The 22/23 Football Thread

Marc said:
Quite the twist but it's now in City's hands.
Click to expand...
A club that is at the very top of the league shouldn't be 3-1 down to another who are trying to escape relegation. It shows that to take on the likes of Man City, you need an experienced squad, as well as great young players and a great manager.

At the start of the season most would have said that Arsenal would struggle for European football, let alone Champions League, or even the chance of winning the title, so it hasn't been all bad. However, the lack of experience is showing. (And I always said City would win it, I just didn't expect Arsenal to give it to them on a plate.)
 
Last edited:
Jelster said:
A club that is at the very top of the league shouldn't be 3-1 down to another who are trying to escape relegation.
Click to expand...
I feel your frustration but this match is a great example of the strength of the Premier league. i.e On any given day any team can beat any team. As we move inexorably towards that season, when Man City remain undefeated in the Premier league and win all the available cups this result is a beacon of hope towards those of use who prefer competition.
 
badlywornroy said:
I feel your frustration but this match is a great example of the strength of the Premier league. i.e On any given day any team can beat any team. As we move inexorably towards that season, when Man City remain undefeated in the Premier league and win all the available cups this result is a beacon of hope towards those of use who prefer competition.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I hate the way the 2 Manchester clubs & Chelsea have literally bought their way to the top (or to stay there in Utd's case). Whilst I love the league for it's strength and sometimes brilliant football, some clubs have been able to get away with breaking the financial fair play rules, on the part of Man City, I believe it was 126 counts that are still being considered by the FA, but nothing will ever happen about it.

Chelsea have spent over £550M in the last 12 months, how is that possible?
 
Jelster said:
A club that is at the very top of the league shouldn't be 3-1 down to another who are trying to escape relegation
Click to expand...
Talking of which, looks like we could escape relegation after all. :)
 
cambsno said:
Congrats - sadly we may be heading in the opposite direction which is a shame as Orient is a good away trip and a local game. Still, we have a shout of staying up!
Click to expand...
Glad to see you managed the great escape, nice easy game for me travel wise
Just hope Posh blow out now in the play offs, looking like some reasonably local games.
 
Jelster said:
Don't get me wrong, I hate the way the 2 Manchester clubs & Chelsea have literally bought their way to the top (or to stay there in Utd's case). Whilst I love the league for it's strength and sometimes brilliant football, some clubs have been able to get away with breaking the financial fair play rules, on the part of Man City, I believe it was 126 counts that are still being considered by the FA, but nothing will ever happen about it.

Chelsea have spent over £550M in the last 12 months, how is that possible?
Click to expand...
You're a little wide of the mark here I'm afraid.

ALL premier league clubs spend vast amounts of money, it's why the premier league is the best in the world. You single out 3 teams, yet ignore Arsenal (who have spent more in the last 5 seasons than City) and Liverpool and a whole host of others. In fact here is the top 10 from last season

  1. Chelsea - £546.1m.
  2. Manchester United - £217.3m. ...
  3. West Ham United - £173.3m. ...
  4. Arsenal - £171.8m. ...
  5. Newcastle United - £165.5m. ...
  6. Nottingham Forest - £164.6m. ...
  7. Tottenham Hotspur - £158.9m. ...
  8. Wolverhampton Wanderers - £158.2m. ...
  9. Manchester City - £134.4m. ...
  10. Leeds United - 130m. ...
Manchester City position makes interesting reading doesn't it. I accept of course that this is for the current season, so lets have a look at the last 5 years, slightly different criteria as this period allows us to properly consider nett spend (ie the deficit in spending once transfer income is factored in).
  1. Chelsea: £654.21m.
  2. Manchester United: £540.23m.
  3. Arsenal: £485.64m.
  4. West Ham: £356.5m. ...
  5. Newcastle: £351.89m. ...
  6. Tottenham: £332.48m. ...
  7. Wolves: £276.55m. ...
  8. Aston Villa: £271.24m. ...
  9. Liverpool: £254.19m. ...
  10. Manchester City £224.97m. ...
Top 5 this season and top 5 for the last 5 seasons remarkably similar, and once again Manchester City way down the list.

