FanchesterCity

I just assumed suggesting 'sharing' a ground would be seen as provocative! It makes a lot of sense, but with the number of games these days, it's getting less viable unless pitch technology improves. Now I know Everton and Liverpool are great rivals, but I suspect Milan and Inter are just as much so, and they manage. Even United and City managed for a while. YOU are the club, not the stadium - but I suspect there's a fair few fans not willing to contemplate the notion. I wasn't implying youth setups weren't good (or bad), simply that doing 'more' than a stadium can improve community links and win over councils - good PR and makes football more accessible (in theory). When I was a lad, you could play football in the streets - I don't think it's quite as easy now - not since the dipstick at number 23 with the tattoos got a new motor and doesn't like us using his Beamer to play 'wally' (pronounced wall-ee for those too young) against

Aye, if you actually let fans run a club, you'd be bust in a year and you'd be playing with 10 strikers playing 'entertaining football' and relegated with the largest goal difference in history. But the pies would be 20p each and free parking - so there are SOME merits

We pulled an exceptionally good move with the Commonwealth Stadium - very very lucky with that one. We didn't have money back then and it was a dream opportunity (other than the heartache of having to leave Maine Road - which actually was a shambles by then, but you can't see it at the time!). I'm sure you could build on the same footprint, but you'd have to move for a couple of seasons. You'd just never get permission to build a new structure (I don't think) and the costs would be more than nice empty field in the middle of nowhere (and it's usually empty for a bloody good reason! nobody else wants it!) I just think Trevor Birch or the BBC were slightly disingenuous - Goodison Park is only a part of the issue - the real issue is that the whole game is becoming a marketing exercise, and Champions League is the 'train' upon which the advertising is served best. If you don't get on that train, you get left behind, and once in a while, they offer a little ride for a clubs like Spurs and City just to show how 'nice' they are at UEFA, then kick us off soon after! The whole game is designed to fulfill the needs of 16 teams or so, and Everton and City aren't on that list I'm afraid. IF City's money manages to start improving the life of Mr Blatter and Co, then they might put us on that list, but it will be with a heavy heart. If City can manage to get TWO stadiums built and 17 pitches as part of their new 'complex' - why can't Liverpool's council start being a bit more open minded towards Everton and say "ok, let's turn the Stanley Park area into something special. Build a great new stadium, and make a genuine difference to a deprived area AND keep the ethos of Stanley Park - a park for the community to enjoy. Casting aside the differences between you and Liverpool - surely a joint venture on the 'complex' could work - even if you had two different stadiums. Kids in Liverpool can still benefit no matter what the colour of their shirt. I'd much rather see two healthy fit kids in jobs one wearing red one wearing blue than two out of work drinking vodka in the streets and chanting about how they'll never surrender etc Pipe dream?

The sugar daddy thing is always a worry. You always have to think... why us? - it's not cos they love us - it's because they see us a business opportunity. It might NOT be to make money, simply a vehicle to promote themselves or their brand, but still, they are in it for THEM, make no mistake. But then you can look at most chairmen and ponder the same thing - are they 100% in this for the love of the club, 100% for themselves, or the most likely of all, they fancy a dabble with their favourite team, or with football in general, and ideally not lose much, and perfectly make a few bob.... even then, it's a 'dabble' and a bit of fun for them (when they start out). At City, we had a LOT of old City boys running the place - jobs for the boys with good intentions and people who loved the club. But, they were morons with football money. Far too emotionally attached in the club and made bad choices. What we have now is the opposite - merciless businessmen who've got the club bang on track - but a lot of the 'family' feel is lost, but they've probably kept us alive. What do you believe Ken's motives are?

