Jump to content
chubbs

Man City given 2yr CL ban

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Zorro said:

No I’m telling you that because you can’t win the Champions league or World club championship this season and had to settle for the lesser English league title, Liverpool are in decline. They remind me of Man Utd in Fergie’s last season. 

Forgot Man City won the CL and league last year? You talk some amount of pish honestly. 
 

I love that you think we are in decline but the fact that Man City are 21 points behind doesn’t alarm you. Liverpool are the team in decline lol Pep can’t even get the best squad in world football to the final let alone win the thing. 
 

Man united’s squad when fergie left was abysmal. Incomparable so your talking nonsense. Sorry.

Edited by Guff92
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

General consensus amongst the ex pros is this is a bad move.  
 

City/Liverpool argument aside I’m with them on this one. As much as it pained me watching Watford hammer us 3-0, those sort of results probably won’t happen with this new setup. I agree with zorro that it gives the lesser teams the chance to bring 5 sets of fresh legs to chase down the high intensity of the top two sides but I still think it’s a bad idea. Why change it now? They should be busy trying to train the refs on how to use VAR properly. More subs are the least of their worries.

Just look at the situation the other night with Southampton against United.  Barrinf the first 20 minutes, they kicked united up and down the park.   At least one was a straight red and constantly leaving a leg in and a sly shove here and there meaning when they get 5 guys on a yellow, they can take them off and continue with that tactic.

This will work against teams wanting to play football. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

Forgot Man City won the CL and league last year? You talk some amount of pish honestly. 

 

We’re not talking about Man City, we’re talking about Liverpool. You do seem a bit obsessed with City though. Is it an inferiority complex or are they your big team?

4 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

I love that you think we are in decline but the fact that Man City are 21 points behind doesn’t alarm you. Liverpool are the team in decline lol Pep can’t even get the best squad in world football to the final let alone win the thing. 

 

City have struggled this season, there’s no doubt about it. But it’s clear from the last meeting between the sides that a full strength City would wipe the floor with the scousers. 

4 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

Man united’s squad when fergie left was abysmal. Incomparable so your talking nonsense. Sorry.

Liverpool only have two maybe three top players, the rest are workmanlike. Possibly Van Dijk is the only one who’d get in the City side. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

Forgot Man City won the CL and league last year? You talk some amount of pish honestly. 
 

I love that you think we are in decline but the fact that Man City are 21 points behind doesn’t alarm you. Liverpool are the team in decline lol Pep can’t even get the best squad in world football to the final let alone win the thing. 
 

Man united’s squad when fergie left was abysmal. Incomparable so your talking nonsense. Sorry.

Agree with the last point, but trying to use the league this season as proof Liverpool are great is a bit misguided.

This season everyone barring your mob have been pish, City were severely hampered with Injury in both seasons to criricsl players and their squad, as expensive as it is isnt deep enough in terms of real quality in a few areas.   United, and Chelsea are in proper transition and will be much stronger, as Will City.   Winning the league once is relatively easy, compared to retaining it.

But the scoucers are in decline, but have benefitted from some piss poor competition this season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zorro said:

We’re not talking about Man City, we’re talking about Liverpool. You do seem a bit obsessed with City though. Is it an inferiority complex or are they your big team?

City have struggled this season, there’s no doubt about it. But it’s clear from the last meeting between the sides that a full strength City would wipe the floor with the scousers. 

Liverpool only have two maybe three top players, the rest are workmanlike. Possibly Van Dijk is the only one who’d get in the City side. 

Why do you keep using the last game? The league is over. 
 

Alisson is better than Ederson.

Van dijk walks in any team.

Robertson and Trent are better than Mendy & Walker.

Fabinho gets into their midfield as he’s the best defensive mid in football. I agree Henderson and Gini etc don’t get in, workmanlike as you say. 
 

Mane is better than Sterling.

Salah is better than Mahrez. 
 

That’s not even a matter of my opinion. That’s just common knowledge based on hard facts/stats. 
 

Man City will never be bigger than Liverpool or Man Utd, that’s fantasy stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

Agree with the last point, but trying to use the league this season as proof Liverpool are great is a bit misguided.

This season everyone barring your mob have been pish, City were severely hampered with Injury in both seasons to criricsl players and their squad, as expensive as it is isnt deep enough in terms of real quality in a few areas.   United, and Chelsea are in proper transition and will be much stronger, as Will City.   Winning the league once is relatively easy, compared to retaining it.

But the scoucers are in decline, but have benefitted from some piss poor competition this season.

Man united have gone from fifth to fifth, some transition that. Chelsea are just throwing money at their attack and leaving their defence as a horror show, that’s fine with me. 
 

Anyway, we will see once the league begins what the script is. To think Liverpool are in decline based on recent performances is ludicrous. We have nothing to play for.

Excuses of injuries to city’s squad, they have the most expensive squad in world football. It’s no my fault that £50 million Stones turned out yet another over rated, over priced flop. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Zorro said:

No I’m telling you that because you can’t win the Champions league or World club championship this season and had to settle for the lesser English league title, Liverpool are in decline. They remind me of Man Utd in Fergie’s last season. 