In terms of the accusations against Manchester City, you don't mention the fact that they have been exonerated of all the charges brought against them by UEFA other than failing to comply fully with the investigation. That charge by the way came about because information given by the club to UEFA was leaked to the press, presumably by someone at UEFA, hence the club stopped providing said information, and lets face it that's not an unreasonable position for a business to take is it.

The premier league charges (115 not 126) cover the period 2009 to 2018. At least 3 years of that period were covered by the UEFA charges, which makes it a little bizarre that they are included once again, but hey-ho. Interestingly, the premier league FFP rules only came into force for the 2011/12 season, so how the PL can charge for breaches 3 years prior to that still hasn't really been explained. Of these 115 alleged breaches:
  1. 50 relate to accuracy of financial information. - To make these charges stick the Premier League has to prove that City owners have knowingly and deliberately cooked the books at every level of the organization, that multiple parties have covered and lied about it, and than auditors and independent regulators of multiple companies have either been misled or failed to spot this. Not only that, but that these actions were repeated for 9 years and no-one spotted it. Whilst that's not impossible, it's certainly implausible.
  2. 8 charges relate to paying a manager (rumoured to be Mancini) via a separate contract outwith the business. Mancini has denied this, it would be a laughably small amount of money in the overall picture, but lets see what happens.
  3. 25 charges relate to "profit and sustainability." This is the big one for me, Manchester City are debt free, they are at no risk of going bankrupt, which if you recall was the driving force behind FFP regulation in the first place. This has conveniently been forgotten these days. Across town you have a set of owners milking a club of millions year on year, with an ever increasing debt which relies on Champions League qualification and the sponsorship that brings just to keep serviced. But thats OK because boxes on the PL/UEFA checklist are ticked.
  4. The final 30 charges are for failing to assist with the PL investigation. I would hope they are guilty of that to be quite honest, as to assist in what is basically a witch hunt would be foolish in the extreme.
Anyway, rant over, have a nice day
 
I think it's fair to say that City have exploited various financial loopholes, and will be extremely 'tax efficient', etc, as are all big clubs these days; the idea that modern top level professional football is a people's game' is laughable. City, and Chelsea and Utd before them, bought success. Pure and simple. City's reserve team that beat Chelsea yesterday cost over £200m. Trying to pretend City are lillywhite when it comes to finances, is just deluded. And that's before we even get into to mire of human rights abuses committed by the regimes that own clubs like City, Newcastle (oh they've suddenly got good following the takeover by the Saudi state, what an amazing coincidence) and PSG. Football is a dirty game, end of.
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
I think it's fair to say that City have exploited various financial loopholes, and will be extremely 'tax efficient', etc, as are all big clubs these days; the idea that modern top level professional football is a people's game' is laughable. City, and Chelsea and Utd before them, bought success. Pure and simple. City's reserve team that beat Chelsea yesterday cost over £200m. Trying to pretend City are lillywhite when it comes to finances, is just deluded. And that's before we even get into to mire of human rights abuses committed by the regimes that own clubs like City, Newcastle (oh they've suddenly got good following the takeover by the Saudi state, what an amazing coincidence) and PSG. Football is a dirty game, end of.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely bang on, Every business, because like it or not that's what premier league football is these days, will exploit regulations as far as they can. There is nothing untoward in this, although it may well be distasteful. It's not just Manchester City doing this of course. It's a little disingenuous to call out the clubs arab owned whilst ignoring the misdemeanors of others however. Standard Charter, who Liverpool have proudly emblazoned across their chests for a number of seasons were fined over a billion dollars for money laundering in 2019. Going back a lot of years, Manchester United actually evicted players injured in the Munich air disaster from their club homes, together with the families of some of the victims, at least according to a couple of books I've read which have never been challenged by United so I assume are correct, and Martin Edwards, chairman of said club, owned a business convicted if memory serves me (I haven't checked this) of selling meat not fit for human consumption to school meal providers.

