Manchester City v Everton

[flaminfox]

 

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

I think so far this man proves that city fans can be good also what other man city forums would you recommend?

[c1982]

Yesterday's performance was similar to the last time we played there... it worked last time and we won, it didn't yesterday. Premier League Football is a points business not performance, sometimes you have to play unpretty football or rather very little actual football. I think Moyes and many others know attacking/creativity wise Man.City are miles beyond us and had yesterday been 2 teams throwing attack after attack they would have killed us on the counter - the few attacks that we did have when they broke down we were instantly outnumbered with their speed from back to front.

 

Did people expect anything different yesterday? The fact is that's how we play away against Man.City, Chelsea and Man.United. It's worked in the past and will continue to work in the future.

[FanchesterCity]

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.

[FanchesterCity]

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).

[Avinalaff]

I don't think Everton have fallen as far as some think. We had horrendous injuries not long ago that slowed us right down, and losing 2 of the best midfielders we've had in a long time didn't help, but we're still one of the better teams in the league on our day.

Yesterday is one game. We can play better than that (and worse too) but we generally out play most teams other than the top 5 or 6, and we still generally compete with those when we're in form. Our biggest problem isn't that we're moving backwards, but more that other teams are spending money.

 

I think those teams have to spend quite a lot just to have what we already have, but spend they will it seems as different investors come in. We are in need of 5 or 6 players to replace our older lads, and then probably another 5 or 6 in order to give us a challenging squad, but no matter how much clubs spend, only one team can win.

 

For me, the key isn't to spend more, but to spend less. Football can't manage the cost of the game. This is now evident as multi millionaires can no longewr afford to run clubs, and billionaires are needed in order to compete.

 

For me, the game was a working class pass time. It was never intended to be a toy for the filthy rich, but that is what it is becoming. Wnen Francis was sold for a million, the writing was on the wall, but nobody took note. Now it's too late. I think top flight football will implode soon.

[FanchesterCity]

I happen to share the same belief - impending doom for football - like the bank crisis.

 

Some of the debts being run up now are ALL assuming the gravy train keeps getting bigger every year and for the next 20 years.

 

If Man U stop winning the league or don't get in Champions League for a few years running it'll come crashing down. It's ALL based on maintaining the status quo.

 

There are aspects of what Arsenal are doing that I cant abide (the prices), but also, keeping their house in financial order (seemingly) is to be applauded.

 

As for City? hmmm it's money 'we' can afford (i.e. the owner) but it's not money we as a club can afford. I don't believe the Sheik actually wants to throw money away, it's just that he can afford to throw money at a hurdle to overcome it. Most clubs can't.

 

I can't ask you to support City, but I think it's reasonable enough to hope folks are in favour of any move to break up the monopoly that currently stands. Be it Everton, Spurs, Newcastle et al, I don't mind - it's just good for the game if more teams can win stuff.

 

Unfortunately City buying their way into the 'break up' will most likely not break it up, just add one more to the 'elite' which isn't good. But it's not the fans fault. We've been watching the wife trying to striptease for 40 years to little effect.... and along comes Jennifer Lopez.... it's hard to turn down.

 

On a serious note...

I've waited all my life to go to Wembley to see my team win something, and I know that most fans will never get that chance EVER. As a dad, it's a moment that you hope your kids remember - when they stood at Wembley with their dad and we won the cup etc.

It is very compelling when a sugar daddy comes along and gives you that chance. For most City fans it really WAS a once in a lifetime experience. Can't blame us for taking the money, even if we know it might end in tears in the long run.

 

Everton fans have had that chance in more recent years with a brilliant 80s team.

 

And that's where we let ourselves down... we love our clubs SO much we get taken for a ride and pay the prices. 40 quid for a shirt that costs 3 quid to make. 10 quid to park on a dodgy wasteland. Paying Sky to listen to the idiots Keys and Gray (sorry lads). We have ourselves to blame in so many ways.

[Avinalaff]

I happen to share the same belief - impending doom for football - like the bank crisis.

 

Some of the debts being run up now are ALL assuming the gravy train keeps getting bigger every year and for the next 20 years.