You think any English teams fans would rather have the world club championship than a league title?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Guff92 said:

Why do you keep using the last game? The league is over.

Alisson is better than Ederson.

Van dijk walks in any team.

Robertson and Trent are better than Mendy & Walker.

Fabinho gets into their midfield as he’s the best defensive mid in football. I agree Henderson and Gini etc don’t get in, workmanlike as you say. 
 

Mane is better than Sterling.

Salah is better than Mahrez. 
 

That’s not even a matter of my opinion. That’s just common knowledge based on hard facts/stats. 
 

Man City will never be bigger than Liverpool or Man Utd, that’s fantasy stuff.

Klopp put out his best team for the game against City. They got rode rotten. The rest of your stuff is wishful thinking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jasg said:

You think any English teams fans would rather have the world club championship than a league title?

I’d think it would depend on the fans. If your team hadn’t won the league for like forever, it might seem the most important thing in the world. However when you measure winning trophies against Barcelona, Real Madrid etc v winning against Bournemouth, Brighton and Watford, there’s only one winner. 

Edited by Zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Zorro said:

I’d think it would depend on the fans. If your team hadn’t won the league for like forever, it might seem the most important thing in the world. However when you measure winning trophies against Barcelona, Real Madrid etc v winning against Bournemouth, Brighton and Watford, there’s only one winner. 

By far your best effort of trolling, well done mate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guff92 said:

Why do you keep using the last game? The league is over. 
 

Alisson is better than Ederson.

Agreed but not by much 

2 hours ago, Guff92 said:

Van dijk walks in any team.

Robertson and Trent are better than Mendy & Walker.

Agreed,  but trent is over rated just as Walker is.

2 hours ago, Guff92 said:

Fabinho gets into their midfield as he’s the best defensive mid in football. I agree Henderson and Gini etc don’t get in, workmanlike as you say. 
 

Need to change your medixatiom here, fabinho isn't even the best defwnsive mid in Lancashire, lat alone England or Europe.   Matic is a batter player,  Kate is better than both 

Henderson is lish and Gigi is one of those guys lucky to be in a decent side, because he is mid table level at best.

2 hours ago, Guff92 said:

Mane is better than Sterling.

Salah is better than Mahrez. 
 

Wrong and agreed  but Mahrez flatters ro deceive too often to be taken seriously.

2 hours ago, Guff92 said:

That’s not even a matter of my opinion. That’s just common knowledge based on hard facts/stats. 
 

And yet you provide neither facts nor stats to support your opinion!

2 hours ago, Guff92 said:

Man City will never be bigger than Liverpool or Man Utd, that’s fantasy stuff.

Agreed, but Utd are in a different league to all other club sides in England, with Liverpool  as distant second in terms of size and global reach. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

Agreed but not by much 

Agreed,  but trent is over rated just as Walker is.

Need to change your medixatiom here, fabinho isn't even the best defwnsive mid in Lancashire, lat alone England or Europe.   Matic is a batter player,  Kate is better than both 

Henderson is lish and Gigi is one of those guys lucky to be in a decent side, because he is mid table level at best.

Wrong and agreed  but Mahrez flatters ro deceive too often to be taken seriously.

And yet you provide neither facts nor stats to support your opinion!

Agreed, but Utd are in a different league to all other club sides in England, with Liverpool  as distant second in terms of size and global reach. 

Your spelling is appalling. Much like your footballing opinions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Beaker71 said:

Oh look he loses another debate and resorts to spelling police.

What have I lost?

You just claimed Matic is better than Fabinho then I stopped reading. Your spelling was giving me a sore head. Hope your well x

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Guff92 said:

Why do you keep using the last game? The league is over. 
 

Alisson is better than Ederson.

Van dijk walks in any team.

Robertson and Trent are better than Mendy & Walker.

Fabinho gets into their midfield as he’s the best defensive mid in football. I agree Henderson and Gini etc don’t get in, workmanlike as you say. 
 

Mane is better than Sterling.

Salah is better than Mahrez. 
 

That’s not even a matter of my opinion. That’s just common knowledge based on hard facts/stats. 
 

Man City will never be bigger than Liverpool or Man Utd, that’s fantasy stuff.

 

See what you've done there is taken the best achieving English club football side which you'll probably ever see then named most of the Liverpool team as being better than them. Highest ever point achievers, then treble winners. Still have a chance of 7 out of 9 domestic trophies depending on how the FA cup goes. 

You've also been very selective in the players you've picked, and in some cases compared apples (Salah) with oranges (Mahrez). Fwiw Mahrez has been city's stand out performer of the season aside from the obvious. What makes Fabinho better than Fernandinho? He's had a better season, but then Fernaninho's spent most of it at centre half. He's been an instrumental member of that treble and highest point ever achieving side, but on the back of one season you're making some really outrageous remarks. I don't think Guardiola would ever consider swapping Ederson for Allison either btw, given how the two teams set up and what benefits the two goalkeepers bring to their respective side it's bizarrely another case of comparing apples with oranges (aye, even though they're literally two goalkeepers). 

