Hereās a question -
How come Manchester City more tolerable than Chelsea?
Maybe itās because we tend to beat them here and there, they play good football and likeable players; that I just canāt seem to hate them to same degree as the other plastic club.
Itās like when Man U had Ferguson I couldnāt stand them, but when he left and they got Moyes and then LVG, I wasnāt that bothered about them, especially as they were not in the top four.
But since Mourinho has gone back to Man U, they can be despised again by most football supporters.
I think itās because we were used to it from Chelsea so there was less to bitch about, and we were better than them for ages. Chelsea went from zero to cunt in 6 months, City had the Robinho years for us to generate a tolerance to them being half decent.
Itās like when Man U had Ferguson I couldnāt stand them, but when he left and they got Moyes and then LVG, I wasnāt that bothered about them, especially as they were not in the top four.
But since Mourinho has gone back to Man U, they can be despised again by most football supporters.
[/quote]
Basically you mean their a threat again. I dont like City and refuse to see them as the acceptable face of cuntism.
That free stadium shouldnt have been allowed and bought them a cheap ride to the top.
Big club doing big things, shows what players think of Pep when they are more appealed by the prospect of playing under him than playing for Barcelona.
Yea, Pep really added a lot of attractivity to playing for ManCity. Must be a lot easier getting deals done if you have him as a manager. Their transfer business in the last couple of seasons wasnāt really impressive when you compare it to now.
Billionaire backing aside, one thing I give credit for is Man City have ambitions to build a football franchise, rather than just a good team. The starting a new club in USA, the improved training facilities and youth setup, investing in great young players Kompany, Aguero, Nasri previously, De Bruyne and now Sane. Not to mention bagging Pep who would only be attracted by a club of the highest ambition.
Not saying itās all been earned through blood, sweat and tears, but at least they are using their financial power wisely rather than the likes of Chelsea for example who may have had some immediate gratification, but still feel a small club relatively speaking.
Man City try and play attractive football unlike the Mourinho way, which is score and then defend.
Also Chelsea supporters are some of the worst in the PL.
I donāt know many Man City supporters, so Iām not really bothered whether they win or not.
I will always want Man City to win, if they are playing, spurs, Chelsea or Man U.
What an excellent summer theyāve had. Theyāve built on a strong squad with excellent additions like Sane, Gundogan and Nolito coupled with Gabriel Jesus (special talent) and Zinchenko (apparently a good young player).
With the impending addition of Stones - I think we are looking at a special squad with a special manager.
Abramovich has build Cobham and they too have invested in their fair share of young players. The core that won the Champions League (Cech, Lampard, Drogba etc.) was already there when they won their first titles. Commercially that club has grown massively with Yokohama tires and nike deals to show for it. City gets peanuts from nike (which will change in the future obviously). Only things Chelsea done different is not buy foreign clubsā¦ But nobody except City has really done that.