Today's football

[Pretty Boy]

I know a couple of Man City fans and I think they struggle with the current set up. On the one hand they enjoy winning things, who wouldn't? But the do talk about the club having lost something. I don't think they saw supporting the smaller club in the city as a badge of honour as such but they were quite proud of 'not being like United'. When the takeover happened I think they thought they could retain that. Of course, like almost everyone in that league, they have become a corporate entity that is exactly 'like United'.

I get the feeling they would have enjoyed things more if they had enjoyed one glorious flash in the pan success like Leicester. Equally they do enjoy lording it over United and will do for as long as it lasts.

[Hermit Crab]

3-1, some team goal.

[HH81]

3-1 to Manchester's number 1.

The reds are heading back to Torquay and London.

[cabbageandribs1875]

looks like the Sheikhs eleven will win

[Here’s Lucy!]

3-1 to Manchester's number 1.

The reds are heading back to Torquay and London.

And Dublin!!

[The Modfather]

How bad are Man U? Not one player would get into the Man City or Liverpool teams.

[Hermit Crab]

**** off Mata ya tit. Sour grapes.

[R'Albin]

How bad are Man U? Not one player would get into the Man City or Liverpool teams.

De Gea would definitely get in both.

[HH81]

How bad are Man U? Not one player would get into the Man City or Liverpool teams.

12 points difference on the table but worlds apart in terms of football.

Lost 3-1 and would have been lucky to get none.

[Joe6-2]

**** off Mata ya tit. Sour grapes.

What did he do?

[Hibernia&Alba]

United were outclassed; City are great to watch. Bad times from my point of view, but no reason to despair: City have been horrendous most of their history and won the lottery via a takeover; fair play to them. United will come again; they are too big to fail to meet the challenge. History moves forward and, as a United fan, I'm sure they will find a way to meet the challenge. It will all work out in the end.

[Hibernia&Alba]

De Gea would definitely get in both.

And Martial and Pogba.

[The Modfather]

De Gea would definitely get in both.

Maybe, he was probably the best keeper in the world the last 3 or 4 years although but his performance at the World Cup and this season haven’t haven’t been to his usual immense standard. Probably just a dip rather than a decline though.

Pogba under either Klop or Guardiola might also get in, but not the Pogba of his Man U career so far.

[Joe6-2]

Motherwell played 56 minutes with 10 men.

I don't know for a fact, but could guarantee the Huns got every decision too!

[Hermit Crab]

I don't know for a fact, but could guarantee the Huns got every decision too!


The red card was a joke, Morelos got him sent off.

[Hermit Crab]

What did he do?


Sterling done about 10 step overs in the corner running down the clock and then Mata had a go at him for doing it, got right in his face and pointing and shouting at Sterling.

[Scottie]

The red card was a joke, Morelos got him sent off.
Now theres a surprise. He's got a puss you wouldn't get fed up slapping.

[HH81]

And Martial and Pogba.

They would get in man city team? Liverpool?

Very much doubt it.

[Leith Green]

Theres a hell of a lot more Mancunians go to the Etihad than there is at Old Trafford.

That a lot of ***** that statement.. City used to use that to slag united off but its well wide of the mark . They both draw a pretty even support from manchester and greater manchester. Man utds stadium holds 75k remember so plenty space for all the day trippers but that doesnt mean a hell of a lot more mancunians watch city.

[Hibernia&Alba]

They would get in man city team? Liverpool?

Very much doubt it.

Of course they would, especially Liverpool, who have a number of middling players who are proving that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Pogba would be an addition to any team in the world.

[Lago]

It’s not Man City any more imo.

It’s a franchise and their stadium is a tourist destination or somewhere for businesses to take their clients.

Obviously there are many exceptions to that and I’m sure there are plenty passionate Citeh fans, overall though, that’s my perception of Manchester City.

Lee, Bell, Marsh with Malcolm Allison manager different days. :agree:

[Pete]

It’s looking like City will be the premier outfit in Manchester from now on. A state of the art stadium, a solid financial base and fans all around the world are the foundations for an upward spiral.

United, for all their cash, look a mess on and off the park. The big boys like Chelsea, City and Spurs have the pick of the Champions league places while United and Arsenal scrap for the UEFA cup. In a few years time they’ll be this quirky team of choice that will maybe win an FA cup or two.

Change can be painful for some.

[HH81]

Of course they would, especially Liverpool, who have a number of middling players who are proving that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Pogba would be an addition to any team in the world.

Pogba is one of the most over rated players I have seen in the premiership. Think I have only ever seen him have one decent game. Most pass him by.

Why was he not playing today?

[Hibernia&Alba]

It’s looking like City will be the premier outfit in Manchester from now on. A state of the art stadium, a solid financial base and fans all around the world are the foundations for an upward spiral.

United, for all their cash, look a mess on and off the park. The big boys like Chelsea, City and Spurs have the pick of the Champions league places while United and Arsenal scrap for the UEFA cup. In a few years time they’ll be this quirky team of choice that will maybe win an FA cup or two.

