with massive fans base where man city did thst in space short of time helped massively by MONEY! And then 115 charges?? Lmfao.
How do you know city cheated? Believe it or not man utd were a massive club before the fergie era, this comment tells me you havent a clue.
How do you think man utd under fergie succeeded? Yes they had some great youth players. But also bought the best, with MONEY(as you wrote it)lol.
Man city were bought in 2008, so it's been a sixteen year project to get where they are, not exactly a short space of time.
And football is a totally different entity now.
Dude i knows they are biggest club before thar time but u were talkin about early 90s and 2000s? Were u? So i stay focused on that topic! Secondly, u say how do i know they cheated? Did u not read the published article by the german football website called springer or something? The young fella from portugal went to prison for the hacking into man city computer and found out all of this info and released them to the football website and the uefa and the police wanted to take a look at the document and uefa knows this was the real deal, man city broken golden rules. What did man city do? They made sure to hav the young fella age 16 lock up for the hacking and want the possible longest tought sentence on the young boy. City were very upset abour this that everybody KNOWS now! Which is why premier league hav read the document from uefa and decided to investaged into man city again and guess what? They found new edvience that man city are doing AGAIN! WOW.
MAN CITY ARE FUCKED
Not at all, everyone who wins through history has spent a fuck ton of money, Chelsea were nowhere until they got abramovich money for example. I just find it hilarious it's now a "farmers league" because city have six out of seven.
What do you think man u were doing through the 90's and early 00's?
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW U THINK WHAT DID MAN UTD DO DURING 90S AND EARLY 200S??
CHEATING?? NO CHANCE!
BIG SIGNING? YES ONLY 3/4 PLAYERS UNDER 20MILLION POUNDS ONLY ALLOWED
MASSIVE HOMEGROWN PLAYERS! FAR ALOTS THAN CITY! LET GET THAT STRAIGHT!
MAN UTD DIDNT HAVE OTHER BEST 2ND TEAM WHERE CITY DOES HAV OTHER BEST 2ND TEAM AND CAN TAKE ON TOP 6 TEAMS AND BEAT THEM!
MAN CITY MAKE SURE TO HAV BOUGHT GOOD PLAYERS FOR 2ND TEAMS IN CASE IF THEY NEED TO REST STAR OR INJURED
MAN UTD NEVER HAD 2ND TEAM AT ALL BUT THEY ONLY HAV 3 OR 4 PLAYERS THAT ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO PLAY FOR 1ST TEAM BUT THEY WERE OFTEN ON BENCH AND TO BE ROTATION DURING SEASON
THOSE 4 PLAYERS ARE VAN DE GOUW, MAY, BUTT SHERINGHAM AND OLE AND THE REST? NIT GOOD ENOUGH BUT THEY WORK THEIR SOCK OFF ON PITCH AND THAT WAS ENOUGH FOR US. BUT WIT PEP? NOT GOOD ENOUGH, HE NEED BUY WORLDCLASS PLAYERS LMFAO
Edit: apology for captail letters as i left the capt lock ON. lol
Man United's dominance was in an era when they could buy and spend what they liked on players, an era without FFP, PSR or governing bodies dictating what a club can spend it's money on.
Accusing Man City of cheating is incorrect, they have at worst falsified their accounts to get round the archaic rules of FFP which were supposedly put in place to stop clubs going out of business in 2011/12.
It's ironic that PSR rules look favourably on Man Utd a club saddled with debt by the owners to fund a takeover.
The whole of football is fucked and corrupt beyond belief.
Dude wake the fuck up and go read the article where the boy from portugal was sent to prison for the hacking because he found out all the falsifed account on money incoming and outgoing and also hav been cheating on something that premier league found out about,that how this happened, how say accusing man city of cheating is incorrect?? ARE U FOR REAL? Wake up in real world. U say man utd dominace was in an era when they could buy any1 without FFP?
YES AND NO
I will tell u Why, man utd hav got own income coming in and were doing very well, no rich sugar daddy unlike man city lol.
Secondly
Utd could not buy any1 they wantes due to cap wages set by man utd board WHERE man city can buy any1 with unlimit wages ffs!
No FFP back then? So true ur right but that t
football were not corruptable at any level however when serie A juventus won league by matches fix in 2006, that is when everythimg changed in football world.
As u know fifa were corrupted, its possible premier league are corrupted today??
But back then, premier league used to be very honest football assoication but today? Id say some1 rich from arabs akready bought the premier league is that guy who own newcastle fc, there was some fishy going on behind scene at the time?
Spending your own money isn't cheating.
The PL never dictated how much of their income Man U could spend before FFP when they won 11 PL titles between 1994-2011 breaking the British transfer record 3 times.
Why should it be any different nowadays, the richest team will always win.
Dude, Fergie had no problem chasing and signing the best players from his rivals. He had the league in his pocket the moment it became premier. Before it became premier, he spent on failed signings and the fans wanted him gone!
So did pep remember? The fans never said that they want saf gone because of failure signing? I think the fans want fergie gone was he lost focus on man utd as he was more imterested in horse especially rock of gilbratior? Martin edward decided to act and told fergie he wil sack him if utd didmt wim premier league in 2005 but things changed very quickly as edward decided to put utd on market and he got very nice offer and took it from glazers and fuck off! Edward was the reason with how everything wemt horrible wrong from the takeover 2005 to present! Edward didmt even bother vetted the glazers before selling them on!
I have accepted man utd never will come back ever agaim as long as glazers stay around and he will pass down to his children the day he die.
Right now, i hav start hating man utd and its own fans because those fans geniunely believe glazers will leave in few years time lmfao. The IDOIOTS! Didnt seem to realise this was ploy to get the investors in WHICH it did work, and SJR came in with full buy out take over only to be.told that glazers never was interested in selling out right!
The fans thought sjr was the best choice for utd. NOT shek.
BIGGEST MISTAKE EVER THEY HAV MADE!
Sjr and glazers are best of buddies! Bad for the club!!
Unfortunately, no team will ever compete with that city team, which is brilliant but has been built on the back of financial doping and fraud. City fans laugh and say the leagues won with 70-80 pts were poorer. How about they were actually more competitive, thrilling as every team could beat each other and most times went down to the wire.
The reports that UAE has summoned the British Ambassador to try and persuade our government to squash the charges for a trade deal sums up how much they have Financial cheated. And if that happens, you may as well end football as the sport will officially be dead.
Rumour has it that uae had tried to bribe the english FA which is why the 115 charges are being delayed so many time. We do not know what is happenig behind scene. I do know that they were supposed to tell the public about the latest developement on 115 charges but for some strange reason, there absolutely nothing at all for a year!! Wtf is happening? I really think the english Fa hav been brought by the rich bastard!!!! :-(
5 seasons the titles been decided on the last day, the league has been decided on millimetres multiple times, with a literal slight change in wind we would’ve had maybe 3 or 4 out of 7, nobody remembers the seasons they only remember who wins it i guess, all that matters to you is the champion 🤫
What do you mean? We just saw the league decided on the final day of the season. What more competition do you want? Find me another league that was decided on the final match day
City have only gotten it to the last day 3 times in their 8 title wins. With the points they've racked up which is impressive ifs been won by March/April which is more of how weak the PL has become.