Football has been a business for along time, is, and always has been, run by, as my dear departed father would say, wrong-uns
 
Most multi billion £$€ individuals or business's very rarely accumulate that amount of wealth in totally honest and 'lilly white' ways, but will rarely impact on many people's health or lives. State backed entities will have the reputation of the country's actions in their own country, and what they do around the world, to follow them round. And sometimes that can be very grim indeed sadly.

"Sportswashing is a term used to describe the practice of individuals, groups, corporations, or governments using sports to improve reputations tarnished by wrongdoing". This is what they are all doing to some degree, but when the 'sportswashing' is to do with murders and human rights abuses, it doesn't quite sit right. Add to that that some of these state backed entities have a practically unlimited amount of money compared to wealthy individuals/companies to 'alter' their reputations, and that also leaves a bad taste to some.

I knew nothing of Standard Chartered reputation, and am not even sure what they do as a business without looking. They are a faceless company, as most lare company's are. And maybe the fans of clubs which are state backed have the same attitude to owners, but I think if Standard Chartered had a very bad reputation or history, it would have come up pretty quickly after they started to be linked with Liverpool, and if they had done anything egregious since they had been sponsoring Liverpool, I think we would have heard of it.

FSG own Liverpool though, not Standard Chartered, and they seem to see it as purely investment, and they are running Liverpool as a business, which is why Liverpool may not spend as much as some teams. They will sell when the value is worth it, and they can get a buyer. Not sure what the exit strategy for the owners at Man City, PSG and Newcastle looks like. I had the same thought about Abramovich, but he was forced out.

The history, and reputation of country's are more out there for everyone to see, and why it is mentioned when these types come into contact with sport ownership. Many of the members of a gov't/ruling family in ownership of a club may sometimes be prominent in the stands at games, as these people are also trying to improve/enhance their own standing too.

And talking of financial fair play, it is 'interesting' that major companies from the same country as the owners are sponsoring the teams, and maybe also paying for naming rights of the stadium. Are they paying market value, or over the odds! How involved are these country's with the ownership of the clubs and the sponsoring company's! I know I was extremely surprised at the sponsorship value of Man City's stadium naming rights before all the success. :thinking:

I wonder where Newcastle's next sponsors will come from. ;)
 
Much of what you say is accurate, I'm not suggesting for a minute that Manchester City, or any other global football club, are lily white in their approach. but there is a significant difference in attitude and media coverage in how they are treated and how other clubs with European or American ownership are treated. This affects the perception of the "man in the street" as evidenced by the post which I initially responded to.

I understand also, though I'm not very knowledgeable about, the human rights issues in the emirates, Saudi Arabia etc. But from the perspective of someone living in Manchester, the positive impact the ADUG (owners of Manchester City) have had in the area cannot be over-stated. The redevelopment around the stadium is significant and accomplished in a very short time period. All of which gets limited national coverage at best.

With regards standard charter, my point was that despite their tarnished image, Liverpool owners were happy to take their money. Little to no press coverage of the issue, as you allude to yourself. Compare that with the constant "dirty oil money" snipes at Manchester City (and no doubt shortly at Newcastle).

A brief overview of the Standard Charter issue if you are interested https://www.theguardian.com/busines...red-fined-money-laundering-sanctions-breaches

The sponsorship issue is an interesting one, and does I believe form part of the PL investigation. It also was part of the UEFA investigation where no fault was found. Make of that what you will. Ultimately, the value of anything is what someone is willing to pay. I find it difficult to understand how that can be questioned from a legal stand point, irrespective of the morality of the issue.

