They’re a bigger club than City and when I was growing up they were basically where Tottenham are now.
I think you measure the size of a club by the reaction to how the media deal with losses at these clubs.
Yesterday Newcastle, Everton and West Ham got turned over but the fallout was quite minimum for sides who have gone 50,24 and 39 years without a cup.
They did the maximum to go past the 3rd F.A. Cup round. They have managed to do it in the last years .
And if it doesn’t, OCD is triggered and we’re thrown into a pit of despair
Some reports suggesting they’ve been sold to a middle eastern billionaire, why couldn’t those reports be about us .
Manchester City owners cousin actually, so cool they’ll be spending billions soon. Fuck being owned by oil richers tho. I’d rather just what we have now and still have morals. Thanks but I’d rather not have my club be the poster child for mocking the sport.
I’d like a sugar daddy owner just to compete with City but at the same time wouldn’t really be comfortable with it, it goes against what I believe in. Some of them owners are the biggest scum. I think Man City’s abuse human rights, and wasn’t there some Usmanov guy who wanted to take over us who is a rapist?
What morals? We are an advertisment vehicle for two dictatorial regimes. Might aswell be owned by one.
Wait… who’s the second one?
Morals of being within our resources and whatever success we achieve is down to us not buying the success
Ehhh. Success is always bought. Arsenal just don’t have the money to buy it. If the commercials doesn’t get you there you might aswell go with an external benefactor. There is really no reason to still sit on that high horse.
In the case of Arsenal it’s less impactful anyway, since they’ve already got an established brand.
Eh? Not before plastic clubs it wasn’t
Or you could implement proper regulations to keep things fair.
Why do United have many league titles and Southampton have none? Because of their wonderful academy?
Leicester is about the only anomaly in recent times. The league winners are often one of the top 2/3 spenders at the time.
They could make it fair but they won’t, in which case why wouldn’t clubs invest tons externally.
The ones that win are 99% of the time the richest clubs.
How would you make it fair? City are working around current rules by making themselves ‘sponsors’ of the club. There always be a loophole for these clubs.
I didn’t say titles are not won by the rich clubs.
But United earned their expensive squads and Southampton didn’t.
I would make it fair by simply introducing a wage cap.
Hmmm. There’s an argument against this. They were making world or British record signings before they’d even won their first league title after 26-odd years in 1993.
Schmeichel- world record fee for a GK
Keane/Ince- British record fee for midfielders
Cantona- British record fee for a striker
It seems there are some people here in 2019 who maybe weren’t around in the early 90s and before and have created this fantasist illusion that everything was a level playing field and it was 20/22 evenly matched teams going up against each other every year
Just because gaps have widened doesn’t mean they weren’t then, in different guises. Talking about morality in football is - as ever- largely pointless
True. Insightful post. Normally you’re inciteful