Sportswash! - Let’s oil stare at Manchester City!

[jonno_2004]

I'm talking in a more general sense of the greater animosity towards Citeh than Chelsea.

[The_Rev]

True, but then it's nothing to do with the question I asked, is it?

[Mantis]

Another difference is the way that Chelsea went about building their team. I don't like what they did but you can't deny that they went about it in a more responsible manner than City are currently doing. I don't recall Chelsea practically buying a new squad every summer and throwing out all their established players.

[LondonLax]

Another difference is the way that Chelsea went about building their team. I don't like what they did but you can't deny that they went about it in a more responsible manner than City are currently doing. I don't recall Chelsea practically buying a new squad every summer and throwing out all their established players.

Well they did actually. The first 3 years or so under Ranieri they were throwing money round like it was going out of fashon. 25mill for Veron, 18mill for Duff etc. Buying and selling each window.

It wasn't until they got Jose in and he brought his porto players that they actually became a force.

[jonno_2004]

True, but then it's nothing to do with the question I asked, is it?

Was I answering your question, Your Honour? :?

[The_Rev]

Yes:

I think the key point is Chelsea were better than us when taken over, Man City weren't, just pushing us further back.

[jonno_2004]

If I was answering a direct question I would have quoted it. You've said yourself it was apparently nothing to do with what you had asked regardless.

[The_Rev]

This could go round in circles all night, couldn't it?

[jonno_2004]

I could call you Kryten too.

[rjw63]

I could call you Kryten too.

[ml1dch]

Another difference is the way that Chelsea went about building their team. I don't like what they did but you can't deny that they went about it in a more responsible manner than City are currently doing. I don't recall Chelsea practically buying a new squad every summer and throwing out all their established players.

Well they did actually. The first 3 years or so under Ranieri they were throwing money round like it was going out of fashon. 25mill for Veron, 18mill for Duff etc. Buying and selling each window.

But they were making some fairly astute buys as well.

Cech for £7m, Joe Cole for £6m, Robben for £10m.

[Mr_Dogg]

Another difference is the way that Chelsea went about building their team. I don't like what they did but you can't deny that they went about it in a more responsible manner than City are currently doing. I don't recall Chelsea practically buying a new squad every summer and throwing out all their established players.

Well they did actually. The first 3 years or so under Ranieri they were throwing money round like it was going out of fashon. 25mill for Veron, 18mill for Duff etc. Buying and selling each window.

It wasn't until they got Jose in and he brought his porto players that they actually became a force.

Ranieri only worked under Abramovich for one season and they won the league in Mourinho's first season.

[The_Rev]

Chelsea still bought loads of players for lots of money and got rid of them though. Just looking on Google now, this list comes up.

Khalid Boulahrouz, signed for £8.5m in 2006. Played 12 games for Chelsea. Sold for £4m in 2008.

Asier Del Horno, signed for £8m in 2005. Played 25 games for Chelsea. Sold for £5m in 2006.

Scott Parker, signed for £10m in 2004. Played 15 games for Chelsea. Sold for £6m in 2005.

Geremi, signed for £7m in 2003. Released on a free transfer in 2007.

Damien Duff, signed for £17m in 2004. Looked decent for a year. Sold for £5m(!) in 2007.

SWP, signed for £21m in 2005 (some say just to stop Arsenal buying him) sat on the bench for three years. Sold back to City in 2008 for £8m.

Hernan Crespo, signed for £17m in 2003. Sent out on loan several times. Released on a free in 2007.

Andriy Shevchenko, signed for £30m in 2006. Sat on the bench for two years, scored twice against us in the 4-4, sent to Milan on loan and was released from his contract a year early.

I know this is becoming increasingly tangential, but Manchester City are doing nothing now that Chelsea didnt do five years ago. I'm sure people hated on Chelsea then every bit as much as they do on City now, but we have all been to sleep since Chelsea were blowing everybody out of the water in the transfer market that we have kinda forgot it happened and accept that Chelsea have always been a top club.

It is going to take City longer to win something than it took Chelsea, but once they have a few trophies in the cabinet and the big money signings are last years news (despite still being in the squad) then people will just move on to the next figure of hate.