I think all fans would prefer to build from genuine revenue, but as you say it's catch 22, plus it's still always going to be complex... Most of the fans in the north west aren't awash with money - it doesn't mean their support is any less of course. People can argue all they like about 'through thick and thin', but if clubs started charging 70 quid a ticket, it WOULD price many fans out of the market. And it would be unfair to blame those fans for not being able to afford to get to games. Arsenal on the other hand seem able to charge a fortune (but I have no doubt there are plenty of Arsenal fans without money too). The like of United can say "we 'earned' our money" - but did they? did they REALLY? or was some it simply a result of their tragedy, and of happening to be a good side at a crucial time in the game? I'm not knocking United, just trying to say that 'earning' the money isn't quite as simple as some fans think. And of course, Chelsea and City have seriously wealthy owners so they stand out a mile, but even Mr Kenwright isn't without money, and people could say "yes, well it's ok for Everton, but Bill wouldn't be interested in Tranmere would he?" etc It's becoming a quite viscous circle - with fewer and fewer teams able to compete. And Champions League only serves to make matters worse - plowing money into the 'elite'. Spain has 2 teams winning time and again - Scotland the same - Germany similar and England's gone the same way. There's something I just don't like about that. And of course, we the fans are not without blame - cos we WANT better players all the time, and keep asking why money isn't being spent etc. As for Goodison, I think in a perfect scenario - you'd 99% rebuild the ground and keep a few elements for posterity. Something United have been rather fortunate in being able to do. Not so easy for Everton who like City had no real option to expand and then there's the transport issues associated with bigger gates etc. The new stadiums are great, but they don't have the brilliant feel of older grounds - I accept that changes have to be made for safety, and partially for comfort. But there's just something about that pitch being the same pitch played on for over 100 years. But - it's not going to happen, and I think Everton fans have to come to terms with that. I want to take my son to Goodison Park (and Anfield) and show him history. Show him the Hillsborough memorial and remind him that football is FAR more than a game. So I wouldn't want to see either of those grounds go - but - I'm an old nostalgic fart. If I were an advisor to the club - I'd be saying "it hurts, but you have to do it"

You're right, it is hard to put a figure on it, but there are 'limits' too. City are probably at their limit now, and I suspect you'd be similar if things on the pitch were a little bit better (and they aren't bad as it stands). I think it's very easy for fans to get carried away with notions and 60K and more, but in reality, it's not so easy to build up the numbers consistently without many years of hard work and of course, success. The North West in general does exceptionally well, and, if some of the other clubs went to the wall, I'm certain Everton would get a good share of those fans (as would the other remaining clubs). For me personally, I can totally see why many fans want to keep Goodison. But I think the pragmatic answer has to be 'if we could afford it, we'd move'. That said, and this is purely my own belief - football's heading for a serious crash, and those staying with their current ground (even if not state of the art etc) might be making the right move. What 'seems' to be happening at the moment is that clubs are competing as businesses not as football teams - who can make the most on merchandise / sponsorship / image rights etc - and of course that ultimate influences the quality on the pitch - but in order to operate as a 'business' clubs are encouraged to take on more debt, new grounds, seek external investment etc. Before you know it, you owe money on the ground, you owe money on players from 5 years ago, and your shareholders want a return on their investment... and WE the fans have to pay for it all. Yes you have a nice car park and food court - but it's 10 quid to park and 5 quid for a pint etc. Maybe, just maybe sticking at Goodison MIGHT just be a wise choice in the longer term. But there's also a danger that I'm wrong and football doesn't crash - and a handful of clubs that grasped the bull by the horns and marketed themselves to high heaven eventually leave the rest behind. Yes City have painted themselves all over town - but is that so wrong? We live in the shadow of one of the world's greatest clubs - kids on the street are very easily drawn to supporting United and if we don't grab them, United will. We have to market ourselves IF we want to be selling millions of shirts instead of 1000s. We need to market ourselves IF we want the blue chip sponsors to know who we are and put their name on our shirts etc. You might THINK Everton are a world reknowned name (I don't know) - but I can assure you, they're not (neither are City). We are having to compete with Man U, Barca, Real Madrid - these really ARE the big names. If clubs like Everton don't sell themselves, they'll eventually suffer. I don't particularly like the way football's gone in the last 20 years - but I'm just a fan and either go with it, or stop going to the game altogether. I think 'build it and they will come' is only partially accurate. You have to do MORE than that these days, because plenty of other companies are out to grab potential fans money.

This was the article that inspired me to raise the New Ground thread - but people seemed to find it a touchy subject. The article is misleading because it leads one to believe that United's 3M per game vs Everton's 600K is a result of the stadium - which isn't true. There are far more reasons for United's average revenue per game, but of course, the ground IS part of that. Sadly, Everton are unlikely to command 75K a game, not without amazing success and some serious ticket price reductions, and even then it would be hard work. (That's not a slight on Everton, I don't think any other club could attract that many - United are an exception for many reasons). What I don't quite understand is this: On the surface, you have very good attendances, and you don't spend excessively. I assume ground maintenance is higher than usual, and possibly your merchandising leaves a bit to be desired (just an assumption). You're not paying outlandish wages, and your policing costs shouldn't be too much more than average. So you ought to be competitive with many other teams. Now it could be that Everton are being realistic and the likes of Spurs are spending 'speculatively' - and beyond their means. It's pointless comparing with United - and City and Chelsea aren't working with the same parameters. Liverpool have a stronger name (based on their past success) - but other than that, Everton SHOULD be competing with Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal, Villa etc - so where's the money going? Is it a case of Everton being realists, or is it a case of poor marketing off the field? (or a combination of both)?