The exit strategy for the clubs owners is largely irrelevant I think. It is now fully self-funding, with no debt and has returned a profit for at least the last 3 years. I believe it impossible to find a club in a better financial position than they are now. Contrast that with the state of the club before the initial takeover by Shinawatra (now there is a crook) when they were apparently one pay-day away from administration. Besides, despite the expectation that the club was bought as a rich mans toy, the owners have held the club for 14 years and it is now the flagship of a world-wide group of 13 clubs from every continent including New York City, Girona and Palermo. A business model that others are now seeking to emulate.
 
Oh, sorry; I hadn't realised that Standard Chartered's terrible crimes were far worse than human rights abuses. Do forgive me.
 
You don't build a squad like Man City for the sort of money you seem to think. City have 2 full blown internationals for each position on the field. Their sponsorship deals are very dodgy to say the least, but there is no denying they are probably the best squad that's ever come out of an English club. It's a shame that other than Foden, I think just about every other player was purchased rather than home grown.
 
flook999 said:
Much of what you say is accurate, I'm not suggesting for a minute that Manchester City, or any other global football club, are lily white in their approach. but there is a significant difference in attitude and media coverage in how they are treated and how other clubs with European or American ownership are treated. This affects the perception of the "man in the street" as evidenced by the post which I initially responded to.
Click to expand...
I don't think there are any clubs whose owners are from Europe or America who are backed by the wealth of countries. And these are countries that are known for questionable human rights violations against their own citizens and immigrants, and murders. They are also intolerant to LGBT people, unless there is a World Cup going on at the same time. :rolleyes:
flook999 said:
I understand also, though I'm not very knowledgeable about, the human rights issues in the emirates, Saudi Arabia etc. But from the perspective of someone living in Manchester, the positive impact the ADUG (owners of Manchester City) have had in the area cannot be over-stated. The redevelopment around the stadium is significant and accomplished in a very short time period. All of which gets limited national coverage at best.
Click to expand...
If you have enough money, you can do amazing things.
flook999 said:
With regards standard charter, my point was that despite their tarnished image, Liverpool owners were happy to take their money. Little to no press coverage of the issue, as you allude to yourself. Compare that with the constant "dirty oil money" snipes at Manchester City (and no doubt shortly at Newcastle).

A brief overview of the Standard Charter issue if you are interested https://www.theguardian.com/busines...red-fined-money-laundering-sanctions-breaches
Click to expand...
This was the first time I have heard anything negative about Standard Chartered. If they do any wrongdoing, especially money laundering for potentially terrorist organisations, fine them big so they don't even think about doing it again. If one know owners, or sponsors are potentially not reputable, but choose to ignore it, then don't be surprised when you (and by you, I mean fans of those clubs) are called out it.
flook999 said:
The sponsorship issue is an interesting one, and does I believe form part of the PL investigation. It also was part of the UEFA investigation where no fault was found. Make of that what you will. Ultimately, the value of anything is what someone is willing to pay. I find it difficult to understand how that can be questioned from a legal stand point, irrespective of the morality of the issue.
Click to expand...
It's the 2nd time you mentioned the UEFA investigation with regards to the PL investigation, as if one result negates the following investigation. Different organisations have different rules and different thresholds for proving guilt or innocence. If that were not the case, the PL would not bring the same charges, if they are the same charges. The would be no point in bringing charges that you know you are going to lose.

As for something being the value someone is willing to pay, mmm, if there are limits on how much you can spend based on how much you earn, if you somehow get someone to overpay you for something, you suddenly have more money to spend. If the people you get to pay over the odds are also from the country you control, then that is coincidence isn't it!