 

If Man U stop winning the league or don't get in Champions League for a few years running it'll come crashing down. It's ALL based on maintaining the status quo.

 

There are aspects of what Arsenal are doing that I cant abide (the prices), but also, keeping their house in financial order (seemingly) is to be applauded.

 

As for City? hmmm it's money 'we' can afford (i.e. the owner) but it's not money we as a club can afford. I don't believe the Sheik actually wants to throw money away, it's just that he can afford to throw money at a hurdle to overcome it. Most clubs can't.

 

I can't ask you to support City, but I think it's reasonable enough to hope folks are in favour of any move to break up the monopoly that currently stands. Be it Everton, Spurs, Newcastle et al, I don't mind - it's just good for the game if more teams can win stuff.

 

Unfortunately City buying their way into the 'break up' will most likely not break it up, just add one more to the 'elite' which isn't good. But it's not the fans fault. We've been watching the wife trying to striptease for 40 years to little effect.... and along comes Jennifer Lopez.... it's hard to turn down.

 

On a serious note...

I've waited all my life to go to Wembley to see my team win something, and I know that most fans will never get that chance EVER. As a dad, it's a moment that you hope your kids remember - when they stood at Wembley with their dad and we won the cup etc.

It is very compelling when a sugar daddy comes along and gives you that chance. For most City fans it really WAS a once in a lifetime experience. Can't blame us for taking the money, even if we know it might end in tears in the long run.

 

Everton fans have had that chance in more recent years with a brilliant 80s team.

 

And that's where we let ourselves down... we love our clubs SO much we get taken for a ride and pay the prices. 40 quid for a shirt that costs 3 quid to make. 10 quid to park on a dodgy wasteland. Paying Sky to listen to the idiots Keys and Gray (sorry lads). We have ourselves to blame in so many ways.

 

City are not the Robin Hood of football, and I don't buy this 'break up the monopoly' angle that yourself and others attempt to sell.

 

City are not out to do that. They are out to 'become' the monopoly, or have a piece of it, and that isn't the same thing.

 

I'm not sure why fans who are not part of the Sky 4, should welcome a Sky 5, or even welcome a 'different' sky 4. Had City's owners given every club a cash injection, it would still be bad for football. The only way to save football (if you agree it needs saving) is for it to come back down to earth.

 

The daft thing is City will spend far more than they can ever win. That is not running a business. It's simply unsporting, and should be stopped.

 

The first bad step was breaking away and forming the Premiership. Clubs thought they could get rich, and some did. The ones that didn't dragged themselves into debt trying to stay in it. Football isn't just about the UK, but about every other country too. How would 'we' feel if every star that benefited from UK academies sodded off to Spain to join a so called elite league? That is happening to many countries. I'd be quite happy to keep the English game English and the Spanish game Spanish. I'm sure the English game would improve enough for it to be entertaining, just like it was for decades. Heck, we won the World Cup in 1966. I'd be quite happy if Liverpool clubs only played players from Liverpool etc.

[marcus jones]

The top Spanish teams are an exception, being owned by the fans. PSV are owned by Phillips, Milan by a media empire, Juventus by Fiat etc etc...... Sky is just part of the problem, mind you I would not mind us being owned by Bill Gates inc..... only joking! Football is business so therefore a business owns a club.

[FanchesterCity]

Pretty sure that's what I said ... it's unlikely to break up the top 4, just make it a top 5 which isn't really the answer.

 

I do think football's killing itself and needs to be brought back down to earth - totally. And in principle the financial fair play rules are a good thing BUT... I don't believe they will actually do what they claim.

 

I'd far rather have a proper spending cap - full stop. All clubs at level 1 get (say) 40 million a year to spend on wages and transfers. Any profit they make can go back into youth academies, facilities, lower ticket prices for their own club. If you only spend 30 million in one season, you can carry over the 10 million. If you blow the lot and get relegated, so be it. You had the same 'chances'

 

Sadly, the bigger clubs will always argue against that and claim their profit should allow them to buy better players etc and 70K at United deserve to see better entertainment than 15K at Fulham blah blah blah.

The limits would have to be across Europe, it not worldwide.