Well it's YOUR club - I'm sure you have views - and of course, what happens at other clubs affects us all in the long run. Are the fans partly to blame for not wanting change? You can lay claim to the wonderful history of Goodison but where's that getting the club? Not saying it's a bad stance - there's lots of good reasons to hold on to heritage, before we lose it ALL!, but there are some sound reasons to let go too. Too touchy a subject? - it's hard to see your finances being that much of an issue - you're not in a total disarray, and you have a consistent attendance higher than the majority of clubs. So the issues MUST be elsewhere - not keeping up with other revenue streams? ground maintenance costs? Do don't appear to have a horrible history of over spending (something that MIGHT come back to haunt us at City) - so I'm struggling to understand what it is that's stopping Everton being as competitive as other teams (off the pitch).

I'm not sure yesterday's performance was similar. Last year, we were really looking to win, but with a little more desperation - it was looking like we might be battling for 4th, and Everton didn't have much to loose. Maybe my memory fails me, but I'm sure Everton came at us a lot more. That said, and like I said earlier, I don't think Mr Moyes was prepared to risk taking us on in a more open game - we're quite decent with a little space at the back. It looked more like Moyes had watched Napoli who played like you, but they got their break and punished us. I think he thought you could do the same (and you actually almost did). City are nervy... and the fans don't help - we have pessimism in our blood (with just cause!). You can sense it in the ground. City have two mental weaknesses... If they get ahead early, they start slacking, or if gets to half time without a goal it starts getting tense in the ground. If you compare that we teams like United, who even at 90 mins (knowing there's another 8 mins to play!)... they always look like they're gonna snatch something. We simply don't have the winning mentality of the very teams yet (but it's getting better). I'm convinced Everton with just a couple of signings could be in the top 6 pack again - but who to sign? that's the problem. I think you need a top class striker which will cost you money and is still no guarantee and a creative midfielder. Defence looks quite decent (of course you could always improve in any position, but priority looks to be upfront in my eyes) - but ONLY if you want to start playing attacking football. The City game probably an unfair match to judge you on though, since you had to set your stall out accordingly. Maybe Newcastle and Stoke will be a better measure of you? (don't take offence with those teams, they are decent and tricky opposition in different ways).

I'm not on Bluemoon, I used to post on BBC 606. Other recommendations? not sure about the rules about posting on other forums, but New 606 is 'ok' (in my opinion) - a general forum for all fans with subsections for each team etc. Some forums seem to attract a 'clique' of posters, and many of them holding some extreme views, not too bright, and clearly under 30 years old (based in their clear lack of knowledge and phrases like 'Bale - world class' or 'Balotelli - potential to be the world's best', or "was Dalglish really that good?". Sorry to mention Dalglish, but we was quite good! ;-) It's good to hear other fans views sometimes - 'cos you sometimes can't see the wood for the trees in your own team. Or you forget how lucky you are to be watching a decent team. And of course, sometimes, you can go to a club like Blackburn - nice ground (relatively) and good prices - and wonder "why can't MY club sell tickets for such a decent price?". If our clubs had their way, they'd never let us talk with other fans, find out how much THEIR shirts are, or ticket prices, or pies!... and we'd all be charged 100 quid a ticket and 5 quid extra if you want sugar in your coffee.

After a couple of views of the challenge - initially I thought Cahill was the aggressor - BUT, I saw a slow mo replay, and it did make Kompany look like he was about to let Cahill know who was boss. Now of course, I'm biased, and would say that Kompany's not that type of player (which he isn't) - Balotelli would do it though. I don't think Kompany was aiming to take Cahill out. But I suspect he intended to leave a mark. As for Moyes - from an outsider's point of view - keeping him strengthens the reputation in Everton being a solid / stable club - well grounded, good place to play. This attracts many players. BUT... that doesn't mean a better manager couldn't come in and improve things. That said - A LOT of clubs have gone for 'top' managers and it's not worked. It's still the usual suspects winning stuff every year and arguably, the most successful team of all have had the same manager forever - love him or loathe him, the players know who is boss. I believe Moyes has the same respect from his players. Contrast that with City who could turn on Mancini at any moment, or Chelsea who'd do the same. The only thing keeping them at bay is winning. As soon as a losing streak starts - there's mutiny. Stick with Moyes. The gamble of a different manager is too great. IF you come into money, then he will be fired anyway. Whoever invests will inevitably go down the high profile route and seek out a bigger name. Quite who'd come is not easy to fathom - wouldn't be a Mourinho that's for sure, but it might be a Gullit / Hughes / O'Neil type - and in all honestly, I'm not sure they'd do a better job.