Do you think, with the number of fans for clubs around the world, that Man City should be earning significantly more money from shirt sponsorship per year than Liverpool or Man Utd? About £17.5m more than Liverpool and £20m more than Utd. "And though it is reported that City are looking to replace Etihad as their sponsor", Etihad will continue paying that until they do. :thinking: Because that is was business's do isn't it, they pay over market value for an undetermined time, with no end to when they stop paying. Oh, no, that's the exact opposite of how things usually work. Not dodgy at all, nothing to see here, move along please.
flook999 said:
The exit strategy for the clubs owners is largely irrelevant I think. It is now fully self-funding, with no debt and has returned a profit for at least the last 3 years. I believe it impossible to find a club in a better financial position than they are now. Contrast that with the state of the club before the initial takeover by Shinawatra (now there is a crook) when they were apparently one pay-day away from administration. Besides, despite the expectation that the club was bought as a rich mans toy, the owners have held the club for 14 years and it is now the flagship of a world-wide group of 13 clubs from every continent including New York City, Girona and Palermo. A business model that others are now seeking to emulate.
Click to expand...
You had better hope that an exit strategy is irrelevant, because whilst world politics rarely impacts on football ownership, Ambramovich aside, owners needing to relinquish ownership because of outside pressures may affect the team, regardless of whether they are self-funding or not, as Chelsea are showing.
 
Jelster said:
You don't build a squad like Man City for the sort of money you seem to think. City have 2 full blown internationals for each position on the field. Their sponsorship deals are very dodgy to say the least, but there is no denying they are probably the best squad that's ever come out of an English club. It's a shame that other than Foden, I think just about every other player was purchased rather than home grown.
Click to expand...
Cole Palmer? Rico Lewis?

How many of Arsenals squad are developed at Arsenal? How many Chelsea, United, Liverpool?

The money spent on transfers is a matter of public record. Nowhere have I said City haven't spent money, what I have said is that other teams have spent money too, often more, but not as wisely. All top 6 clubs have two internationals for every position.
 
redhed17 said:
I don't think there are any clubs whose owners are from Europe or America who are backed by the wealth of countries. And these are countries that are known for questionable human rights violations against their own citizens and immigrants, and murders. They are also intolerant to LGBT people, unless there is a World Cup going on at the same time. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Manchester City are not state owned, the money is personal wealth. I'm not going to debate further the morality of that personal wealth because we both know that's questionable, but so is the personal wealth of that magnitude in pretty much anyone in that position.
redhed17 said:
This was the first time I have heard anything negative about Standard Chartered. If they do any wrongdoing, especially money laundering for potentially terrorist organisations, fine them big so they don't even think about doing it again. If one know owners, or sponsors are potentially not reputable, but choose to ignore it, then don't be surprised when you (and by you, I mean fans of those clubs) are called out it.
Click to expand...
My exact point, not reported or sensationalised by the British press. Again, i'm not claiming parity with the human rights issues, but surely it's worthy of a mention isn't it?
redhed17 said:
It's the 2nd time you mentioned the UEFA investigation with regards to the PL investigation, as if one result negates the following investigation. Different organisations have different rules and different thresholds for proving guilt or innocence. If that were not the case, the PL would not bring the same charges, if they are the same charges. The would be no point in bringing charges that you know you are going to lose.
Click to expand...
Maybe, time will tell, but I think you're giving too much credence to the PL. The initial raft of charges were flawed, citing rule numbers which have changed over the years. As an example, a charge relating to rule 15 as was levied, supposedly about financial irregularities, was inn fact about the length of the grass on the pitch in the year the rule was supposed to have been broken. If they are unprofessional enough to spot things like that, good luck in building a case based on email leaks from a German hacker, which is basically what this is.
redhed17 said:
As for something being the value someone is willing to pay, mmm, if there are limits on how much you can spend based on how much you earn, if you somehow get someone to overpay you for something, you suddenly have more money to spend. If the people you get to pay over the odds are also from the country you control, then that is coincidence isn't it!