 

It's not going to happen. Nobody running the sport cares about real competition, they CARE about subscription fees and sponsorship and hyping up the Champion's League. Fancy song and big build ups etc etc. Have you SEEN the abomination of 'The Draw' - when in reality we do our Cup Draws with next to no fuss.

 

I'm in complete agreement with you on every point - but it's not gonna happen. Since it's not gonna happen and this footall has now become a matter of spectacle not sport - if you can't beat 'em - join 'em.

 

If I'm gonna be shafted by Sky and Uefa and in reality my own club, I might as well lube up and try to enjoy it - as opposed to fighting it and getting internal injuries during the process!

 

 

And I say 'shafted by my own club', because that's the truth, and not particularly cos it's City, it's true of all the Premier League clubs - we are 'punters' and that's that. Misguided, emotionally attached punters.

 

Now, admittedly I'm not an Everton supporter, and many Everton supporters may not think such a think of their own club. However, I would say it's unlikely Everton have any more consideration for you than other clubs have for their fans (very little in reality!)

 

And I do still maintain, we as fans are as much to blame as anybody. - how long before they want us to travel across Europe for away games in the "Euro Prem" league?

[FanchesterCity]

Oh and if they made clubs 'not for profit' organisations, that might help.

As long as you have investors in the club... investment tends to suggest an expectation of a return.

 

Donations welcome, investments should be treated with caution.

 

Barcelona, despite their 'member owned' status still owe approx 50% of their worth... i.e. worth about 1Billion, owe 500million (there abouts). That is a shocking state of affairs for the most successful 'business' (similar with Man United)... how can it be that our 'success' stories in the game owe so much?

To me it means the following:

 

1) In order to BE successful, it's necessary to use financial muscle, and when it's used, it's being used well beyond 'reasonable' business levels.

or

2) Even the most successful and popular clubs in the world can't seem to actually run a decent business

or

3) Both of the above

 

 

Now, some might say Man U and Barca are amazing examples of well run big business...

 

but I say - Just because they are big - doesn't make them sound. They are nigh on the Bairing's Bank of football. Accidents waiting to happen. City and Chelsea are different and disasters for football for other reasons

[Avinalaff]

I wonder how big our wage bill is each year.

 

The first place is to tell football players that they are no longer going to earn what they earn. Let's face it, the biggest problem is the price and payment of players.

 

Sack every player, and hold auditions. I wonder how much the standard would fall.

[rubecula]

I yearn for the days a player would play for the shirt. Now players use the little bit of talent they have to get rich quick.

 

Generalisation I know but it is a viewpoint.

[FanchesterCity]

Yeah, those days are largely gone now.

 

You still seem to get the odd one or two, but it really IS the odd one or two. But to be fair, if someone's waving triple your salary under your nose - do you take it? There's a life after football - wife, kids etc and there's no guarantee your current club won't ditch you or sell you at a moment's notice.

[MikeO]

Fanchester...

 

"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."

 

[Avinalaff]

I thought our best spell was the start of the match, right up until the ref decided to award Barry a freekick for fouling Cahill, and it went down hill from then on. I don't like that ref. Many times I've felt frustrated by him. Isn't he the same compassionless tw@t that sent Heitinga off in the WC final?

[Lowensda]

What a tit - http://www.dexysden.co.uk/2011/09/everton-manager-david-moyes-is-a-hypocrite-and-should-be-charged-by-the-fa/comment-page-1/#comments

 

Even Fanchester must agree, this is pretty shocking analysis?

[FanchesterCity]

That article? yeah it's rubbish.

 

Did Everton get stuck in? yes.

Was there a dodgy tackle from Neville on Silva? yes - I was 20 yards from it. It was worth a booking and no more.

Was Kompany's tackle dodgy? possibly yes, there's a case for both players getting a yellow on that one! and a definite red IF you believe Kompany set out to stamp on Cahill. I'm not sure he did, and go on past history - it's not his style (doesn't mean he didn't though!).

 

That's about the long and short of it.

 

Moyse is BOUND to have a moan - it's what managers do. It's hardly grounds for disrepute and all that rubbish.

