This might sound like a no brainer but...

[wacko]

I went for City purely because they don't have Ashley etc. in charge.

[leffe186]

It's only a no-brainer because of the mess at SJP. I can't take any Chelsea fans seriously now and know more than a few who have been fans since the 80s and earlier who are embarrassed by the Abramovich years and don't feel it's the same club. I agree, and no doubt will have the same feelings over Man City.

 

15 years ago I wouldn't have dreamed of backing Chelsea in any game, now I'm really not fussed either way when they play in Europe.

 

If my team (Spurs) went about things the same way then I genuinely don't know how I'd react. Clubs' identities have always been a bit blurred (Blackburn bought the Premiership on a smaller scale) but the Man City level of insanity means that you cannot keep deluding yourself that your club is just that, your club.

[Kaizero]

I'd rather see a football club get success with local lads and loads and loads of training hours. But that's not how football is anymore, and given how much money has to say, sure, I'd rather us have a filthy rich Arab in charge than someone else if it meant we could be up there challenging for honors. It's a shame, but that's how it is today.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

It's only a no-brainer because of the mess at SJP. I can't take any Chelsea fans seriously now and know more than a few who have been fans since the 80s and earlier who are embarrassed by the Abramovich years and don't feel it's the same club. I agree, and no doubt will have the same feelings over Man City.

 

15 years ago I wouldn't have dreamed of backing Chelsea in any game, now I'm really not fussed either way when they play in Europe.

 

If my team (Spurs) went about things the same way then I genuinely don't know how I'd react. Clubs' identities have always been a bit blurred (Blackburn bought the Premiership on a smaller scale) but the Man City level of insanity means that you cannot keep deluding yourself that your club is just that, your club.

 

I really don't think the Blackburn scenario is the same. Yes they bought their team rather than nurtured it, but they simply paid the maket rate for these players. Chelsea and City are waving monopoly money around and its dangeorus and tbh a bit boring.

 

Football was better when he whole country was excited about Klinnsmann joining Spurs or Ravanelli the smogs. Who really cares if Eto'o signs for City? Its just another player now.

 

I seriously give football in its present form 5 more years and then something will have to be done. An European Super League is my guess and then the rebirth of 'proper' football domestically where money isn't a pre-requisite for success. Those identikit Ikea stadia will look a bit silly only being half full, but I'd rather be part of this 'second' tier then playing a corporate game accross Europe.

[Ishmael]

I want to moonwalk son, but life's a shit house.

[brummie]

I'd rather see a football club get success with local lads and loads and loads of training hours. But that's not how football is anymore, and given how much money has to say, sure, I'd rather us have a filthy rich Arab in charge than someone else if it meant we could be up there challenging for honors. It's a shame, but that's how it is today.

 

Thing is though, although you're right, football isn't about locally nurtured lads any more, and hasn't been for a long time but there are an awful lot of intermediate points between that and the way Man City are sending things at the moment.

 

250,000 a week for Et'oo?

 

I can't see how that can be in any way good for the game as a whole.

[Pilko]

It isn't a no-brainer. It's the opposite. It's a real brainer.

 

- knew you where referencing Mark but my series 5 knowledge is poor. Saw that ep last night though

[pedro111]

Im sick of us being shit so I choose the City way.

[ohmelads]

The way the Premier League is operating at the moment is totally unsustainable. The fact is there are only four places worth going for if you're a mega billionaire. Man City might break the stranglehold on those places, but then who drops out? And what happens to them? Will they too be taken over by a rich Arab?

 

The fact is these people are going to lose interest when they see year after year of glorious midtable finishes. And if they are succeeding, then other billionaires aren't. I only believe the league can sustain a couple of teams like this, else it won't be long before these big spenders lose interest and walk away, taking their money with them. And when that happens, the house of cards comes falling down.

 

It'd be interesting to run the same poll in 5 or 10 years time and see what people say.

[wacko]

I think most of these billionaires believe there are massive untapped TV markets abroad and that the Premiership pot itself will expand. Most of them are in it for profit, not to chuck their cash away. They're hoping the expansion of Premiership TV coverage will increase the value of the whole league, and with that every club in it.

 

Only Abramovich and Citeh's new sheiks are actually splashing the cash (as opposed to piling debt on the club) and losing money. Hicks and Gillett have been open to offers north of £500m from day one.

 

It's possible that Citeh will break into the top four, with Arsenal currently looking like the low-hanging fruit, but it'll take them another season or two to put together a squad good enough, no matter how much they spend, and there's no indication Hughes is in the same class as Wenger, Fergie, Ancelotti and Rafa.

[Gash]

Just seen on SSN that City are playing a match against the United Arab Emirates national team in the winter, either they'll fit this in with reserves and non-internationals during an international break or the Arab owners aren't seeing the impracticalities of this in a footballing sense(surely if Mark Hughes was in control he wouldn't give this the go ahead), either way  it sounds shit to me.