Manchester City 1-0 Newcastle United (19/08/23)

[madras]

2 minutes ago, Stifler said:

To be honest I don’t engage with them.

No amount of talking is going to change their mind.

I do. My job involves travelling all over the North and football is the universal language. Its great watching people realise they're wrong.

 

For me the galling thing is there's nothing we are doing now that Ashley couldn't have and he'd have made more from it.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by madras

[Wandy]

1 minute ago, Manxst said:

They’ve spent over a billion £ in the last decade. Most transfers of course will be successes simply due to signing the quality of player for the amount of money- they’re hardly speculating, but they’ve also signed some shit too- Mangala for over £40m? Robinho? Rodwell, Jo, Bony? 

 

So have Man Utd. Look at the difference in the results for each club over that period. Look at the state of Everton after spending half a billion.

 

No matter how they got the money, the simple fact is that City spent it spectacularly well. Not just on playing & coaching staff, but also the entire club infrastructure. It's a model we are very obviously trying to emulate.

[Manxst]

Just now, madras said:

I do. My job involves travelling all over the North and football is the universal language. Its great watching people realise they're wrong.

Trouble is that even when presented with the facts, certain people will always dig themselves deeper “but..,but…” and refuse to acknowledge what’s being put in front of them. Frustrating as anything. 

[Groundhog63]

Man City are bent as fuck man. 

[El Prontonise]

Just now, Wandy said:

 

So have Man Utd. Look at the difference in the results for each club over that period. Look at the state of Everton after spending half a billion.

 

No matter how they got the money, the simple fact is that City spent it spectacularly well. Not just on playing & coaching staff, but also the entire club infrastructure. It's a model we are very obviously trying to emulate.

 

Yeah there's no doubt since Pep came in they've spent very very well.

[Wandy]

5 minutes ago, STM said:

 

I can't stand Man United but there commercial income was organically grown through their success.

 

Man City and Chelsea just hooked up an oil well to the club.

 

Have you missed the last 22 months?  That's exactly what is happening at NUFC, but the taps have been closed to restrict the flow, that's all.

 

Man Utd have always been amongst the biggest spenders too though. The idea that their stature was grown completely organically is a myth. Yeah, Ferguson's early success was more organic but after that he was buying success just as much as any other successful club. Liverpool were bankrolled by the Moores family for 20 years.

[Manxst]

2 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

 

Yeah there's no doubt since Pep came in they've spent very very well.

Signing elite players for mega money at the top of their game is hardly rocket science. Haaland, Grealish, Dias, Rodri, Gvardiol, Cancelo- all massively over our transfer record. They not exactly speculating on ‘maybe’ transfers. 

[Wandy]

1 minute ago, Manxst said:

Signing elite players for mega money at the top of their game is hardly rocket science. Haaland, Grealish, Dias, Rodri, Gvardiol, Cancelo- all massively over our transfer record. They not exactly speculating on ‘maybe’ transfers. 

 

So why have Man Utd failed so badly for the last 10 years?

[Maineblue]

9 minutes ago, STM said:

 

I can't stand Man United but there commercial income was organically grown through their success.

 

Man City and Chelsea just hooked up an oil well to the club.

The irony in this post, Christ.

 

You do understand City have been behind Newcastle getting new owners don’t you, when the likes of Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal etc were against it.

 

If you were from Manchester you wouldn’t be saying they did there business organically, I guarantee it.

[Manxst]

Just now, Wandy said:

 

So why have Man Utd failed so badly for the last 10 years?

Because the staff assigned to recruitment are doing badly and they’ve overpaid for the players they’ve signed. 

[Stifler]

3 hours ago, Wandy said:

 

Have you missed the last 22 months?  That's exactly what is happening at NUFC, but the taps have been closed to restrict the flow, that's all.

 

Man Utd have always been amongst the biggest spenders too though. The idea that their stature was grown completely organically is a myth. Yeah, Ferguson's early success was more organic but after that he was buying success just as much as any other successful club. Liverpool were bankrolled by the Moores family for 20 years.

This. Man Utd bought all the best players in the 50’s/60’s. Probably the first team to do so since the game went professional. In the 70’s/80’s Liverpool did it via the Moores family, they also owned Everton. Back came Man Utd in the 90’s.

The only team who started to get stick for it was Blackburn though, then of course Man Utd started kicking off when Real Madrid were able to buy their biggest players.

The ‘organic income deals’ they gained were only available because of their initial purchasing above everyone else.

Even the likes of Arsenal and Spurs were not too far behind, being one of the major players who brokered the Premier League breakaway in the process.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Stifler

[Wandy]

1 minute ago, Manxst said:

Because the staff assigned to recruitment are doing badly and they’ve overpaid for the players they’ve signed. 

 

So basically, it's not just about the money then. And therefore, running a football club successfully is actually quite a challenging business.

[The Prophet]

It's been prove time and again that cash doesn't guarantee success, granted it's tough to succeed without it. 

[Manxst]

Just now, Wandy said:

 

So basically, it's not just about the money then. And therefore, running a football club successfully is actually quite a challenging business.

Of course it is. No one has denied that. But to throw a record load of money at transfers, if you’re run half decently, then you ‘should’ do very well. I’ve never denied Man City are a powerhouse off the pitch. Everton etc aren’t run decently and Man Utd are clearly inept

in their management/recruitment departments. 

[STM]

3 minutes ago, Maineblue said:

The irony in this post, Christ.

 

You do understand City have been behind Newcastle getting new owners don’t you, when the likes of Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal etc were against it.

 

If you were from Manchester you wouldn’t be saying they did there business organically, I guarantee it.

 

I don't understand the irony.

 

Manchester United were the most successful club in the country, both from a footballing perspective and a commercial perspective. They were launched on the back of an incredible commercial campaign when the PL first formed. Same with Arsenal to an extent.