 

I wouldn't say it was dirty game, from either side and believe me City can dish it out when they want to - there's some big lads at City too.

[pete0]

That article? yeah it's rubbish.

 

Did Everton get stuck in? yes.

Was there a dodgy tackle from Neville on Silva? yes - I was 20 yards from it. It was worth a booking and no more.

Was Kompany's tackle dodgy? possibly yes, there's a case for both players getting a yellow on that one! and a definite red IF you believe Kompany set out to stamp on Cahill. I'm not sure he did, and go on past history - it's not his style (doesn't mean he didn't though!).

 

That's about the long and short of it.

 

Moyse is BOUND to have a moan - it's what managers do. It's hardly grounds for disrepute and all that rubbish.

 

I wouldn't say it was dirty game, from either side and believe me City can dish it out when they want to - there's some big lads at City too.

Yellow for Cahill, red for Kompany no doubts about it. Turning point of the match as well.

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2041771/Graham-Poll-Fernando-Torres-stupid-Vincent-Kompany-seen-red.html

 

Even Graham Liver-Poll reckons it was a red card and thats saying something!

[Bailey]

I'm starting to think selling Beckford will come back to haunt us.

 

Even if we hadnt sold Beckford, he wouldnt have played. We had 3 strikers fit and on the bench, two capable of contributing more than Beckford and they stayed on the bench until it was too late.

 

I don't think Moyes put out a team to play negatively as such though. We don't really have too many options with our squad.

 

Had we played a striker, we would have had one less midfielder, and as such would have been outplayed in the middle.

 

I think our lads put in a good shift considering what we had to be realistic. There's nobody who stunk, although I wasn't that impressed with Neville, and Coleman isn't the answer I'm afraid.

 

I'd like to see more of Vellios over the ext few weeks, and for Moyes to throw caution to the wind.

 

Moyes could have brought a striker in for Cahill, played Cahill behind him if necessary, and dropped Felli in midfield and dropped Neville who was awful again. Moyes picked the players to play exactly as they did. When Vellios came on, he actually gave us a platform to attack from that cahill & felli couldnt manage consistently. He stayed forward and tried getting in behind. Bar the odd occasion the two starters (and Saha) were always looking to come short. Its so much easier to defend and is much more predictable.

 

Did people expect anything different yesterday? The fact is that's how we play away against Man.City, Chelsea and Man.United. It's worked in the past and will continue to work in the future.

 

We played like that last season as we were 2 up after 10mins but previously when we have been succesful against the better teams, we have had a go. It really shouldnt matter whether we are home or away. The only difference is between the ears and it frustrates the crap out of me when managers think otherwise. If we do what we did yesterday we are guarenteed to lose the majority, draw a couple and maybe sneak an undeserved win here or there (which our record would probably show). I dont believe for one second we would have a worse record if we had a go and played like we can. Surely Moyes should be able to look back over all these games we have sat back to defend, and think 'hold on a minute, this isnt working!', especially with our defence at the moment!

 

Slightly off topic, but I think it is quite refreshing to hear a balanced (ish) view from a City fan as it is genuinely quite rare! I wouldnt disagree with too much you have said (although I think you were a lot more comfortable during the game than you say). I dont agree with the breaking the monopoly thing, as from my perspective, City are just another club joining this monopoly. Whether you agree or not, your success has been bought and it taints the achievements you make. If it was a random team like Stoke, Fulham etc that were in with a chance, I would be all for it as it would have been earnt success and deserved through hard work. Thats obviously not your fault as fans, but I also doubt you will be complaining! I personally wouldnt want to be run my a money man, who could buy any mercenary under the sun, but if it happened, I too probably wouldnt be complaining!

[pete0]

Spot on about them trying to join the monopoly. The timing been awful for us and the rest of the league though, just as Arsenal and Liverpool are falling down city barge/buy their way in, forcing Man u and Chelsea to further strengthen as well. The league would have been much more competitive overall if the arabs hadn't got bored and found a new sport to ru(i)n

[FanchesterCity]

Spot on about them trying to join the monopoly. The timing been awful for us and the rest of the league though, just as Arsenal and Liverpool are falling down city barge/buy their way in, forcing Man u and Chelsea to further strengthen as well. The league would have been much more competitive overall if the arabs hadn't got bored and found a new sport to ru(i)n

 

 

I did actually say that I think it's far more likely that it will make it a top 5 rather than break anything up.