The talk of how City are "ruining the game" **** me right off. I'm not having a go at any particular individual, but it is just the general vibe in this thread. The game was ruined a decade ago when the G14 decided that the Champions League would be an ideal tool for them to erect a glass ceiling for everybody else to be trapped beneath. Yes, it was compounded by Chelsea spending oil money on anybody and everybody who could kick a ball straight in the middle part of the last decade and Manchester City aren't exactly helping the cause either, but seriously, the talk that they are the only ones at it are either the words of kids too young to have any kind of knowledge or people who struggle to remember anything that happened longer ago than last week.

/rant

[TheWalletInspector]

Chelsea still bought loads of players for lots of money and got rid of them though. Just looking on Google now, this list comes up.

Khalid Boulahrouz, signed for £8.5m in 2006. Played 12 games for Chelsea. Sold for £4m in 2008.

Asier Del Horno, signed for £8m in 2005. Played 25 games for Chelsea. Sold for £5m in 2006.

Scott Parker, signed for £10m in 2004. Played 15 games for Chelsea. Sold for £6m in 2005.

Geremi, signed for £7m in 2003. Released on a free transfer in 2007.

Damien Duff, signed for £17m in 2004. Looked decent for a year. Sold for £5m(!) in 2007.

SWP, signed for £21m in 2005 (some say just to stop Arsenal buying him) sat on the bench for three years. Sold back to City in 2008 for £8m.

Hernan Crespo, signed for £17m in 2003. Sent out on loan several times. Released on a free in 2007.

Andriy Shevchenko, signed for £30m in 2006. Sat on the bench for two years, scored twice against us in the 4-4, sent to Milan on loan and was released from his contract a year early.

I know this is becoming increasingly tangential, but Manchester City are doing nothing now that Chelsea didnt do five years ago. I'm sure people hated on Chelsea then every bit as much as they do on City now, but we have all been to sleep since Chelsea were blowing everybody out of the water in the transfer market that we have kinda forgot it happened and accept that Chelsea have always been a top club.

It is going to take City longer to win something than it took Chelsea, but once they have a few trophies in the cabinet and the big money signings are last years news (despite still being in the squad) then people will just move on to the next figure of hate.

The talk of how City are "ruining the game" **** me right off. I'm not having a go at any particular individual, but it is just the general vibe in this thread. The game was ruined a decade ago when the G14 decided that the Champions League would be an ideal tool for them to erect a glass ceiling for everybody else to be trapped beneath. Yes, it was compounded by Chelsea spending oil money on anybody and everybody who could kick a ball straight in the middle part of the last decade and Manchester City aren't exactly helping the cause either, but seriously, the talk that they are the only ones at it are either the words of kids too young to have any kind of knowledge or people who struggle to remember anything that happened longer ago than last week.

/rant

Well **** said.

:!:

[CitizenBlue]

Chelsea still bought loads of players for lots of money and got rid of them though. Just looking on Google now, this list comes up.

Khalid Boulahrouz, signed for £8.5m in 2006. Played 12 games for Chelsea. Sold for £4m in 2008.

Asier Del Horno, signed for £8m in 2005. Played 25 games for Chelsea. Sold for £5m in 2006.

Scott Parker, signed for £10m in 2004. Played 15 games for Chelsea. Sold for £6m in 2005.

Geremi, signed for £7m in 2003. Released on a free transfer in 2007.

Damien Duff, signed for £17m in 2004. Looked decent for a year. Sold for £5m(!) in 2007.

SWP, signed for £21m in 2005 (some say just to stop Arsenal buying him) sat on the bench for three years. Sold back to City in 2008 for £8m.

Hernan Crespo, signed for £17m in 2003. Sent out on loan several times. Released on a free in 2007.

Andriy Shevchenko, signed for £30m in 2006. Sat on the bench for two years, scored twice against us in the 4-4, sent to Milan on loan and was released from his contract a year early.

I know this is becoming increasingly tangential, but Manchester City are doing nothing now that Chelsea didnt do five years ago. I'm sure people hated on Chelsea then every bit as much as they do on City now, but we have all been to sleep since Chelsea were blowing everybody out of the water in the transfer market that we have kinda forgot it happened and accept that Chelsea have always been a top club.

It is going to take City longer to win something than it took Chelsea, but once they have a few trophies in the cabinet and the big money signings are last years news (despite still being in the squad) then people will just move on to the next figure of hate.