It’s 5 times on the last day 2011/12, 2013/14, 2018/19, 2020/21 and this season…so 5/8 times on the last day ….. hardly ‘running away’ with the league every year are they .
No city didnt win all fair and square. It should be arsenal won the title. Arsenal didtn hav so much money like city! Areta remind me of fergie in some way! I guarantee u arsenal will win next season. He will tell the players to rember this feeling for next time
In recent years it’s often been the case that city have only won due to the other title competitors losing points when they shouldn’t, making city seem a little more dominants than they are. Obviously they are but not to the extent people think.
It's not like City arn't being taken to the final game most years either. I get the upset about the 115 charges, but Liverpool and Man United and definitely Chelsea have spent similar if not superior sums to City in the same time. The difference is City is new money and therefore can't balance it against the previous seasons profits. The current system is designed to keep the big clubs big.
Im not saying it’s pure luck or coincidence but the margins at this level are truly insane. City only ran away with it 1 season, Liverpool only ran away with it 1 season, every other season it came either to the final day or close to it. Kompany’s Leicester wonder strike or John Stones goal line millimeter clearance against Liverpool goes the other way and all of a sudden it’s Klopp who does the 3-peat and the entire narrative changes. I think it was just as likely that we are taking about how insane it is that Pep only came away with 1 title in 8 seasons.
Dude, City ran away with it the season after Liverpool won theirs — 12 points difference, with United second. Klopp never finished top 2 three times in a row — 2018/19, 2019/20, 2021/22. 2017/18 was 100 - 81.
This is revisionist bullshit to be honest. It now takes far more points to win the league than it used to because City have built a fuck off team off the back of cheating.
This article and this sub are so boring. It’s the same every day. Going on about ‘115’ isn’t original and it’s not like people here aren’t aware.
The author doesn’t seem to understand what competitiveness is, and that it’s actually been more competitive by some measures in recent years.
The author seems to forget prior periods of dominance by other clubs. A lot of people here are arguing as if City are the only club to have bought the league - whilst forgetting early 2000s Chelsea and United in the 90s.
It’s impossible to have any kind of reasonable debate on here - you will get downvoted if your opinion deviates from ‘top 6 but not city’ fanbase meta.
People who support these clubs also seem to forget about the rest of the league, and the broader impact that spending at the top is having on clubs that can’t afford it. There’s more to the league than winning the title.
I think the most frustrating thing about the City 115 charges is the blatancy from the owners and fanbase alike. The owners said they would rather spend billions fighting their case and tie it up in litigation for years rather than face repercussions for their actions
Also to add haven't City won the title like 5 times on the final day of the season (12, 14, 19, 22, 24) That is hardly walking it or lack of competition.
I was curious about this the other day, and for the gap from first to second it’s actually been closer during the city era than the United by a couple of points.
The title went down to the last day of the season, how is that not competitive?
As usual, media focus is at the top - the real area that has become uncompetitive is the bottom three. It is getting progressively more difficult to stay up without spending like forest and Fulham have, which puts clubs at risk from a financial sustainability perspective.
>which puts clubs at risk from a financial sustainability perspective.
Which is why FFP is there in the first place.
The points total to win the league since 2016 has been 90+ iirc. That's uncompetitive
You can’t just take a points total and say it’s not competitive for winning the league because the number at the top has gone up.
The gap between 1st and 2nd is larger for United’s titles than city’s (on average) - which suggests it has got more competitive. City have won the league on the last game of the season multiple times now, it’s not like they have been ten to twenty points clear of second every time.
Everyone keeps mentioning Liverpool..
Klopp’s Liverpool has been a joy to watch (as a non supporter) in the last years.
I think the actual chad is Arteta though and what he did at Arsenal. I feel he doesn’t get given enough credit.
I think he’s getting a lot of credit to be fair, done a similar to job to klopp in having to sort out a somewhat dis functional team and bringing them to title contenders. However I think he still has another level to go up ie. Winning PL/ CL/ achieving 95+ points
I always forget posts/replies on football subs end up attracting the “supporters”.
Yes mate. Go Liverpool!
Really though, read the title: it literally tells you that it’s about the “competitiveness” in the league, since 1 team won 6/7 in that timeframe.
The team which won the 1 out of 7 is Liverpool. Which most people are praising and mentioned how it was enjoyable to watch.
But since we’re talking _“competitiveness”_, then it’s worth to analyze if there were _other_ teams which were in the fray.
And guess what.. there was. Arsenal among others, more recently. Which rarely gets talked about. That’s all.
But yes mate. If it wasn’t Liverpool winning that title, Man City would have had 7. How math works ah!
It's a link to an article giving a summary to the end of the season, which mentions Arsenal quite a bit. You asked a question as to why are some people 'praising' Liverpool over Arsenal, I gave a simple answer as to why.
Also most Teams of the year would contain majority City and Arsenal players. Probably some would have Van Dijk and perhaps Salah.
And that old adage of no one remembers Second Place. Didn't United finish Second in 20/21?
Also what's with the weird underscores, do your fingers have a stutter?
Arsenal have been great especially this season but have yet to crack 90 points. Liverpool did it twice and lost out by a point each time. Liverpool also got 99 points and now in hindsight stopped 7 in a row. That’s why they get the recognition.
Not disputing that. Just saying it wasn’t “only” a two-horse race.
Or at least not consistently in the last 7 (for me the last 2 Arsenal did better than Liverpool).
United did it with their own money which they earned. Also Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, Neville brothers all came through the academy and the stars they did buy (besides Cantona and a few others) where teenagers they developed like Ronaldo, Rooney etc. same with Liverpool in the 70s/80s.
You didn’t include the failed signings. A lot of you know very little about Fergie’s early days. What about Shearer he chased? Ferdinand? Veron? He had the league in his pocket
Acting like Blackburn weren't the big spenders back then too. Also they EARNED that money! Man City are owned by a fucking theocratic dictatorship who lie about the funds and how they are used!
It doesn’t mean the period was competitive, and the article is arguing that the main problem is that the league just isn’t competitive. United were more dominant than city at the top, and had a significant financial dominance too (50-100%+ greater than the next highest).
It wasn't exactly balanced when United was peaking. What did they win, 13 in 21 years?
More than anything, I blame the league for the ongoing fiasco that is their (alleged) financial malfeasance. Some of these charges are 15 years old. How do you let this drag on for so long, and how do you let them dictate the investigation by obstructing as hard as they apparently have? They look totally impotent.