I think most decent fans just want to see their team putting in a good shift and giving everything for the shirt. Sadly, even in the lower leagues, let alone Premiership, and I think 'the shirt' thing is almost dead. Football's really become a business that makes money out of our loyalty. I honestly think after any match, 90% of fans are 'happy' as long as they were beaten by a genuinely better team and their own team did well. It's a lot harder to take when you know your team didn't do all they could, or a dodgy decision cost you a match. All of that said, because of the money involved in the game, it gets harder and harder to stomach the notion of a fair competition. When some teams can afford to spend a fortune and others can't it DOES tip the balance of probability in their favour (but never guarantees it). To some extent or another, all of the 'big clubs' (Everton included) have used their spending power over lesser clubs. Some have had crazy owners who blew millions in the past, some had tragic circumstances make them a household name. Some have had government backing and some ludicrously rich benefactors or a the good fortune of a wealthy fan base prepared to pay 70 quid a ticket. But Rubecula's quite right - at all levels, we still want the same things. United want to keep winning. City want to start winning, Liverpool want to get back to what THEY think is their rightful place, and Everton seem to want a fair chance to compete and let Mr Moyes show what he could do with a just a bit more money (fair assessment?) It's my belief that fans shouldn't be arguing the toss with each other - other than for a bit of cheeky banter. They SHOULD be working together to try and bring the game back to reality, with decent fair prices, improved facilities and regulations that truly ARE aimed at fair play (instead of the ones aimed at keeping the current Euro Elite).

Now, I'm sure you lot have done the 'new stadium' topic many times - so one more time won't hurt eh? Once again - the subject of a new stadium for Everton is in the news - with the suggestion that the current one is holding you back in some way. Of course, the comparison with Man U getting 3M per game in revenue, and Everton approx 600K is a tad misleading and seems to imply this is a result of the stadium alone (it's not). But still, that's not the point - As a City fan, I know only to well the nightmare of having to leave your beloved ground. It's tragic in many ways - BUT, I'm not sure many fans would go back now. We got lucky with the Common Wealth games stadium - exceptionally lucky really. The ground isn't 'ours' - it's only partly ours and a proportion of our matchday revenue goes to the council. It's unlikely that Everton will be as fortunate. Hand on heart now chaps, no blue tinted specs - What are you views on the following: 1) Has Goodison Park reached the end of it's practical life as a top class football stadium? 2) Putting the emotional attachment to the ground to one side, would you prefer a modern stadium and all the facilities that go with such, or stick with a traditional stadium? 3) Are the attendances at Everton likely to improve / diminish / remain the same with a new ground (putting any location issues to one side)? 4) Without wishing to start a 'size of fan base' row - Everton's average crowd in recent years is below 40K, what could Everton hope to get if a) Perfomances stayed the same, they got worse c) They were in Champions League and challenging for the title? 5) Again, this is NO dig at Everton (it's the same issue at City actually) - what can fans REALLY afford to pay? Money is tighter than ever for many fans and by the time you've paid for parking, a coffee, burger etc, you've blown 50 quid. If you start adding in cup games and stuff, it's even worse. So what do you consider to be a decent price for a ticket at Everton? As a slight aside - and something which gets brought up a lot on many football phone-ins is why Everton haven't been bought in the same manner City were. Again, I genuinely have no desire to wind anyone up, but here are my thoughts, and I'd be interested in hearing proper reasoned responses from Everton fans: 1) City had a brand new ground with no debt attached to it (other than the revenue share that the council get) 2) City had a comparable fan base and had been under performing for many years making it a nicer proposition to 'rescue' (you can make more money on doing up a run down house than sprucing up an already decent one) 3) The land surrounding City was just 'dead' - a very poor area of the city, with few projects, no hope for jobs etc etc - making it very good for expansion and community activities (good PR) for Abu Dhabi Now the Abu Dhabi chaps didn't "love" City - it was a business deal. It still is a business deal - the same as it will probably be if Everton get sold. So in their 'business' mind - City must have been a better / simpler proposition. This isn't a comparison about greatness of club / team etc... pure business. And it doesn't mean Everton are worth less (or more) etc... So - what are your views? and what do you think is stopping investors coming to Everton? - Be HONEST - there are clearly reasons, we just don't know quite what they are.