The talk of how City are "ruining the game" **** me right off. I'm not having a go at any particular individual, but it is just the general vibe in this thread. The game was ruined a decade ago when the G14 decided that the Champions League would be an ideal tool for them to erect a glass ceiling for everybody else to be trapped beneath. Yes, it was compounded by Chelsea spending oil money on anybody and everybody who could kick a ball straight in the middle part of the last decade and Manchester City aren't exactly helping the cause either, but seriously, the talk that they are the only ones at it are either the words of kids too young to have any kind of knowledge or people who struggle to remember anything that happened longer ago than last week.

/rant

Well said, and not just because I'm a City fan.

United's growth has only been part organic. Giggs and Scholes are fine and wonderful, but a quick look at their starting lineup tells us that they rely on money almost as much as anyone else these days:

Vidic- 7 million

Ferdinand- 30 million

Evra- 5.5 million

Valencia - 16 million

Nani - 14-17 million

Berbatov- 30.75 million

Rooney - 25.6 million

The backbone of their club are purchases and not home grown. Take those players away and what are United? Probably mid-table. The prices at City are inflated because of who are owner is, not because we're foolish with money. Okay, Hughes was pretty damn foolish with money, but Mancini has been far better. Nobody will sell to us except at extortionate prices. United could have bought identical players for 2/3 of the cost.

[Jon]

I think Citeh will finish 2nd to Chelsea. I wonder how United fans will handle that ...

I Thoroughly hate united fans, but I wouldnt be happy to see that happen to be honest.

Neither would I. But I think it might!

[Qwpzxjor1]

Well said, and not just because I'm a City fan.

United's growth has only been part organic. Giggs and Scholes are fine and wonderful, but a quick look at their starting lineup tells us that they rely on money almost as much as anyone else these days:

Vidic- 7 million

Ferdinand- 30 million

Evra- 5.5 million

Valencia - 16 million

Nani - 14-17 million

Berbatov- 30.75 million

Rooney - 25.6 million

Whilst I agree, I don't think that's QUITE the point people are making. Man Utd scouted well and made those as big signings. Granted, they've also had some duff signings, but the main argument for Man City isn't that you're buying the occasional big player and building your team around them like Utd have done, you're buying absolutely every big name player there is in a 'throw enough shit and some of it sticks' mentality.

Alot of Man City's big signings are already being cast out. Robinho (I know he's a stroppy git but still 30m you're more than happy to just write off), Santa Cruz, Jo, Given.. All of these were big money players that you're just not playing because the next big thing has come along. Even Adam Johnson who has played brilliantly and has the whole country talking about what a prospect he'd be now finds himself on the bench because Man City felt like going out and spunking 20m on David Silva.

Those big Man Utd signings you've listed have been used as the spine of their team for several seasons, yours are played until the manager and fans get bored of them and then are released or sold on with absolutely no care about making a loss on the investment.

[TOTTI-THE-GOD]

Well said, and not just because I'm a City fan.

United's growth has only been part organic. Giggs and Scholes are fine and wonderful, but a quick look at their starting lineup tells us that they rely on money almost as much as anyone else these days:

Vidic- 7 million

Ferdinand- 30 million

Evra- 5.5 million

Valencia - 16 million

Nani - 14-17 million

Berbatov- 30.75 million

Rooney - 25.6 million

Whilst I agree, I don't think that's QUITE the point people are making. Man Utd scouted well and made those as big signings. Granted, they've also had some duff signings, but the main argument for Man City isn't that you're buying the occasional big player and building your team around them like Utd have done, you're buying absolutely every big name player there is in a 'throw enough shit and some of it sticks' mentality.

Alot of Man City's big signings are already being cast out. Robinho (I know he's a stroppy git but still 30m you're more than happy to just write off), Santa Cruz, Jo, Given.. All of these were big money players that you're just not playing because the next big thing has come along. Even Adam Johnson who has played brilliantly and has the whole country talking about what a prospect he'd be now finds himself on the bench because Man City felt like going out and spunking 20m on David Silva.

Those big Man Utd signings you've listed have been used as the spine of their team for several seasons, yours are played until the manager and fans get bored of them and then are released or sold on with absolutely no care about making a loss on the investment.