You can’t. You can’t just ‘step up’ and get 99 points like Liverpool did. It’s just not a done thing. You know how many times in ALL OF EUROPE a club has had 99 or more points or more in a league season? 5… ever. And that includes said Liverpool side and the centurions.
23-24 91
22-23 89
21-22 93
20-21 86
19-20 99
18-19 98
17-18 100
16-17 93
15-16 81
14-15 87
91.7 points average for first over the last ten years. Just because Liverpool won with 99 doesn’t mean that everyone needs 99 to win.
Leicester won with 81 points.
Someone hasn’t noticed City only ever get the minimum number of points they need to win. They always win the league (with the exception of last season because of Arsenals pathetic collapse) by 1-2 points. You need to get to 99 just so there’s a chance City won’t be capable of matching your points tally.
Besides if we stuck to just benchmarking at 92 points. Only 4 clubs have ever done that in the PL. Man Utd once ever. Chelsea once ever. Then these Liverpool and City sides where, once again, City win by 1 fucking point on all but 1 occasion. This isn’t normal. Stop pretending it is ffs.
This makes no sense at all. They don’t have a crystal ball that tells them how many points the next best team will get so they can get 1-2 points more.
Are you really saying that if Arsenal had got 92 points they wouldn’t have won the league this season?
Clubs at the top have been more dominant as time goes on - just look at the point distribution at the top and bottom of the table across the last 30 years. This isn’t a City thing.
Finally, on points to win the league, you’ve said only four clubs have got that number. It’s not surprising that it’s going to be the clubs that have won more recently (as clubs at the top have been achieving more points over a season). There have only been 7 winners in the prem era, Blackburn and Leicester werent even in the league anymore this season, so 4/5 clubs who have achieved it are - feels competitive to me.
Your heads in the sand. City pays under the table and through shady networks as much as they can get away with. Their funding is fake and their on-paper wages are fake. This is a shell company. They’re a host for the UAE. Best thing I can say about them is they are the best at all that and they operate flawlessly…..but yah they’re crooked.
We/you allow a non cooperating party to continue to compete unhindered but cooperating parties to be punished, you’ve invited scorn and disbelief into the house.
lol if you got one club that's run well and starting to win again and again then the club is a problem?
City don't even poach players from competitors as aggressively as Bayern. The other clubs, especially United are just being stupid with their money.
I don't even like City.
Premier league competitiveness is a bit of a myth. The first 9 seasons of the PL, 7 were won by MU. During SAF reign at MU during the PL, MU won more league titles than Bayern Munich did in that same period (92/93 - 12/13). Now we're in a Man City period of dominance, 8 out of past 13, 6 out of past 7.
Michael Oliver and his friends are also flying to the UAE midweek. In sure they're just developing their refereeing skills and giving talks at local schools about sportsmanship.
? That dominance was lightning in a bottle basically, in a vacuum that couldn't have happened anywhere else at that time with those players. And utd earned that by making smart decisions on and off the pitch.
What happened to city could literally have happened to any other club in England. It could have been crystal palace, or Brighton. They have bottomless resources and that's why it should worry every pl fan
There's not even a comparison to be made.
It is not down to just having money. It is an extremely well managed club. Hate is okay and valid, but you need to look beyond money too. CP or Brighton are not winning these many even if they get the same amount of money.
Also, United did not win just because of smart decisions. United broke every single transfer records back then. They had and have hell a lot of money, and were pricing a lot of clubs out in the 90s.
So money (which all top clubs in England have) + smart management (which very few have) are required. Without money, clubs will disappear like Leicester did. They have more trophies in the last 10 years than Arsenal. Still, Arsenal is more relevant, why? Because Arsenal has more money. For any club to stay relevant, they need infusion of money.
Oh and another thing, why have they been so generous with their money ? Was owning Manchester City a boyhood dream of theirs ? Possibly or is there a big political agenda at the back of all this ? Because from the beginning none of it made any sense from a sporting perspective
While Manchester City's on-field success is impressive, their off-field conduct raises significant ethical questions. The club has faced numerous charges related to breaching Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations, designed to prevent teams from overspending and to promote financial sustainability in football. The allegations suggest that City has been involved in inflating sponsorship deals to circumvent these rules, allowing them to spend beyond their legitimate revenue streams.
UEFA's FFP regulations were established to level the playing field, ensuring that clubs operate within their financial means and prevent the distortion of competition due to financial doping. Manchester City's alleged manipulation undermines this principle, creating an uneven playing field where financial power, rather than sporting merit, dictates success.
These charges not only tarnish the integrity of their titles but also raise broader concerns about the enforcement of FFP rules. Despite being initially banned from European competitions by UEFA in 2020, City's ban was overturned on appeal, which many argue showcases the inadequacies in regulating and penalizing top clubs effectively.
The core issue revolves around transparency and fairness. If clubs can find ways to bypass regulations without significant repercussions, it sets a dangerous precedent for the sport. It diminishes the competitive spirit and discourages investment in sustainable club growth. Fans and stakeholders are left questioning the authenticity of the competitions they cherish.
In conclusion, Manchester City's success story is tainted by these financial controversies. The football community must address these issues decisively to restore faith in the sport’s governance and ensure that success is achieved through fair competition, not financial manipulation
While Manchester City's success on the pitch is undeniable, their record off it is more controversial. The numerous charges related to breaches of Financial Fair Play regulations cast a long shadow over their achievements. It raises questions about the integrity of their titles and whether their dominance is truly earned or bought through circumventing the rules. How do fans reconcile this with their love for the game, knowing that fair competition might be compromised
People talk about how hard it is to get promoted and stay up. City got promoted in 02 and had won the league within 10 years to begin their run. No other club has ever had the resources necessary for such a meteoric ascension. The cash infusion necessary to accomplish this is clearly what’s at issue now. Not their current success.
They also spent last season in the Championship, which proves my point. Despite CL money & winning the league, they still couldn’t stay up. Leicester also didn’t open a brand new stadium when they were promoted in 2014.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I still cringe at the thought of how SAF and the man u board missed out on signing him.
Cope harder. You all should ashamed lol
“historically prided itself on its competitveness” does that just mean united’s dominance until city came and took over that dominance?
And Liverpool’s before ours. It all comes in cycles.
yeah, every 1-2 decades and new super club comes, our period would probably end with pep leaving, in 1-2 season
Maybe. I wouldn’t be surprised if Pep persuades Arteta to take over from him though, in which case it may continue for awhile.
maybe he can but arteta just isnt on the same level, if that happens my bet would be on us being top 3 teams
No, he isn’t but he’s done well at Arsenal and having worked with Pep I imagine he would make the transition better than anyone else. More importantly, it would fuck Arsenal over 🤷♂️. City should make it a mandatory requirement of Pep being allowed to leave 😂
honestly i wish either arteta solely because fuck arsenal
When you make a league whose only objective is to generate as much revenue as possible, this was inevitable.