And absolutely it's been 'bought'.

 

However, I do take issue with the notion that those top 4 places have ever been another OTHER than bought. The spending to league position correlation is clear as day... the top spenders are the ones winning all the time and vice versa. All clubs have used their economic weight to attract players and buy the best possible (or what they THOUGHT was the best!)...

 

It seems to me that the days of Nottingham Forest getting a squad together capable of conquering Europe (twice!) are long gone. We'd ALL love to do things they way they did. But it's over, the football we knew then isn't the football of today - sadly.

 

The particular problems with City and Chelsea are not that there's some wealthy owner (that's always gone on) it's simply the SCALE of the wealth behind it. It was fine for Martin Edwards at United trying to flog it off to Michael Knighton in the 80s, or even Francis Lee at City etc... but when it changed from 'local millionaire to foreign billionaire" folks weren't (and aren't quite as keen).

 

It's wrong - of course it is, and it skewes the 'fairness' of the game. But when United come and take Rooney, or City come and grab Lescott, it's only the same as when you do the same to lesser (financially) able teams.

 

It's either right, or it's wrong - football can't have it both ways. Personally I hate it. I don;t think there SHOULD be financial reward for winning the league - just the pride. As soon as the winners get more money, and by the way, significantly more... (via CL qualification) it can ONLY encourage a 'have' and 'have not' split. When only two teams have won the league on the last x number of years... something doesn't feel right.

 

Of course it's nice to watch the some great players and have a nice (matter of opinion) stadium. It's good to win for a change too!... but absolutely it's tainted - but like most fans starved of success for years and years, we shake hands with the devil and do the deal.

 

Hand on heart, I think the fans of all other clubs would be doing the same if it happened to them (not that the fans actually have any say anyway). We got very lucky (or unlucky) and none of it was because of football. Only an idiot would think that.

 

And if / when Everton manage to find a new investor - that won't be for footballing reasons either.

 

We're ALL swimming in the same cess pool - just some of us have been jammy enough to have snorkel... so we can last a LITTLE bit longer before we drown in it with you.

 

I would still see a top 5 as better than a top 4, and a top 6 better still... in a perfect world a top '0' would be best of all.

[pete0]

 

 

I did actually say that I think it's far more likely that it will make it a top 5 rather than break anything up.

And absolutely it's been 'bought'.

 

However, I do take issue with the notion that those top 4 places have ever been another OTHER than bought. The spending to league position correlation is clear as day... the top spenders are the ones winning all the time and vice versa. All clubs have used their economic weight to attract players and buy the best possible (or what they THOUGHT was the best!)...

 

It seems to me that the days of Nottingham Forest getting a squad together capable of conquering Europe (twice!) are long gone. We'd ALL love to do things they way they did. But it's over, the football we knew then isn't the football of today - sadly.

 

The particular problems with City and Chelsea are not that there's some wealthy owner (that's always gone on) it's simply the SCALE of the wealth behind it. It was fine for Martin Edwards at United trying to flog it off to Michael Knighton in the 80s, or even Francis Lee at City etc... but when it changed from 'local millionaire to foreign billionaire" folks weren't (and aren't quite as keen).

 

It's wrong - of course it is, and it skewes the 'fairness' of the game. But when United come and take Rooney, or City come and grab Lescott, it's only the same as when you do the same to lesser (financially) able teams.

 

It's either right, or it's wrong - football can't have it both ways. Personally I hate it. I don;t think there SHOULD be financial reward for winning the league - just the pride. As soon as the winners get more money, and by the way, significantly more... (via CL qualification) it can ONLY encourage a 'have' and 'have not' split. When only two teams have won the league on the last x number of years... something doesn't feel right.

 

Of course it's nice to watch the some great players and have a nice (matter of opinion) stadium. It's good to win for a change too!... but absolutely it's tainted - but like most fans starved of success for years and years, we shake hands with the devil and do the deal.