 

Man City, let's be frank we average as fuck and possibly going out of business until Abu Dhabi saved you. They spent money without rule on whoever they wanted. Newcastle United simply can't do that. We have to build out revenue streams from scratch, thankfully we can invest whatever we want into that side of the club.

 

I'm aware we are both oil clubs, but in terms of what we are allowed to do, the two situations aren't comparable.

[Manxst]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

It's been prove time and again that cash doesn't guarantee success, granted it's tough to succeed without it. 

If you can throw money at the problems without any thought of consequences like Man City did pre FFP, then there’s no issues for them at all. They had failures and simply spent more after transferring their badly bought players out again. They’ve also spent billions on off the pitch improvements which generate success too. We obviously can’t do the same now because of the restrictions so have to ensure EVERY transfer is a good one. As you state, you simply HAVE to have that spending (just to improve year on year, let alone have success). 

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

17 minutes ago, madras said:

I do. My job involves travelling all over the North and football is the universal language. Its great watching people realise they're wrong.

 

For me the galling thing is there's nothing we are doing now that Ashley couldn't have and he'd have made more from it.

 

 

 

That’s what my wife who is completely disinterested in football (And from Moray so no skin in the NUFC game, other than being daft enough to marry me), keeps reiterating. The muppet never realised what he had and how it could’ve been a goldmine, with even a modicum of interest and fan engagement during his tenure.

 

look at the interest in retro adidas kits, and to think he apparently was an expert in that field, the useless fat w⚓️

[STM]

13 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

Have you missed the last 22 months?  That's exactly what is happening at NUFC, but the taps have been closed to restrict the flow, that's all.

 

Man Utd have always been amongst the biggest spenders too though. The idea that their stature was grown completely organically is a myth. Yeah, Ferguson's early success was more organic but after that he was buying success just as much as any other successful club. Liverpool were bankrolled by the Moores family for 20 years.

 

Your first paragraph contradicts it's self.

 

And I don't understand what's so hard for people to understand that the likes of Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal's incredible spending in the 80s/90s was because they were historically well supported clubs with income through natural means.

 

I'm my mind there is a huge difference between those above and the injected money of Chelsea, City and Blackburn of yesteryear.

[timnufc22]

Willock is a big miss and I said at the start of the season he would be in with Bruno & Tonali for me, if fit. For all his strengths, Joelinton can be sloppy / slow in possession and I think Willock has the edge over him, especially in the final third.

 

I don't think we should be taking Isaac of while trailing 1-0; fine put Wilson alongside him, but in a game like that against Man City, who press so high and give very little, I thought it was crazy to take away Isak's pace and footwork in tight spaces. Would we have taken Shearer off in his prime while losing 1-0? Imagine the uproar... I know Isak isn't his level, but he's our best striker and biggest threat. Wilson is good, but on his own does not have the pace or footwork needed in such circumstances. His minutes will come over the season with all the games, but to get them at the expense of Isak in such a game didn't make sense imo. 

 

Almiron has given us so much, but there's nothing wrong with switching things up a bit and I would have moved Gordon across to RW when putting on Barnes. Its a starting line-up  I'd have my eye on at some point. 

 

To be fair, not many teams restrict Man City's chances like we did second half.

[Bimpy474]

Their is a certain arrogance of successful clubs, and a rather distorted view from them of how they got to where they are. I sincerely hope if we do achieve some success we don't become as arrogant and forgetful of our journey.

[The Prophet]

Not a bad assessment from.com. Very telling that once upon time, they'd have absolute pumped us without getting out of second gear. Last night they gave us a lot of respect and were relatively content to shut the game down in the second half. It almost felt like we went there as equals, despite their obvious superiority.

[Ronson333]

1 minute ago, STM said:

 

Your first paragraph contradicts it's self.

 

And I don't understand what's so hard for people to understand that the likes of Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal's incredible spending in the 80s/90s was because they were historically well supported clubs with income through natural means.

 

I'm my mind there is a huge difference between those above and the injected money of Chelsea, City and Blackburn of yesteryear.

The Moores family spent an absolute shit load on Liverpool in the 80s and made their money out of Littlewoods. 

[Heron]

Great tactical display from Man City. Suffocated the game. Was bland as shit to watch.

[Wandy]

1 minute ago, STM said:

 

Your first paragraph contradicts it's self.

 

And I don't understand what's so hard for people to understand that the likes of Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal's incredible spending in the 80s/90s was because they were historically well supported clubs with income through natural means.

 

I'm my mind there is a huge difference between those above and the injected money of Chelsea, City and Blackburn of yesteryear.

 

You know nothing about football history then clearly. Pre-1950s Man Utd were literally the walking definition of a nothing club. Something like 3 trophies won in the first 70 years of their history, and nowhere on the historical crowds league table. It took them to the late 1960s to overtake NUFC in overall trophies won, and mid 1970s in domestic trophies. Before then they had never been ahead of NUFC. And City have a very similar trophy history to NUFC, pre-2008, in fact it's better.

 

As for Liverpool, their pre-1974 history is almost identical to NUFC, and therefore Man City.

[madras]

3 minutes ago, STM said:

 

Your first paragraph contradicts it's self.

 

And I don't understand what's so hard for people to understand that the likes of Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal's incredible spending in the 80s/90s was because they were historically well supported clubs with income through natural means.

 

I'm my mind there is a huge difference between those above and the injected money of Chelsea, City and Blackburn of yesteryear.

Liverpool in the 60s were always rumoured to be like those. A middling 2nd division club with no greater support than others suddenly blowing top level clubs out the water for Ian St John and Ron Yeats, suspiciously this happened just after a Littlewoods pools board member joined their board.