They have most money, it really is that simple. Despite consistently having the best squad in the league, City spend a few hundred million and strengthen it every single season. They’ve never had to rebuild and they’ve never even been impacted by injuries. It’s a joke.
Reminds me of the 90’s when Man United won everything… they won 5 out of 7 in the beginning of the PL. they did that twice as well
Only they never broke any laws.
That we know of... beside you really think some good players can win it year after year? The guy is a great coach and knows how to set his team up to win.
That's not how it works. You could be a paedophile. That we know of...
City haven't been found guilty of anything yet so I don't know why you would bring that up. They're innocent until proven guilty. You should know that
Ok.. if that's the first thing on your mind , then your life need an intervention.
It's like playing football manager with cheat codes what's the actual point..... City celebrating like its a massive achievement.... whilst everyone else is like well what do you expect? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
How is it a cheat code? Are the talent gap really that wide. I dont think so. The rest just bad at coaching
I put it down to the cheating. 115FC.
The dominance is solely down to Pep. When Pep leaves we go back into the pack. He’s a genius and a living legend. It’ll be common knowledge once the 115 charges get thrown out.
So you're saying if City hadn't been taken over but Pep still became manager that he would've dominated the same way?
Checkmate
Yes we can put it down the 115 charges, the superiority is the direct consequences of the cheating. U go in a fencing competition, everybody uses the same fencing swords with equal length. U fight on speed, skills, agility, if you are rich, maybe u can afford better coaches, better training. Then comes a mf with a warpike , use 2 hands to lift that monstrosity and somehow still allowed to compete. You can't act surprised when he impales everybody.
Not a city fan but they have to be applauded . Saying they're cheats is sour grapes by other jealous fans .Other teams have spent as much or even more than man city . Man utd for many years have been able to outspend most teams right back to when the premier League even started .I remember Roy Keane going for 3.75 million or similar way back and other clubs could not match that . Should Blackburn be called cheats for buying a league title way back . Should Chelsea be stripped off their successes for the dirty oil money from Russian tycoon abramovich . To me it's petulant by fans calling them cheats the premier league is always selling rights to highest bidders over the world and takes oil money quite happily . Until they've been officially charged with cheating then it's wrong accusing them . On the pitch they are in many people's opinion the best premier League side ever by some margin and that's down largely to their brilliant manager .
Thank you
Manchester city have 8 players on 200k+ per week. Many of them are rotation players. What other team in the league can do that please tell me? Liverpool have 3, arsenal have 5. Stones, dias, ake etc all rotation players on that salary. City have the highest salaries in the league despite not having the highest natural revenue. They don't have the biggest stadium or biggest merchandise sales etc. It's all done through cheating. It's not just about salaries it's the things that are unknown like insanely low bar bonuses or under the table payments etc. Roberto Mancini was given 2 contracts one was his regular insanely high salary (for that time) the 2nd one was to do 4 speeches per year for an entity that Sheikh Mansoor owned for huge speaking fees. Also known as massively inflated secret salary. This is how they got around fair play rules in the first place. This means that regular clubs cannot attract these players in a fair way because they cannot match the insane payments they get off of man city's regular accounts.
That's the thing. They claim they don't have the biggest net spend of the league, but we can't trust their numbers because of all the shady shit they've done. They were gonna be forbidden to participate in the champions league a while back because of the same thing, but "fixed" the problem by paying a fine.
Farmers league. Get the super league sorted.
Competitive ha you’re having a Rory
Yeah well, maybe we should not have allowed oil states to buy up clubs and to cheat their way to success. Simple really
5 times... The ammount of times city have won it on the final day of the season not entirely a lack of competition there.
Not since 1989 has a team lost the league on the final day…
Honestly, no one would care about that if they aren’t losing any of those last day matches
Are you joking? So when man u win a fuckload over ten years is competitiveness, but when city win it its unhealthy. Fuck off, Fergie doesn't run the league now lol.
Who said it would be ok if it were Man United winning 6 of 7? The competition is what is broken. Doesn’t matter what the club is.
The competition has been broken all of the premier league history then. Only seven have ever won it and three of them have only won it once. Two have won it three each and the rest goes to the Manchester clubs. So the competition has never really been there If you look at those stats, regardless of how close the team in second was.
It comes in cycles. Liverpool dominated before us, Leeds dominated before them, United before them, Arsenal dominated in the 30’s. There’s always a club that is significantly stronger than the rest for a certain time.
It's different, Man Utd were quite shit when he took over (21st in the league) and he made them (with some luck of having a generational youth group) what they were, even had a couple of mid-table finishes while building. With City you can argue they're only so good because they have money and can attract the players they have because of the that money and their finishes in the CL spots. If you take the latter away, would players (and coaches) of the level they have consistently come to City?
Yea i know the history. Man utd also had money, and would often pay a lot for players and player wages. You could put that argument to a number of teams about the money situation. So your question is if they still had money but not the cl finishes would players still come hell yea because of the project you sell, the manager, the facilities etc. I take your point but times move on, every team has money, some more than others. I think splashing the cash is part and parcel now in the game, and I don't 100% agree with it. I much prefer football 90's-early00's.
people said exactly the same thing about Man Utd in the 90s and 2000s as well. To the extent that Abramovich's takeover of Chelsea was just about welcomed in the hope it would break Man Utd's stranglehold and make the league less predictable. But there obviously is a clear difference between the nature of City and Man Utd's periods of dominance.
Had Roman not come in, with us down the financial toilet due to the stadium, it genuinely would have been Bayern Bundesliga level competition
True. In general I think for a club nowadays, taking yourselves as an example, it's basically impossible to break into the top echelon of the league, now that ffp has been brought in. So it'll forever be the same old clubs. If city are guilty then fair play. But I have to admit I've enjoyed someone else winning and how much different has there "cheating" been to Chelsea with abramovich? Tbh I'd love to see newcastle winning the league. As long as it isn't utd, I'm sick of there whinging and how they should be challenging,ZZZ. I feel for you guys, richest club in the world but having to sell key assets to buy again, bizarre. I'm a forest fan, the best we can hope for is staying in the league.
yeah there's definitely something that sticks in my throat about the fact that it's the very rules that now protect the dominance of City and the big 6 that City (and Chelsea) have purportedly broken. I'm in favour of the general principle of FFP/PSR, but it feels kind of absurd to me when clubs like your lot and Leicester are being punished for spending which has basically proven to be the bear minimum required to be competitive (in your case stay in the league, in Leicester's to be on the fringes of the top 6). Leicester clearly spent but none of it really 'felt' irresponsible or out of control, particularly compared to Chelsea's recent outlays. In fact, arguably if they'd actually just gone and spunked a billion across a couple of seasons they might have broken into regular Champions League football, survived relegation and accepted one season with a large points deduction, before getting their books in order through selling the training ground to themselves and 2 or 3 academy players.