 

Hand on heart, I think the fans of all other clubs would be doing the same if it happened to them (not that the fans actually have any say anyway). We got very lucky (or unlucky) and none of it was because of football. Only an idiot would think that.

 

And if / when Everton manage to find a new investor - that won't be for footballing reasons either.

 

We're ALL swimming in the same cess pool - just some of us have been jammy enough to have snorkel... so we can last a LITTLE bit longer before we drown in it with you.

 

I would still see a top 5 as better than a top 4, and a top 6 better still... in a perfect world a top '0' would be best of all.

Arsenal and your boring me now. Didn't claim no one had not bought in to it, all I was saying is the league would have been more open and competitive if city hadn't been took over This takeover specifically has been bad for the English game and possibly the rest of Europe. The extra champs league place coincided with Chelsea's take over before you throw that up and had a much less affect on the rest of the teams in the league.

[FanchesterCity]

The 'comfort' during the game - hmmm quite possibly yes, but, the pessimist in many City fans takes some killing.

 

Even at 2-0 there was a goal line scramble after a bit of a slip from Lescott, and we were playing a very good Everton side (in our eyes). Had it gone to 2-1 it would have been a nightmare for City fans - we've seen it too many times. PANIC!!!

 

Admittedly, there are some City fans who think Aguero's just a notch below Messi, and Balotelli's a genius waiting to happen. That's just delusion and youth. I can assure you the vast majority of decent City fans think we're doing very well, still have a lot to learn, and definitely still prone to bottling it. Man United we most certainly are not. We just don't have that mentality as a club, or as fans. One day, we hope to have.

 

I hope you don't take offence if I suggest it's a 'similar' situation with Liverpool. The gap, possibly not quite as wide, but still, it's there. But if anything SHOULD give us faith it's that United were no great shakes when their reign first started... 25 years on, you have to admire them. In another 25 years it MIGHT be us, it MIGHT be Everton or it MIGHT be some other team.

 

I'd just like it to be someone new, and would like to give a few more fans the chance to see their team win at least something in their lifetime. Sadly 90% of fans will never witness their team win a thing in an entire lifetime - quite sad that (I think)

[FanchesterCity]

Arsenal and your boring me now. Didn't claim no one had not bought in to it, all I was saying is the league would have been more open and competitive if city hadn't been took over This takeover specifically has been bad for the English game and possibly the rest of Europe. The extra champs league place coincided with Chelsea's take over before you throw that up and had a much less affect on the rest of the teams in the league.

 

The evidence suggests otherwise. The Prem's been won by 4 teams in the last 19 years. 3 teams in the last 16 years. Just how 'open' do you think the league was / was going to be?

 

It's obscene to pay a player 200K a week, but if you think it's okay to be paying them 30K instead, then you're deluded. Everton are as much a part of the problem as any other club. The problem is the money, and the overspending by ALL. City aren't helping in the slightest, but as long as folks are saying "you're very bad, and we're only a little bit bad' then we'll drown anyway.

 

It IS what it is. We live with it, or we walk away from the game. So far it seems we don't like it, but we don't hate it enough to walk away.

[pete0]

With citys investment at best you'll add one more team to that list, so what your point? Without it, Chelsea and man u wouldnt of invested as much and Liverpool and Arsenal are already weaker, that would have made the league much more competitive. Why have I just had to repeat that? Are you stupid? What part of this do you not understand? How does one more monopoly make it more competitive?

The players are payed based on the income of the club, otherwise the shareholders would be making obscene amounts of money and other clubs would take all your players off you. City don't have a model they just take the piss. If a club cant grow with it's best player it should let them go, as we did with Arteta.

 

We've humoured you for now and I really hope you are genuinely stupid, because you're clearly not clever enough to do a subtle troll.

Edited September 26, 2011 by pete0

[FanchesterCity]

If only two team are winning a league and that shifts to three, you do the maths.

1/2 vs 1/3

 

United's spending was less this season than in many other seasons.

 

Players are frequently NOT paid based on the income of the club, but on future projected revenues. This is partly why many MANY clubs are in debt.