Do you think, with the number of fans for clubs around the world, that Man City should be earning significantly more money from shirt sponsorship per year than Liverpool or Man Utd? About £17.5m more than Liverpool and £20m more than Utd. "And though it is reported that City are looking to replace Etihad as their sponsor", Etihad will continue paying that until they do. :thinking: Because that is was business's do isn't it, they pay over market value for an undetermined time, with no end to when they stop paying. Oh, no, that's the exact opposite of how things usually work. Not dodgy at all, nothing to see here, move along please.
Click to expand...
We'll disagree on this then, but it's a basic marketing principle. Given the success of Manchester City on the field since the Etihad contract was negotiated, one could easily argue they (Etihad) got a bargain and the initial contract was shrewd business. Most clubs have Champions League clauses in the sponsorship deals, As United have missed out on CL a couple of times in recent years, then why would their revenue be bigger than the team who has been without fail in the quarter finals for 7 years? Similarly Liverpool, 1 title in 30 years, why should their sponsorship be more lucrative than the team who has won 5 of the last 6? You are simply following the media "history club" line with that thinking.
redhed17 said:
You had better hope that an exit strategy is irrelevant, because whilst world politics rarely impacts on football ownership, Ambramovich aside, owners needing to relinquish ownership because of outside pressures may affect the team, regardless of whether they are self-funding or not, as Chelsea are showing.
Click to expand...
Missing the point here. In the unlikely event the owners walk away anytime soon, the club is perfectly placed to continue to progress. Contrast that with United, currently engaged in a very public fire sale, little on field success, ramshackle old ground in need of serious funding to repair (more debt) and over half a billion in the red to the bank. Who has got it right?
 
Marc said:
Blimey, who'd be a Spurs fan? 5-0 down after 21 minutes!
Click to expand...

I speak from a position of not being a Spurs supporter.
Harry Kane is such a great player, I may even use the word 'underrated' ?
Currently at the top of the goal scorers chart is Haaland with 36 and Kane with 28.
Goodness knows how many Kane would score if he played for Man City ? I think he would score more than Haaland ? who is predominantly a 'box scorer' Kane gets those and many from long range.
 
Fuji Dave said:
I think it's a sad state of affairs football now, thank god I follow good old Brighton. A great team to watch they don't go OTT on buying players, plus they bring through the young players.
Click to expand...

Well done indeed to Brighton, long may it continue but I doubt that very much.
Brighton are the latter day Leicester City ( my team ) We have has a tremendous 6 years. Premier league & FA cup winners. Semi final of a european competition. 5th, 5th and 8th in the Premier league. Now sadly relegation is highly likely.
Teams like Leicester and Brighton do not have the resources ( wealth) to sustain success. So enjoy it while you can. This Leicester supporter accepts the inevitable and is extremely grateful for the last 6 years, whatever the future brings.
 
badlywornroy said:
Well done indeed to Brighton, long may it continue but I doubt that very much.
Brighton are the latter day Leicester City ( my team ) We have has a tremendous 6 years. Premier league & FA cup winners. Semi final of a european competition. 5th, 5th and 8th in the Premier league. Now sadly relegation is highly likely.
Teams like Leicester and Brighton do not have the resources ( wealth) to sustain success. So enjoy it while you can. This Leicester supporter accepts the inevitable and is extremely grateful for the last 6 years, whatever the future brings.
Click to expand...
I hope the rest of your supporters are that pragmatic, I'm staying at the hotel at the King Power on Sunday, hoping it's not all going to kick off :/
 
flook999 said:
Cole Palmer? Rico Lewis?
Click to expand...
Who?


flook999 said:
How many of Arsenals squad are developed at Arsenal? How many Chelsea, United, Liverpool?
Click to expand...

Saka, Nelson, Nketia, Smith-Rowe.... All have come through the Arsenal academy, as did a number of others now plying their trade elsewhere in the PL. And watch out for Charlie Patino when he returns from loan next season.
 
Jelster said:
Who?