Top post

[Shillzz]

I think Citeh will finish 2nd to Chelsea. I wonder how United fans will handle that ...

I Thoroughly hate united fans, but I wouldnt be happy to see that happen to be honest. United are a team that have been grown organically, using Youth players, re-investing the money from their own success (untill the Glazers took over). Whilst I have no respect for their fans what so ever, I wouldnt want to see a team like City outperform them. The day City win the premier league is the day I'll start supporting the idea of a breakaway league for Europe's elite.

So, what do you think of Chelsea? Manchester City are only doing today what Chelsea did in 2003 and 2004.

... sorry for the delay.

The difference for me, and i realise that it is a fine line, is this:

When Chelsea were taken over, they used Abramovic's wealth to fund the transfer fee's of players who would already be more than happy to join them. The likes of Bridge, Duff, Robben etc were all players who a club like Chelsea should have been looking to sign anyway. Abramovic just speeded the process up. It would be like us signing Dorrans, Defour, Keane, Bent, Given, Piennar and Hangeland all in the same summer, which isn't a million miles beyond what we did in Oneill's second year. I.e. We used our owner's wealth to push us up by a single echelon, much like Chelsea did, just to a grander scale.

Manchester City on the other hand have used their owners wealth to bribe people into joining their club. The distinction here is that they used their financial muscle to attract players for non-footballing reasons. Players such as Robinho & Tevez simply wouldn't have joined them were in not for the vast sums of money at their disposal. And for me, this is the main difference. The other difference between the 2 cases is that Man City are aiming to turn a mid table, Fulhum-esque club into world beaters in 3 years. They have no right to be challenging for any footballing honours, as they've not deserved it, where as Chelsea had already flirted with league and European titles. Whether Chelsea or not really deserved the success is open to debate, but I'd argue that their eventual success was as much down to Mourinho's management as it was Abramovic's pockets.

[CitizenBlue]

Well said, and not just because I'm a City fan.

United's growth has only been part organic. Giggs and Scholes are fine and wonderful, but a quick look at their starting lineup tells us that they rely on money almost as much as anyone else these days:

Vidic- 7 million

Ferdinand- 30 million

Evra- 5.5 million

Valencia - 16 million

Nani - 14-17 million

Berbatov- 30.75 million

Rooney - 25.6 million

Whilst I agree, I don't think that's QUITE the point people are making. Man Utd scouted well and made those as big signings. Granted, they've also had some duff signings, but the main argument for Man City isn't that you're buying the occasional big player and building your team around them like Utd have done, you're buying absolutely every big name player there is in a 'throw enough shit and some of it sticks' mentality.

Alot of Man City's big signings are already being cast out. Robinho (I know he's a stroppy git but still 30m you're more than happy to just write off), Santa Cruz, Jo, Given.. All of these were big money players that you're just not playing because the next big thing has come along. Even Adam Johnson who has played brilliantly and has the whole country talking about what a prospect he'd be now finds himself on the bench because Man City felt like going out and spunking 20m on David Silva.

Those big Man Utd signings you've listed have been used as the spine of their team for several seasons, yours are played until the manager and fans get bored of them and then are released or sold on with absolutely no care about making a loss on the investment.

I don't think that's a reflection of the club so much as Mark Hughes' insane spending policy. Half of his signings were complete stinkers that the fans weren't particularly impressed with. Mansour's policy has been to allow the manager to manage the team in all aspects, and that got us in trouble with Hughes. It's not that Hughes didn't scout his purchases so much as his judgment is extremely poor. It would be like judging Villa as a whole for the poor transfer policies of O'Neill.

Mancini is signing quality that he has wanted since his time at Inter, Silva being one of them. None of his signings are flops or wasted money. Adam Johnson and Silva play based on our opponent, and Johnson is less effective when we play the counter-attacking style. He will start against Juventus.

Men like Sheikh Mansour have extremely high demands. With the UEFA Fair Play rules, we have this year and the next to bring our revenue stream up dramatically. Those are the last years we can write off transfer fees as meaningless losses instead of amortize them. That, along with the 25-man rule, force us to discard players who can't contribute.

Be honest, if you had the chance to buy every "big name" player, would you? Of course. Real and Chelsea are the only ones who can compete with us financially, and they do exactly that.