Anyway, the thread has been dragged away from FFP again so I'm clocking off. Might revisit when something worthwhile is mentioning back on topic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Guff92 said:

By far your best effort of trolling, well done mate. 

The point about winning the world championship is you have to win the  champions league to be in it thats what makes it special

Link to post
Share on other sites

Horrendous mistake from Van Dijk last night but to his credit he put his hands up and took full responsibility. He was also quick to dismiss suggestions Liverpool had taken their foot off the gas after winning the league. He said that was an easy and lazy excuse. He claimed Liverpool had played well and try to win every game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

“I don't believe in FFP. I think FFP needed this slap around the face. I said a few months ago, FFP would have prevented Jack Walker doing what he did 30 years ago at Blackburn.

I know people have issues around potential owners, state ownership and other models but the reality is we're not talking about that here, we're talking about Financial Fair Play, the finances and people who can invest into football clubs.

It's fundamentally wrong that there are restrictions placed on owners to put money into football clubs. Whether it's Chelsea, Man City or Blackburn, all those stories we've had in the Premier League over the last 20 years or so, the addition to challenging Manchester United, Arsenal and other clubs wouldn't have happened if FFP had been implemented in its truest form. I don't believe it's right. There has always been rich owners investing into football clubs and that won't change today. FFP needs changing to a different model.

An owner should have to fulfil the obligations he commits to - that is my take on how to create a sustainability model at a football club.

If Manchester City are signing contracts worth £200m for the next four years and they have the obligations placed on the club, they should have the money to be able to fulfil that. If the loss per year is £50m, the owner should, whether it's through a bank guarantee or a bond, have to fulfil the obligations they commit to. They shouldn't be able to leave what are essentially community assets in a mess.

We've seen it at lower league levels and at the top of the game, owners have to have the money they commit to - that's it, as far as I'm concerned. So you need a test that has that as its fundamental, not one that restricts people. If you've got a trillion quid and you spend a couple of billion, that's fine. If you spend 100 grand and you've only got 50, that's not fine.

It's  not about the  amount of money someone puts into a football club, it's about whether than can afford it and it's a test that needs creating based on that foundation." -Gary Neville 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Head of la Liga having a fair old go at city claiming what is paid in naming rights for the stadium is too much.How can he tell it’s too much and it shows how easy ffp can be manipulated 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jasg said:

Head of la Liga having a fair old go at city claiming what is paid in naming rights for the stadium is too much.How can he tell it’s too much and it shows how easy ffp can be manipulated 

Well someone should point out the Madrid scenario and tell him to pipe.down until his house is in order

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on Gary Neville’s logic, would the Glazers have been able to afford buying Utd as they didn’t commit any of their own cash but just leveraged debt into the football club? I don’t know how wealthy they are but there’s no doubt it’s a controversial way to buy your way into a football club as they could walk away tomorrow as it’s Man Utd liable for the debt, not them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that the president of La Liga thinks he’s qualified to set the fair market price for naming football stadiums. What is it that makes him an expert in this field?
To my mind, it doesn’t matter whether you’re selling naming rights or Picasso’s, they’re only worth what a buyer is willing to pay. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, casual observer said:

Based on Gary Neville’s logic, would the Glazers have been able to afford buying Utd as they didn’t commit any of their own cash but just leveraged debt into the football club? I don’t know how wealthy they are but there’s no doubt it’s a controversial way to buy your way into a football club as they could walk away tomorrow as it’s Man Utd liable for the debt, not them. 

Its common business practise,  but they've used it in football at arguably the most profitable club in the world at the time, saddled it with huge but serviceable debt.

May sound wrong, but its legal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, casual observer said:

Based on Gary Neville’s logic, would the Glazers have been able to afford buying Utd as they didn’t commit any of their own cash but just leveraged debt into the football club? I don’t know how wealthy they are but there’s no doubt it’s a controversial way to buy your way into a football club as they could walk away tomorrow as it’s Man Utd liable for the debt, not them. 

I think the answer to your question lies in Neville’s feelings about jack Walker and Blackburn’s achievement. The key lies in remembering who Blackburn won the title from. Neville shows here he is able to put tribal loyalties aside and conclude there’s nothing wrong in spending money you have. Even though it cost his team.  I can’t see why he’d then be hypocritical about how United were purchased and undermine his own argument into the bargain. 
 

I know in the past he said he wouldn’t campaign against the Glazers as it wouldn’t make a difference, he didn’t have a solution and that it would make him a hypocrite because he’d been happy to take their money. Some people have taken that as tacit support for the Glazers. I’m not so sure. 

Edited by Zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the fundamental difference between the two is Jack Walker spent his own money to improve his local team, whilst the Glazers didn’t and simply saddled the club they wanted to buy with a massive yet serviceable debt to enable them to do so? Obviously it’s completely legal, yet just doesn’t sit very well with me. It hasn’t done them any harm I guess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×