Saka, Nelson, Nketia, Smith-Rowe.... All have come through the Arsenal academy, as did a number of others now plying their trade elsewhere in the PL. And watch out for Charlie Patino when he returns from loan next season.
Click to expand...
Rico Lewis, aged 18, 18 games this season
Cole Palmer, aged 21, 31 games over the last 2 seasons

If we're adding in "graduates" now plying their trade elsewhere, Bazunu and Lavia are first choice at Southampton, who have another 3 ex City academy players in their first team squad, Toisin first choice at Fulham, Harwood-Bellis at Stoke, Tommy Doyle and James Macatee both first choice at Sheffield United (on loan). In all, 24 academy players have made their first team debut under Guardiola at City.
 
flook999 said:
I'm not very knowledgeable about, the human rights issues in the emirates, Saudi Arabia etc.
Click to expand...
Which is why it's probably a good idea to leave it there, rather than to continue sounding like an apologist for such regimes. Trying to explain away City's owners' wealth etc, and the sportswashing being done in football, is really quite alarming tbh. As is the whattaboutery. As a Liverpool fan, I was aware of the fines imposed on SC, as it was actually all over the news at the time. So much for your assertion that it was 'not reported' by the British press. Quite the opposite. And regardless, SC is a sponsor, not owner, of LFC. The sppnsorship deal, which often run for several years, was done before the scandal broke. So LFC wouldn't have known about it, and would not legally have been able to get out of it without incurring huge financial penalties. That said, I am still uncomfortable with LFC being sponsored by such an organisation. But hey. Look into the truth about most corporate sponsors of Premiership clubs, indeed most top level football clubs worldwide, and you'll open a Pandora's box of murkiness. But regarding ownership, City's is amongst the absolute worse. Claiming it's 'personal wealth', when the person in question is literally part of an utterly undemocratic regime which rules a state, is pure delusion. But let's stop there, otherwise this could get quite unedifying.
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
The sppnsorship deal, which often run for several years, was done before the scandal broke. So LFC wouldn't have known about it, and would not legally have been able to get out of it without incurring huge financial penalties.
Click to expand...
Don't SC still sponsor Liverpool? Haven't they recently renewed for a further 5 years? Careful, you're coming across as an apologist for supporters of international terrorism.
 
flook999 said:
Rico Lewis, aged 18, 18 games this season
Cole Palmer, aged 21, 31 games over the last 2 seasons

If we're adding in "graduates" now plying their trade elsewhere, Bazunu and Lavia are first choice at Southampton, who have another 3 ex City academy players in their first team squad, Toisin first choice at Fulham, Harwood-Bellis at Stoke, Tommy Doyle and James Macatee both first choice at Sheffield United (on loan). In all, 24 academy players have made their first team debut under Guardiola at City.
Click to expand...

When you have a squad full of full internationals, and some, probably the best in the world at their position, how is a lad from the academy going to make it unless they are extremely exceptional (as in the case with Foden).

Interesting that Foden didn't make it into Nevilles "Team of the Season"
 

Attachments

  • 348874275_803953047965473_2010815306527287664_n.jpeg
    348874275_803953047965473_2010815306527287664_n.jpeg
    100.5 KB · Views: 3
Back to the actual football; I'm personally very disappointed in Liverpool's poor performance for 3/4 of the season, but encouraged by the green shoots of recovery shown in the last few weeks. Of course the season's highlight has to be the humiliating annihilation, utter destruction, of Man U. Seven nil. I'm only annoyed it wasn't more, it should have been.
Arsenal flattered to decieve for much of the season, haing a lot of luck along the way, but did play some great football. The game at Anfield was the moment they cracked though; Liverpool's fightback (Arsenal were very lucky not to lose that game tbh, they deserved to) showed other teams just how vulnerable Arsenal are if you get at them, as was shown in their next few games. They just didn't have the mentality to fight hard enough, an Arsenal trait. But their position was gifted somewhat by the poor performances of Liverpool, Utd and most markedly, Chelsea. Had Liverpool and Chelsea been anywhere near the form of the last few seasons, Arsenal would have been fighting for a top 4 place. Utd have also been poor, but able to hold a cup run together. Definitely much improved from the last few seasons, but their squad offers so much more. Arsenal did a Leicester, by capitalising on the poor performances of other clubs, but didn't have the balls to go all the way. I think if Liverpool, Chelsea and Man U strengthen for next season, as we'd expect (Chelsea just need a decent manager and for Todd Boehly to back TF off and let people who know what they're doing, run the club), Arsenal will struggle to compete, but they do clearly have some talent on that squad. NUFC will spend their human rights abusing owners' money, but don't yet have a good managerial set up in place (Eddie Howe just hasn't got experience and isn't top level management material, let's be honest), another club that's benefitted from the collapse of others. Spurs will be Spurs. If they lose Kane, as expected, that will be a massive blow for them. Levy won't sell though, he's invested too much and loves the club more than most of its supporters.