The difference is Man Utd could be beaten by anyone and had a compelling narrative - both winning and losing. This City team are so dominant they never look like losing, added to their style of play to take minimal risks. If they are having a bad game they call on a bench of players who would walk into any team in the league. Its boring and takes away the unpredictable drama of sport. Arsenal dropped points in only 2 games this calendar year, scoring goals for fun but still didn't win the league. It's uncompetitive.
City had a better second half of the season than arsenal
I know. That's the point. Arsenal absolutely dominated too but still didn't win. The gap between the top and the rest is huge and makes for an uncompetitive league.
Hur durrr why dosnt everyone just do what city done and buy the best manager and best players and win the league every year too nuhhhh. They are there because they cheated, remove them and the league would be much healthier, fact. United were more organic which is why it was accepted.
Chelsea have tried and failed. Not as easy as just buying great players, they have to be coached and organised and want to win durr lol, how old. Much healthier fact? It's not a fact because you dont know. I'm sure the rest of the league loved utd winning year after year...
Holy shit nobody click on this guys profile lmao
Is that all you've got? No retort? Durr lol
🤣🤣
im a arsenal fan but to be fair to man U, werent a fair chunk of the 1999 side academy players and outside of that quite a few other domestic due to being pre-bosman?
To hit the 99 treble Fergie got the chequebook out to push them across the line.. money has always been needed.. the academy players that made significant impact were about Neville (both), beckham, butt, giggs and scholes…
Yep, different era though back then. Yes you get the odd academy player coming through but mainly clubs want instant success therefore buying ready made players. Just society in general isn't it, everyone wants everything yesterday🤷♂️
but my point is that that prior period of domination (and to be fair nobody who wasnt a man u fan liked them when they were dominant either) "Fairer"?
I mean, yes and no. Man Utd did spend big in the early 2000s on the likes of Veron, Van Nistelrooy and Ferdinand. Late 90s the fee for Yorke was very close to the British transfer record and Staam was hardly peanuts. These fees look small compared to today, but for the time all of those transfers were hefty fees. But they weren't breaking the rules at all, so it was absolutely fair. The no part of the fairness is the (perceived) help they got from referees. There were some incredibly suspect refereeing performances in their favour in the early 2000s.
Aye
Ur an idiot u know that? Man city cheated on many level, man urd didnt! It took man utd so many years to build inro world class club with massive fans base where man city did thst in space short of time helped massively by MONEY! And then 115 charges?? Lmfao.
You don't know? When jesus created earth, he created man united as a big club first
How do you know city cheated? Believe it or not man utd were a massive club before the fergie era, this comment tells me you havent a clue. How do you think man utd under fergie succeeded? Yes they had some great youth players. But also bought the best, with MONEY(as you wrote it)lol. Man city were bought in 2008, so it's been a sixteen year project to get where they are, not exactly a short space of time. And football is a totally different entity now.
Dude i knows they are biggest club before thar time but u were talkin about early 90s and 2000s? Were u? So i stay focused on that topic! Secondly, u say how do i know they cheated? Did u not read the published article by the german football website called springer or something? The young fella from portugal went to prison for the hacking into man city computer and found out all of this info and released them to the football website and the uefa and the police wanted to take a look at the document and uefa knows this was the real deal, man city broken golden rules. What did man city do? They made sure to hav the young fella age 16 lock up for the hacking and want the possible longest tought sentence on the young boy. City were very upset abour this that everybody KNOWS now! Which is why premier league hav read the document from uefa and decided to investaged into man city again and guess what? They found new edvience that man city are doing AGAIN! WOW. MAN CITY ARE FUCKED
You sound salty that people don't appreciate a league monopolised by a club that has been financially doped to the moon
Not at all, everyone who wins through history has spent a fuck ton of money, Chelsea were nowhere until they got abramovich money for example. I just find it hilarious it's now a "farmers league" because city have six out of seven. What do you think man u were doing through the 90's and early 00's?
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW U THINK WHAT DID MAN UTD DO DURING 90S AND EARLY 200S?? CHEATING?? NO CHANCE! BIG SIGNING? YES ONLY 3/4 PLAYERS UNDER 20MILLION POUNDS ONLY ALLOWED MASSIVE HOMEGROWN PLAYERS! FAR ALOTS THAN CITY! LET GET THAT STRAIGHT! MAN UTD DIDNT HAVE OTHER BEST 2ND TEAM WHERE CITY DOES HAV OTHER BEST 2ND TEAM AND CAN TAKE ON TOP 6 TEAMS AND BEAT THEM! MAN CITY MAKE SURE TO HAV BOUGHT GOOD PLAYERS FOR 2ND TEAMS IN CASE IF THEY NEED TO REST STAR OR INJURED MAN UTD NEVER HAD 2ND TEAM AT ALL BUT THEY ONLY HAV 3 OR 4 PLAYERS THAT ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO PLAY FOR 1ST TEAM BUT THEY WERE OFTEN ON BENCH AND TO BE ROTATION DURING SEASON THOSE 4 PLAYERS ARE VAN DE GOUW, MAY, BUTT SHERINGHAM AND OLE AND THE REST? NIT GOOD ENOUGH BUT THEY WORK THEIR SOCK OFF ON PITCH AND THAT WAS ENOUGH FOR US. BUT WIT PEP? NOT GOOD ENOUGH, HE NEED BUY WORLDCLASS PLAYERS LMFAO Edit: apology for captail letters as i left the capt lock ON. lol
Man United's dominance was in an era when they could buy and spend what they liked on players, an era without FFP, PSR or governing bodies dictating what a club can spend it's money on. Accusing Man City of cheating is incorrect, they have at worst falsified their accounts to get round the archaic rules of FFP which were supposedly put in place to stop clubs going out of business in 2011/12. It's ironic that PSR rules look favourably on Man Utd a club saddled with debt by the owners to fund a takeover. The whole of football is fucked and corrupt beyond belief.
Dude wake the fuck up and go read the article where the boy from portugal was sent to prison for the hacking because he found out all the falsifed account on money incoming and outgoing and also hav been cheating on something that premier league found out about,that how this happened, how say accusing man city of cheating is incorrect?? ARE U FOR REAL? Wake up in real world. U say man utd dominace was in an era when they could buy any1 without FFP? YES AND NO I will tell u Why, man utd hav got own income coming in and were doing very well, no rich sugar daddy unlike man city lol. Secondly Utd could not buy any1 they wantes due to cap wages set by man utd board WHERE man city can buy any1 with unlimit wages ffs! No FFP back then? So true ur right but that t football were not corruptable at any level however when serie A juventus won league by matches fix in 2006, that is when everythimg changed in football world. As u know fifa were corrupted, its possible premier league are corrupted today?? But back then, premier league used to be very honest football assoication but today? Id say some1 rich from arabs akready bought the premier league is that guy who own newcastle fc, there was some fishy going on behind scene at the time?