From the other side, I thought Fellaini was good. Understated but consistent for the entire game. Not a popular choice, I know - but that's just how I saw it. Only saw one incident where he appeared to bottle out of a 50/50 with Toure. (and Toure did likewise!)

Well, we do get the odd idiot - but then you have to look at the forum as a whole... some forums seem to just attract the worst of the worst. I've been on some forums where you'd think "fantastic set of Spurs fans" and then another forum and think "Can't stand any of them". It's quite dangerous really, because a handful of idiots with multiple accounts can actually incite a lot of tension. When you actually sit down with most fans of any club, you can have a decent debate and decent views. Behind a screen?... you're just going to get some crazy kids talking about 'history' - which for them, is the last 5 years. They have no idea that Wolves were amazing once, or that Forest performed a miracle - twice... it's all beyond them

Incidentally whoever wins the Premier League IS the best club, since that's how we measure who is the best. It won't be City, of that I'm sure - maybe one day, but it won't be this year, and probably not next. Might be never. I think the vast majority of City fans are simply enjoying a moment in the sun after donkeys years of being in the dark and watching lousy football. Sadly, with any team that's in the limelight and doing 'well', we will attract younger supporters who simply want to follow a trend. That's always been the case with any team who met with success of any sort. It won't last forever, nothing ever does. I does however beg the question - what sort of fans are you communicating with? It's highly unlikely that thousands of fans change overnight, as opposed to you being the one that changed. If I were a betting man, I'd place my money on you being the more likely of the two to have 'changed'. Most fans I know have been lifelong fans of many clubs, and I've never seen any of them change significantly over the years. 90% of my mates are still up and down every other week, and 10% have a permanent grin on their face - not because they're arrogant, but because they keep winning stuff. They tend to wear red shirts :-( The grin on City faces is relief... cos we are starting to see football be like and are learning to believe in ourselves - but 40 years of watching poor football takes some overturning. I don't think it's arrogance.

That's a lot of upset for a relatively insignificant post. I think you need to start treating fans individually and not as 'groups'. I don't believe all Everton fans are like you. Very few I'd say. Didn't manage to speak with any today that shared such views. Of the ones I spoke to before the game, they didn't appear to care much about us (rightly so) - just fancied a chance of stealing the points, but also knew it would be a tough task (but possible) - sensible, considered opinion from your lot. I shall put you down as a minority view holder. Since the forum says it welcomes the views of other fans - that's what I offer.

Football fans are just fans, from all walks and life, all shapes, sizes, colours - as varied as the opinions on football! City are 'nothing' - Everton are 'nothing' - they're just teams that for one reason or another we grew attached to as kids and we couldn't stop supporting them if we tried. Doesn't matter if you're Man U, Liverpool, Everton, City or Wimbledon... fans are the same the world over. We have some idiots, we have some realists, he have them all - like all fans. And yeah I have some nerve - it connects my brain to my mouth and gets exercised regularly.

Blue250 - I think that's right City really needed that goal or it would have gotten pretty tense. From our perspective it's not that we thought 'we SHOULD be beating Everton', it's more along the lines of "we HAVE to beat them just to keep up with United". It really could have gone the other way had Everton caught us on the break and slotted one home. In the past there's been about 5 or 6 teams outside of the obvious United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal group that are always likely to give us a real test (and Everton are in that group, with Stoke, Villa, Spurs etc). It was no different today!. For us to move into that 'top 4' (properly) it means consistently beating the best of the rest (the teams I named). We don't yet have the mentality for that, but today's win is another small step. I suspect for you (tell me if I'm wrong), it's the reverse... City have never really been one of the teams you expect to lose against. At best we'd be a possible 'slip up' team for you.