Everton could go down. That's quite amusing. I think I'd rather see Leeds relegated though. I dunno. Leicester to do the unthinkable andstay up, whilst those two lose and go down? That would be nice.

Brighton in Europe. They'll get spanked, but it'll be nice for their fans to have a few trips abroad. Aston Villa have shown what can happen if you get a decent manager in; Emery has had some success in European competition, so they could be dark horses for a possible Vauxhaul Conference league win, perhaps. Who knows.

I think that in a few years, looking back, Arsenal fans will be ruing their one big chance of a league title. It's been 19 years, Liverpool went 30, Man U went 26. Such is football. Others will buy success, but at least Arsenal are one of the true greats. City, NUFC and PSG might not exist in a few years. Form is Temporary; class is permanent.
 
Jelster said:
When you have a squad full of full internationals, and some, probably the best in the world at their position, how is a lad from the academy going to make it unless they are extremely exceptional (as in the case with Foden).

Interesting that Foden didn't make it into Nevilles "Team of the Season"
Click to expand...
Not sure what point you're trying to make here? We have 3 graduates in the first team squad at the moment, Rico Lewis has played 18 times this season and his quality is clear for anyone to see, so much so that his emergence is one of the factors in Cancelo being shipped out.

Don't Arsenal have internationals in every position twice over?
 
flook999 said:
Don't SC still sponsor Liverpool? Haven't they recently renewed for a further 5 years? Careful, you're coming across as an apologist for supporters of international terrorism.
Click to expand...
Please; just stop. You're making yourself look a fool. Seriously. And I think there are rules about political stuff on this forum.
 
A N Y W A Y

City or Utd for the FA cup? The sensible money would be on City of course, but it's a cup final. And Utd have form for those.
CL final is interesting; City will be favourites, but have a habit of choking in the big CL games. Their destruction of Real was pretty ominous though; Inter will have to up their game somewhat to deal with the attacking threat. I personally don't want to see City buying a CL, but I think it's inevitable really. Real and Milan have been doing it forever anyway. But sadly I'm going to go with City for both, simply because they have hit top form at just the right time, and have the depth in their squad to cope with anything.
 
The human rights issue(s) have already been done to death in hot topics.
If you want to continue in that vein, then I suggest you seek out the appropriate threads.

I have zero interest in football, so please don't make me come back in here again,
or I'll be issuing penalties of my own.
 
flook999 said:
Not sure what point you're trying to make here? We have 3 graduates in the first team squad at the moment, Rico Lewis has played 18 times this season and his quality is clear for anyone to see, so much so that his emergence is one of the factors in Cancelo being shipped out.

Don't Arsenal have internationals in every position twice over?
Click to expand...

No, that's why we fell short at the end of the season... Youngest squad in the league apparently.
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
Will VAR be in operation? ;)
Click to expand...
I've no idea what that is, nor do I care.
I've now unsubscribed the thread, I'm done with it, until the next RTM that is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top