 

When City came in for Lescott... Everton had a choice. He was under contract. They sold. Why? money. Don't fool yourselves that somehow money didn't influence matters.

 

The same with Arteta.

 

ALL of our clubs are in a financial mess in varying forms... ours included. It's not OUR fault, and it's not Everton's but they've ALL contributed to the mess in some part.

 

Everton (and City) wanted the Premier League. They wanted more money. They wanted to get richer. We didn't give a toss about the other other clubs below us.

 

You can't now start moaning about the mess it's made as if you're innocent.

 

'It's a mess' and that's that. And it needs sorting. Or you will be bust, and City will be following you soon after when our owners get fed up.

 

I'm far from stupid. I believe I'm just more realistic than you're being.

[Blue 250]

You say when City came in for Lescott we had a choice!......yeh sure, keep an unhappy player who had probably been offered a double your wages offer from the Arabs, or make the money daft Arabs pay top Dollar.It wasn't so much a case of Everton being greedy, they were losing a very important player because he was being offered stupid money.We just made you prove how much money they had to burn.

 

Lifes very precious, time away from work and obligations is very precious, at present I'm happy and willing to dedicate a part of that time to Everton.An Everton who have no money.....but who have players who have worked their way up through the youth system, an Everton who have an old wooden ground full of history and memories, within the ground is a trophy cabinet, that could to be fair be a tad fuller, but most ( if any) of the silverware wasn't bought !!!!

 

If a megar rich Arab does to Everton what they have done for you (City)....then I'm off to do something else with my precious time.This game is being destroyed by money, greedy players, greedy agents etc.

 

I'm sure I don't speak for too many people, and looking at all the drooling city fans watching players who couldn't give a shit about the sky blue shirt, I can only imagine that there will still be plenty of Evertonians happy to follow their club as they try to buy trophies.

 

Every trophy City win between now and when the game falls apart will have been bought, if you can't buy the prem this year, then you will spend tens of millions in the summer and so on!

 

I'm sure you'll have an answer......and little bits of it might even make sence, that's all the sadder.

[c1982]

You say when City came in for Lescott we had a choice!......yeh sure, keep an unhappy player who had probably been offered a double your wages offer from the Arabs, or make the money daft Arabs pay top Dollar.It wasn't so much a case of Everton being greedy, they were losing a very important player because he was being offered stupid money.We just made you prove how much money they had to burn.

 

Lifes very precious, time away from work and obligations is very precious, at present I'm happy and willing to dedicate a part of that time to Everton.An Everton who have no money.....but who have players who have worked their way up through the youth system, an Everton who have an old wooden ground full of history and memories, within the ground is a trophy cabinet, that could to be fair be a tad fuller, but most ( if any) of the silverware wasn't bought !!!!

 

If a megar rich Arab does to Everton what they have done for you (City)....then I'm off to do something else with my precious time.This game is being destroyed by money, greedy players, greedy agents etc.

 

I'm sure I don't speak for too many people, and looking at all the drooling city fans watching players who couldn't give a shit about the sky blue shirt, I can only imagine that there will still be plenty of Evertonians happy to follow their club as they try to buy trophies.

 

Every trophy City win between now and when the game falls apart will have been bought, if you can't buy the prem this year, then you will spend tens of millions in the summer and so on!

 

I'm sure you'll have an answer......and little bits of it might even make sence, that's all the sadder.

 

Good post.

 

I think that's the cue for a bye, bye to our manc 'friend'... Toffeetalk is for the thinking Evertonian, maybe we'll meet again pre-Everton - City at our place, but for now thank you for your input but to be honest you're beginning to wind people up. There's enough Evertonians on this forum past and present doing that so we don't really need you.

 

May I just add... Bayern are a class act a truely professional, experienced TEAM at the highest level - you can't buy that!!!

[Avinalaff]

I don't have a problem with him posting, as he seems a decent lad, other than one or 2 digs, be they intentional or not, (heck I gave enough to City fans), but it's the Derby on Saturday, and our focus should be on that now. Too many posts have a City theme when they should have a derby theme now. On with the red shite and hopefully 3 points.