Respect isn't something you earn by winning anything... respect is simply something that should be offered to ALL until they blow it. Man United / Liverpool have had wonderful teams and achieved a great deal - but they don't deserve any more respect than Rochdale, or Notts County. Fans are fans, and we ('we') in the Premier League have all bought our success in some fashion or other. It's a simple matter of teams in large cities having greater pulling power and therefore larger fan base, and more money. Everton and City will (barring some amazing change in world order) always command more financial power than Accrington Stanley. But it should never mean that Accrington Stanley don't deserve the same respect. I think we all tend to forget how hard it must be to sit in lousy lower league stadiums, in the wind and pouring rain, watching your team lose week in week out. As for the criticism of City in particular - hmmm, yes we got VERY lucky with a very wealthy owner. But make no mistake, both of our clubs have had wealthy owners - it's just a matter of comparison. Is it bad for the game? - I have mixed feelings. If City spend 300 million on players, then that's 300 million going to other teams. The game as a whole is being ruined by the money. Perhaps it was always that way, but it appears to be more so since the advent of the Premier League and Sky. It was predicted to happen, and it has happened. 'We' the fans keep paying silly money to support the teams we love, whilst 'investors' use our clubs as commercial (not social) ventures. We all want better players, and demand money to be spent on the team, but in the long run, we're our own worst enemy. We LET ourselves succumb to Sky and high ticket prices and simply refuse to believe 'OUR' club is a merciless money making machine (it's just everybody else's club that's like that). The reality is - it's not City ruining the game - it's the fans - willing to be taken for a ride because we're so emotionally tied to our clubs, we let businessmen tug our heartstrings and wallets. As for City having no history? do some research - there's hundreds of clubs with proud histories. Again I repeat myself - it's not about what you've WON, or how many fans you've got etc. Rochdale's history is just as precious to a few fans as Everton or City's history is to theirs.

Just a lover of good football, banter, and informed opinion. Not a fan of 'class','history','divine right',ignorance,abuse,dipsticks. Hope you accept the opinions of other fans who don't have any wind up agenda. I'm 42 and too old for it.

Just in from the game... Everton brought an impressive crowd with them - good to see a full away section. Some alarmingly quiet spells (from the crowd) in the game - I suspect nerves on both sides. City fans frustrated and wanting that first goal, and Everton possibly on edge? Since Everton have been a bogey team for us of late, I think Everton had every reason to suspect the possibility of a result, or at least a draw. City have improved since your last visit, but I can't honestly say Everton have. Everton played well, but it was clear that 'park the bus' tactics would be the order of the day (although we feared Everton counter attacking and hitting us with a sucker punch). For a large part of the game, Everton had all 11 behind the ball in their own half, although they had a good 15 minute spell in the second half when they might have pulled it back to 2-1 and made for a nervous last 15 mins or so. City were frustrated for long periods, settling for a lot of possession but couldn't break through the Everton defence. I wouldn't say City played well (or that Everton did), it was more a case of 15 men in the box making it difficult for tippy tappy footballers like Nasri and Silva to be effective. How Nasri got man on the match is beyond me. Silva played well, Baines always looked dangerous and Fellaini was solid. No 'beyond the realms of good taste' chanting - just the usual banter. The way it should be. In my opinion a fair result would be City 1: 0 Everton. Very disappointed in the Everton tactics AND what appeared to be excessive time wasting - but as I said to my son at the match - we'd do the same if we had to. I suspect Mr Moyes thought about attacking us and reckoned you'd lose, but believed his odd would be better trying to counter us, snatch a draw, and possibly grab a cheeky win. To my mind, this game COULD have been a 3-2 / 4-3 affair if Everton had attacked us, but it wasn't to be. That would be my only criticism of Everton today. Criticism for City? - that we must be prepared for teams to do the same again to us, and we have to be able to break through an 11 man defence - AND we need to be patient. Winning frequently and consistently is still 'new' to us - so the majority of City fans still expect us to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Pessimism is virtually built into us. It will take a few more years before we lose that. Once we have genuine belief in ourselves we stand to become a serious threat to United. As yet, we're not quite there. As for Everton? - honest opinion is that you've not progressed for a couple of years. A couple of years ago you'd be fighting to get top 4, and reasonably expecting a top 6. In much the same manner as Villa, you've not built on that. Sadly, it's come down to money in the end. City and Spurs have spent a lot, and it's worked (to a degree) for them. Everton have slipped back a little and are now looking no more than a mid-table team at best. I don't need you guys to tell me that's not your 'natural' place in life!... a couple of top class signings could have you back in that top 6 crowd, but I fear they are unlikely to arrive any day soon. Best of luck for the season!!!