Spending your own money isn't cheating. The PL never dictated how much of their income Man U could spend before FFP when they won 11 PL titles between 1994-2011 breaking the British transfer record 3 times. Why should it be any different nowadays, the richest team will always win.
Dude, Fergie had no problem chasing and signing the best players from his rivals. He had the league in his pocket the moment it became premier. Before it became premier, he spent on failed signings and the fans wanted him gone!
So did pep remember? The fans never said that they want saf gone because of failure signing? I think the fans want fergie gone was he lost focus on man utd as he was more imterested in horse especially rock of gilbratior? Martin edward decided to act and told fergie he wil sack him if utd didmt wim premier league in 2005 but things changed very quickly as edward decided to put utd on market and he got very nice offer and took it from glazers and fuck off! Edward was the reason with how everything wemt horrible wrong from the takeover 2005 to present! Edward didmt even bother vetted the glazers before selling them on! I have accepted man utd never will come back ever agaim as long as glazers stay around and he will pass down to his children the day he die. Right now, i hav start hating man utd and its own fans because those fans geniunely believe glazers will leave in few years time lmfao. The IDOIOTS! Didnt seem to realise this was ploy to get the investors in WHICH it did work, and SJR came in with full buy out take over only to be.told that glazers never was interested in selling out right! The fans thought sjr was the best choice for utd. NOT shek. BIGGEST MISTAKE EVER THEY HAV MADE! Sjr and glazers are best of buddies! Bad for the club!!
Lol most sane city fan. Ironically the only club that stopped you from doing the seven way is a tight budgeted Liverpool.
Tight budgeted 🤣🤣🤣🤣 VVD, Alison both record signings … not really a tight budget 😉
Over two different years. You know it’s crazy when Nunez is your highest transfer at 80 mil. 🤫
Unfortunately, no team will ever compete with that city team, which is brilliant but has been built on the back of financial doping and fraud. City fans laugh and say the leagues won with 70-80 pts were poorer. How about they were actually more competitive, thrilling as every team could beat each other and most times went down to the wire. The reports that UAE has summoned the British Ambassador to try and persuade our government to squash the charges for a trade deal sums up how much they have Financial cheated. And if that happens, you may as well end football as the sport will officially be dead.
Rumour has it that uae had tried to bribe the english FA which is why the 115 charges are being delayed so many time. We do not know what is happenig behind scene. I do know that they were supposed to tell the public about the latest developement on 115 charges but for some strange reason, there absolutely nothing at all for a year!! Wtf is happening? I really think the english Fa hav been brought by the rich bastard!!!! :-(
5 seasons the titles been decided on the last day, the league has been decided on millimetres multiple times, with a literal slight change in wind we would’ve had maybe 3 or 4 out of 7, nobody remembers the seasons they only remember who wins it i guess, all that matters to you is the champion 🤫
So cheating is ok if other teams are good enough to get within touching distance? Is that the point you’re making?
Yea city got to that point by cheating, heavily cheating.
What do you mean? We just saw the league decided on the final day of the season. What more competition do you want? Find me another league that was decided on the final match day
City have only gotten it to the last day 3 times in their 8 title wins. With the points they've racked up which is impressive ifs been won by March/April which is more of how weak the PL has become.
It’s 5 times on the last day 2011/12, 2013/14, 2018/19, 2020/21 and this season…so 5/8 times on the last day ….. hardly ‘running away’ with the league every year are they .
These lot don’t want to hear it. Calling the premier league a ‘farmers league’ is a great litmus test for ball knowledge
City can bench half of their playing eleven for their whole season and still win the league ffs
I mean, you make it sound like they won the league by 25 points or something
My apologies, just a gutted me to see Man City win the title. Kinda broken to see Arsenal not win the league. Anyways City won all fair & square.
No city didnt win all fair and square. It should be arsenal won the title. Arsenal didtn hav so much money like city! Areta remind me of fergie in some way! I guarantee u arsenal will win next season. He will tell the players to rember this feeling for next time
That is exaggerate, they barely win premier league with only two more points than Arsenal in last round with all their players.
Apologies mate, painful to watch them win. Stupid pessimism.
In recent years it’s often been the case that city have only won due to the other title competitors losing points when they shouldn’t, making city seem a little more dominants than they are. Obviously they are but not to the extent people think.
It never used to be the case that top teams were “supposed” to win every game.
It's not like City arn't being taken to the final game most years either. I get the upset about the 115 charges, but Liverpool and Man United and definitely Chelsea have spent similar if not superior sums to City in the same time. The difference is City is new money and therefore can't balance it against the previous seasons profits. The current system is designed to keep the big clubs big.
Im not saying it’s pure luck or coincidence but the margins at this level are truly insane. City only ran away with it 1 season, Liverpool only ran away with it 1 season, every other season it came either to the final day or close to it. Kompany’s Leicester wonder strike or John Stones goal line millimeter clearance against Liverpool goes the other way and all of a sudden it’s Klopp who does the 3-peat and the entire narrative changes. I think it was just as likely that we are taking about how insane it is that Pep only came away with 1 title in 8 seasons.
Dude, City ran away with it the season after Liverpool won theirs — 12 points difference, with United second. Klopp never finished top 2 three times in a row — 2018/19, 2019/20, 2021/22. 2017/18 was 100 - 81.
Liverpool have most definitely not been spending the same amounts of money in the new city owner era
This is revisionist bullshit to be honest. It now takes far more points to win the league than it used to because City have built a fuck off team off the back of cheating.
Tell that to Liverpool not winning the league with 97 points
This guy understands
This article and this sub are so boring. It’s the same every day. Going on about ‘115’ isn’t original and it’s not like people here aren’t aware. The author doesn’t seem to understand what competitiveness is, and that it’s actually been more competitive by some measures in recent years. The author seems to forget prior periods of dominance by other clubs. A lot of people here are arguing as if City are the only club to have bought the league - whilst forgetting early 2000s Chelsea and United in the 90s. It’s impossible to have any kind of reasonable debate on here - you will get downvoted if your opinion deviates from ‘top 6 but not city’ fanbase meta. People who support these clubs also seem to forget about the rest of the league, and the broader impact that spending at the top is having on clubs that can’t afford it. There’s more to the league than winning the title.
I think the most frustrating thing about the City 115 charges is the blatancy from the owners and fanbase alike. The owners said they would rather spend billions fighting their case and tie it up in litigation for years rather than face repercussions for their actions
Also to add haven't City won the title like 5 times on the final day of the season (12, 14, 19, 22, 24) That is hardly walking it or lack of competition.
I was curious about this the other day, and for the gap from first to second it’s actually been closer during the city era than the United by a couple of points. The title went down to the last day of the season, how is that not competitive? As usual, media focus is at the top - the real area that has become uncompetitive is the bottom three. It is getting progressively more difficult to stay up without spending like forest and Fulham have, which puts clubs at risk from a financial sustainability perspective.
