If you can prove to me with a valid argument then I’d change my mind but so far I see nothing but money being thrown around to buy some of the best players in the league

  • FootyBhoy@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    We all know they spend their way to trophies, but that isn’t uncommon. The real problem is is that they have most likely done it illegally with a possible 100 breaches…

  • Dorko30@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If uefa instituted a salary cap like our leagues have here in the states, this problem disappears overnight. No team should sink or swim because some mega billionaire wants a new plaything. City is just a symptom of a much, much larger problem.

  • Substantial-Two-8347@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, money buys success. ( obviously not 100 percent garenteed) Do you think people don’t know this? Will you repeat the same thing every year.

  • kw2006@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    City won 300m from their treble last season. By this logic they should have been way ahead in the table especially with their world best manager.

  • PhobosTheBrave@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s not how “proof” works.

    If you have a belief, it is on you to prove it, not for others to disprove it.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, but how would you prove your statement OP?

  • JaRonomatopoeia@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not a two dimensional thing.

    You can’t have sustained success without money but you can fail with it

    • staycoolwilson@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You need two things to succeed, good management and money.

      Teams like Chelsea and Man United have money but bad management.

      Teams like Brighton have good Management but no money.

      City have good management and money

      • PJBuzz@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Teams like Brighton have good Management but no money.

        You mean apart from the ~£500m of investment their owner put in to build the club to what it is?

        And now the huge profits they have made from player sales, like ~£100m for Caicedo, ~£50m for White, and ~£60m for Cucarella?

        Other than that… no money.

  • jaharac@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can attribute some of their success to the money but it detracts from their scouting, managers etc. man Utd have spent more, why aren’t they as successful?

  • Available_Command252@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    We spend a lot less than Chelsea and united, and we’ve got excellent players for a smaller fee than they deserve. Eg, Haaland, and it helps pep is one of the best managers in the world

    • ElegantGen7@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the issue that is missed when talking about City’s spend now is there is still benefit from previous high spend based on sold players. In seasons that there was 200/300 million spent, that player value was never “lost” might have dropped a bit but is still present.

      By selling those players they don’t need anymore after the high level of investment it makes the net spend look alot more reasonable. E.g. last window 241m was spent but they sold 114m (€). Those sales involved players like Laporte who was bought at the peak of city spending.

  • Ceejayncl@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Almost all modern day sporting success is down to money. In English Football before Man City it was Chelsea who were challenging Man Utd, who they themselves kept buying players. Arsenal had a few one off years of success. Blackburn also had a year of success thanks to Jack Walkers money. Before Man Utd was Liverpool and Everton thanks to the Moores family in the 70’s-80’s. Before that you are going back to Man Utd in the 50’s-60’s who bought all the good youngsters.

    • GetRidMan@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Im sure the correlation to money and results goes all the way back. Remember reading that the early 1900’s shows the same thing. Sort of explains why its always cities which have the best team, towns and villages didn’t have as many fans so couldn’t compete in monetary terms in the early days.

      In a more general reply, Buying the best player doesn’t guarantee success. Man Utd have bought a lot of seriously good players. Its the whole club that makes a team competitive. Man city are very well run and their facilities and academy help too. Lazy to just insinuate money is the only reason.

  • Kaninachaocb@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Last time Man Shitty have world class players like Uwe Rosler, Steve Lomas and Nicky Summerbee….much better than the current crop 😘

  • Expensive-Twist7984@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Every team attempts to buy success, City are just better at it than their competitors.

    If you don’t buy players in this league you go backwards.

    If you don’t spend that money well, you again go backwards.

    United are a prime example that simply spending money doesn’t equate to success, city have spent, but have done so addressing the needs of their team and having a stable team in place.