I feel like loads of people, myself very much included, said similar about Chelsea for 5 to 10 years, but in the end, people just stop, and the club gains a semblance of legitimacy.
Chelsea just are one of the biggest clubs in the country now, regardless of how they got there, and I don’t think anyone really seriously bothers to try and strip all their success of any legitimacy. There’s no asterisks next to all of the league, cup and european trophies.
The same will happen with City. Tbh, it kinda already is. Pundits and journalists are just fawning over City and Pep right now, there are literally 100 odd charges still outstanding there’s barely a peep about it lol
Chelsea’s rise to the top wasn’t as steep though. They finished 4th the season before Roman got there. And even if you go back 10 years before that, they were consistently in top 6. They won the FA Cup in 2000 as well. Whereas Man City were nowhere.
That is true, but even with their rise to the top being less vertiginous, I think the comparison still works for the point I’m making, because people absolutely said all the same things about Chelsea’s success at first as they have with City.
You’ll notice I didn’t mention Chelsea above, because I do very much look at the honours they’ve won since 2003 in the same way, and that has been reinforced by their ridiculous spending under the new owner. They were one of the reasons that financial fair play was attempted in the first place.
I excluded them from my post because I know not everyone sees them that way now, and I wasn’t really looking to get into a debate on them.
Both Chelsea and Manchester City bought their success. They would have been nowhere without money. It still applies to Chelsea- they began making several mistakes post 1999 that I wouldn’t have been surprised if they had a really poor season and got relegated.
I suppose the argument their fans would make is the disproportionate (compared to their success) financial clout that Manchester United always had. There was no way they (Chelsea, Manchester City) could have competed with them had they not had these huge takeovers.
Well it isn’t nice to finish second to cheaters, but personally I can also write it off as City being cheaters and being allowed to cheat for a long time. Losing out to United in 2003 (for example) because they were just better than us fair and square in the end was more painful.
I guess your not alone but I think this opinion and one held by a percentage of fans at other clubs adds to the problem for me.
Legitimacy is being given and makes it easier for those in the media to manipulate and ignore.
Basically though as records tumble, seeing City as an insurance policy stopping others winning titles becomes counter productive.
We now have a semblance of rivalry with them as Liverpool do.
In both cases for instance they have the upper hand as Chelsea ultimately did in the end of the Abramovich reign.
From 24/25 the FA are downgrading their own cup. No replays, early rounds will be midweek games and final played on a PL weekend. Its the League Cup just called something else.
They’ve slowly robbed the magic of the FA Cup. I know some will think it’s good/doesn’t matter, but personally think it degrades the FA Cup
When it’s prestige started to degrade around later half of the 2000s they should have done more to arrest the decline. The winner of club footballs best domestic cup should have gotten a CL place.
If there were a CL place on the line it’s doubtful and if they did they’d have done more to deserve being in a “champions” league than a 4th place league finish - especially back in the late 2000s
The FA shat on the cup 20+ years ago when they let United withdraw. Any further slide since then is entirely on them because they let one team, the holders no less, skip it.
Removing replays etc was just a natural step once they put the power into a clubs hand like that.