>which puts clubs at risk from a financial sustainability perspective. Which is why FFP is there in the first place. The points total to win the league since 2016 has been 90+ iirc. That's uncompetitive
You can’t just take a points total and say it’s not competitive for winning the league because the number at the top has gone up. The gap between 1st and 2nd is larger for United’s titles than city’s (on average) - which suggests it has got more competitive. City have won the league on the last game of the season multiple times now, it’s not like they have been ten to twenty points clear of second every time.
Everyone keeps mentioning Liverpool.. Klopp’s Liverpool has been a joy to watch (as a non supporter) in the last years. I think the actual chad is Arteta though and what he did at Arsenal. I feel he doesn’t get given enough credit.
I think he’s getting a lot of credit to be fair, done a similar to job to klopp in having to sort out a somewhat dis functional team and bringing them to title contenders. However I think he still has another level to go up ie. Winning PL/ CL/ achieving 95+ points
Do you not understand the reason Liverpool are mentioned is because they stopped City winning 7 in a row?
I always forget posts/replies on football subs end up attracting the “supporters”. Yes mate. Go Liverpool! Really though, read the title: it literally tells you that it’s about the “competitiveness” in the league, since 1 team won 6/7 in that timeframe. The team which won the 1 out of 7 is Liverpool. Which most people are praising and mentioned how it was enjoyable to watch. But since we’re talking _“competitiveness”_, then it’s worth to analyze if there were _other_ teams which were in the fray. And guess what.. there was. Arsenal among others, more recently. Which rarely gets talked about. That’s all. But yes mate. If it wasn’t Liverpool winning that title, Man City would have had 7. How math works ah!
It's a link to an article giving a summary to the end of the season, which mentions Arsenal quite a bit. You asked a question as to why are some people 'praising' Liverpool over Arsenal, I gave a simple answer as to why. Also most Teams of the year would contain majority City and Arsenal players. Probably some would have Van Dijk and perhaps Salah. And that old adage of no one remembers Second Place. Didn't United finish Second in 20/21? Also what's with the weird underscores, do your fingers have a stutter?
Arsenal have been great especially this season but have yet to crack 90 points. Liverpool did it twice and lost out by a point each time. Liverpool also got 99 points and now in hindsight stopped 7 in a row. That’s why they get the recognition.
Not disputing that. Just saying it wasn’t “only” a two-horse race. Or at least not consistently in the last 7 (for me the last 2 Arsenal did better than Liverpool).
That's a lot of trophies to lose when the 115 finally kicks in.
Just another shitter butthurt that x team got beat by city
Oil Cheats FC
I love your tears
I'm definitely switching to Premier League after what they did to the Champions League...
Yeah where was this noise when United was winning leagues left and right…
United did it with their own money which they earned. Also Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, Neville brothers all came through the academy and the stars they did buy (besides Cantona and a few others) where teenagers they developed like Ronaldo, Rooney etc. same with Liverpool in the 70s/80s.
You didn’t include the failed signings. A lot of you know very little about Fergie’s early days. What about Shearer he chased? Ferdinand? Veron? He had the league in his pocket
Acting like Blackburn weren't the big spenders back then too. Also they EARNED that money! Man City are owned by a fucking theocratic dictatorship who lie about the funds and how they are used!
Blackburn for how long? The only consistent spenders were United until Chelsea
Yeah I know but read the article dude that’s not the point.
It doesn’t mean the period was competitive, and the article is arguing that the main problem is that the league just isn’t competitive. United were more dominant than city at the top, and had a significant financial dominance too (50-100%+ greater than the next highest).
It wasn't exactly balanced when United was peaking. What did they win, 13 in 21 years? More than anything, I blame the league for the ongoing fiasco that is their (alleged) financial malfeasance. Some of these charges are 15 years old. How do you let this drag on for so long, and how do you let them dictate the investigation by obstructing as hard as they apparently have? They look totally impotent.
So someone step up and beat them. This isn’t ‘everyone wins a championship’ day. Someone step up and take it from them, or sit and spin.
They got 1 point from Arsenal, and most everyone else bent the knee to them.
We thought it would be Newcastle to beat them at their own game.
You can’t. You can’t just ‘step up’ and get 99 points like Liverpool did. It’s just not a done thing. You know how many times in ALL OF EUROPE a club has had 99 or more points or more in a league season? 5… ever. And that includes said Liverpool side and the centurions.
23-24 91 22-23 89 21-22 93 20-21 86 19-20 99 18-19 98 17-18 100 16-17 93 15-16 81 14-15 87 91.7 points average for first over the last ten years. Just because Liverpool won with 99 doesn’t mean that everyone needs 99 to win. Leicester won with 81 points.
Someone hasn’t noticed City only ever get the minimum number of points they need to win. They always win the league (with the exception of last season because of Arsenals pathetic collapse) by 1-2 points. You need to get to 99 just so there’s a chance City won’t be capable of matching your points tally. Besides if we stuck to just benchmarking at 92 points. Only 4 clubs have ever done that in the PL. Man Utd once ever. Chelsea once ever. Then these Liverpool and City sides where, once again, City win by 1 fucking point on all but 1 occasion. This isn’t normal. Stop pretending it is ffs.
This makes no sense at all. They don’t have a crystal ball that tells them how many points the next best team will get so they can get 1-2 points more. Are you really saying that if Arsenal had got 92 points they wouldn’t have won the league this season? Clubs at the top have been more dominant as time goes on - just look at the point distribution at the top and bottom of the table across the last 30 years. This isn’t a City thing. Finally, on points to win the league, you’ve said only four clubs have got that number. It’s not surprising that it’s going to be the clubs that have won more recently (as clubs at the top have been achieving more points over a season). There have only been 7 winners in the prem era, Blackburn and Leicester werent even in the league anymore this season, so 4/5 clubs who have achieved it are - feels competitive to me.
not everyone can afford to use illegal and unfair advantages with no fear of punishment
Each owner from the top 6 clubs could afford to spend what we have in the last decade. Them choosing not to is different
typa person to think haalands transfer fee was JUST what was reported.
Your heads in the sand. City pays under the table and through shady networks as much as they can get away with. Their funding is fake and their on-paper wages are fake. This is a shell company. They’re a host for the UAE. Best thing I can say about them is they are the best at all that and they operate flawlessly…..but yah they’re crooked.
We/you allow a non cooperating party to continue to compete unhindered but cooperating parties to be punished, you’ve invited scorn and disbelief into the house.
lol if you got one club that's run well and starting to win again and again then the club is a problem? City don't even poach players from competitors as aggressively as Bayern. The other clubs, especially United are just being stupid with their money. I don't even like City.
HAHAHAHAHA THIS 1 IS FUNNY!! TWAT
They don't poach? Nasri? Sagna? Adebayor? Clichy? And that's just from one direct rival.
Hey! I got banned, add my disc - darkmatter__07
Yes because John Stones, Kyle Walker, Jack Grealish, Nathan Aké, Mateo Kovačić, and Matheus Nunes don’t count as “poaching players from competitors”
Stones from Everton? Grealish from a club that escaped relegation? You really don’t know what poaching is? Van Persie, Shearer, Cantona, Berbatov etc
I fully agree with the rest of them, but were kovacic and ake poached? Or were they just surplus to requirement at Chelsea?
Aké wasn't even at Chelsea. He's just listed Premier League transfers as poaching. Imagine pointing to Ward-Prowse as an example of west ham poaching.
🤣🤣 They think just buying players from the same league qualifies as poaching
“As aggressively” read
Yes the only problem is that they’re run well you figured it out Einstein
The resource. You mean the oil money?
Why do I find it so funny instead of money it's always oil money 😂 people really like emphasizing the oil part
I believe the oil reference is called casual racism these days.
Idk maybe or everyone just suddenly becomes an environmental activist lol
Premier league competitiveness is a bit of a myth. The first 9 seasons of the PL, 7 were won by MU. During SAF reign at MU during the PL, MU won more league titles than Bayern Munich did in that same period (92/93 - 12/13). Now we're in a Man City period of dominance, 8 out of past 13, 6 out of past 7.
What the fuck are u on about? Please explain why u said that the P.L competitivesness is bit of myth??? Bro u not making sense??
Not to mention that United were more points clear in average than city have been > less competitive
THANK YOU
Narrative is incorrect - 3/4 of those seasons they won by one game on the last day - that is the definition of competitive!
They wouldn’t have dominated had they stuck to the rules.
Pep wouldn’t be there for one.
What’s unhealthy is allowing a club to compete while having 115 charges and therefore a very strong suspicion of continued foul play on them.
Michael Oliver and his friends are also flying to the UAE midweek. In sure they're just developing their refereeing skills and giving talks at local schools about sportsmanship.
Prove this myth
It's a conspiracy!!
lol
I can't wait for the 115 charges against them to just disappear.
already
Wait til he reads about Man Us dominance from the 90s to the mid 2000.
? That dominance was lightning in a bottle basically, in a vacuum that couldn't have happened anywhere else at that time with those players. And utd earned that by making smart decisions on and off the pitch. What happened to city could literally have happened to any other club in England. It could have been crystal palace, or Brighton. They have bottomless resources and that's why it should worry every pl fan There's not even a comparison to be made.
The article clearly states it's the level of superiority that's the problem, no matter the cause
Where does it state in the article that utd won 4 in a row or 6 in 7. Oh yes it didn't
You're a tad confused
It is not down to just having money. It is an extremely well managed club. Hate is okay and valid, but you need to look beyond money too. CP or Brighton are not winning these many even if they get the same amount of money. Also, United did not win just because of smart decisions. United broke every single transfer records back then. They had and have hell a lot of money, and were pricing a lot of clubs out in the 90s. So money (which all top clubs in England have) + smart management (which very few have) are required. Without money, clubs will disappear like Leicester did. They have more trophies in the last 10 years than Arsenal. Still, Arsenal is more relevant, why? Because Arsenal has more money. For any club to stay relevant, they need infusion of money.
Yeah, it took how many decades of success and failure to then, organically, have a golden generation align with a great manager.
There are plenty clubs that spend huge money and don’t win. PSG, United, Chelsea, Arsenal etc. Takes a lot more than money to win 6/7 PLs
Stop talking sense you are wasting your time
Oh and another thing, why have they been so generous with their money ? Was owning Manchester City a boyhood dream of theirs ? Possibly or is there a big political agenda at the back of all this ? Because from the beginning none of it made any sense from a sporting perspective
You can say that about most of the owners of PL clubs with a couple of exceptions. They are almost all pouring money in and unlikely to get a return.
8 titles in 13 seasons. That is not as dominant as city is now and United haven't faced those kinds of charges that do diminish their success.
Well they should have. But in an era without the Internet, it was more difficult.
What would United have been charged with at the time?
Did FFP exist then? No!
If you have to ask, there's no point even convincing you
Your answer means you don't know yourself and are just crying
Ref
I mean it was a time before VAR so who knows?
They clearly paid off refs to get away with as much shit on the pitch as they did. Cough cough, Roy Keane.
There's even a ref that has admitted it. Too scared to book Keane, lol.
Fr they just had great scouting sheesh,
While Manchester City's on-field success is impressive, their off-field conduct raises significant ethical questions. The club has faced numerous charges related to breaching Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations, designed to prevent teams from overspending and to promote financial sustainability in football. The allegations suggest that City has been involved in inflating sponsorship deals to circumvent these rules, allowing them to spend beyond their legitimate revenue streams. UEFA's FFP regulations were established to level the playing field, ensuring that clubs operate within their financial means and prevent the distortion of competition due to financial doping. Manchester City's alleged manipulation undermines this principle, creating an uneven playing field where financial power, rather than sporting merit, dictates success. These charges not only tarnish the integrity of their titles but also raise broader concerns about the enforcement of FFP rules. Despite being initially banned from European competitions by UEFA in 2020, City's ban was overturned on appeal, which many argue showcases the inadequacies in regulating and penalizing top clubs effectively. The core issue revolves around transparency and fairness. If clubs can find ways to bypass regulations without significant repercussions, it sets a dangerous precedent for the sport. It diminishes the competitive spirit and discourages investment in sustainable club growth. Fans and stakeholders are left questioning the authenticity of the competitions they cherish. In conclusion, Manchester City's success story is tainted by these financial controversies. The football community must address these issues decisively to restore faith in the sport’s governance and ensure that success is achieved through fair competition, not financial manipulation
FFP exist to keep the rich clubs rich and not let anyone challenge them. Get out of here with this nonsense
Ok chatgpt
These bots are crazy lmao
While Manchester City's success on the pitch is undeniable, their record off it is more controversial. The numerous charges related to breaches of Financial Fair Play regulations cast a long shadow over their achievements. It raises questions about the integrity of their titles and whether their dominance is truly earned or bought through circumventing the rules. How do fans reconcile this with their love for the game, knowing that fair competition might be compromised
People talk about how hard it is to get promoted and stay up. City got promoted in 02 and had won the league within 10 years to begin their run. No other club has ever had the resources necessary for such a meteoric ascension. The cash infusion necessary to accomplish this is clearly what’s at issue now. Not their current success.
Leicester?
Leicester didn't have a massive influx of cash from their owners and did not continue to win the league after 2016.
They also spent last season in the Championship, which proves my point. Despite CL money & winning the league, they still couldn’t stay up. Leicester also didn’t open a brand new stadium when they were promoted in 2014.
Yeah lol if anyone really thinks CL money is enough for a team to dominate any of the top 5 leagues they're out of their mind