Change can be painful for some.
i.e. winning the lottery with a takeover, so rising from nothing. Any club could do that, given a blank cheque at random. Same thing happened to Chelsea.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

United were outclassed; City are great to watch. Bad times from my point of view, but no reason to despair: City have been horrendous most of their history and won the lottery via a takeover; fair play to them. United will come again; they are too big to fail to meet the challenge. History moves forward and, as a United fan, I'm sure they will find a way to meet the challenge. It will all work out in the end.

For people that don't "support" either team City are a joy to watch. The fact United scored the 3rd helped my wallet out too! City to win both halves 2s, United to score the 3rd 3s, it's all good! 🍺

[Hibernia&Alba]

Pogba is one of the most over rated players I have seen in the premiership. Think I have only ever seen him have one decent game. Most pass him by.

Why was he not playing today?

Because he's injured??

When a small club like Man City wins the lottery, fair play to them, but they are just another Chelsea, enjoying a gilded age for as long as their benefactor maintains interest.

[Pete]

i.e. winning the lottery with a takeover, so rising from nothing. Any club could do that, given a blank cheque at random. Same thing happened to Chelsea.

United have spent a bucket loads of cash too and look at them: mid table outfit. You have to spend it in the right way and City have done that.

As for winning the lottery, I think the owners were looking for a very stylish club to take over and they certainly chose wisely. It wasn’t luck.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Because he's injured??

When a small club like Man City wins the lottery, fair play to them, but they are just another Chelsea, enjoying a gilded age for as long as their benefactor maintains interest.

Large or small, anyone that can't enjoy the skills they put on display are deluding themselves.

[HH81]

Because he's injured??

When a small club like Man City wins the lottery, fair play to them, but they are just another Chelsea, enjoying a gilded age for as long as their benefactor maintains interest.

Didn't know the reason as missed the first 10 mins.

Some good debate on sky just now. You could argue man u won the lottery by appointing Fergie. The rest have shown nothing since and in the past 10 years they have gone downhill massively.

The best thing about it for me is every street round here does not contain people wearing man u shirts any longer.

[bingo70]

For people that don't "support" either team City are a joy to watch. The fact United scored the 3rd helped my wallet out too! City to win both halves 2s, United to score the 3rd 3s, it's all good! 🍺

Always think City should be a joy to watch as I don’t have an English side and I love watching great football, there’s just something about watching them that I find really boring.

I think it’s a combination of them being so much better than most sides they play, the poor atmosphere at the city stadium or whatever its called now and the possession based football they play.

Imo it’s the football equivalent of watching the Harlem globe trotters in a testimonial every week.

That said though, in fairness, the second half today I really enjoyed. Their fans seem to actually enjoy it for a change too.

[Hibernia&Alba]

United have spent a bucket loads of cash too and look at them: mid table outfit. You have to spend it in the right way and City have done that.

As for winning the lottery, I think the owners were looking for a very stylish club to take over and they certainly chose wisely. It wasn’t luck.

City spent hundreds of millions for no return initially. With a bottomless pit of cash, every club can make it; Chelsea paved the way for the City model. If you keep throwing money at a club, eventually it will pay off. City would be nothing without Mansoor, as you know. He's spent £1.4 billion in a decade.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I'm a Hammers man but, I can appreciate what Spurs have done recently, they're better to watch than West Ham, if they win they win if they don't, oh well!

[IGRIGI]

Cringetastic reading Hibs fans get all worked up about teams south of the border.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

City spent hundreds of millions for no return initially. With a bottomless pit of cash, every club can make it; Chelsea paved the way for the City model. If you keep throwing money at a club, eventually it will pay off. City would be nothing without Mansoor, as you know. He's spent £1.4 billion in a decade.

There's a guy that posts on the holy ground about money, might be worth a read. 😉

[SirDavidsNapper]

Cringetastic reading Hibs fans get all worked up about teams south of the border.

I agree. Couldn't give a monkeys about any foreign club.

[Pete]

So I think we’re all in agreement then.

City are the top dogs while United are now small-time and this won’t change any time soon.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Large or small, anyone that can't enjoy the skills they put on display are deluding themselves.

They are great to watch, no question. However, anyone who says Man City are anything but lottery winners, in the same mould as Chelsea, are also deluding themselves. Both clubs were nothing prior to billionaire arrival, and it could just as easily be any other club. Even the most ardent Man City/Chelsea fan must admit that.

[Hibernia&Alba]

So I think we’re all in agreement then.

City are the top dogs while United are now small-time and this won’t change any time soon.

Manchester United will never be small time, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. They will always be one of the biggest clubs in the world, and will ALWAYS be biiger than Manchester City.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

They are great to watch, no question. However, anyone who says Man City are anything but lottery winners, in the same mould as Chelsea, are also deluding themselves. Both clubs were nothing prior to billionaire arrival, and it could just as easily be any other club. Even the most ardent Man City/Chelsea fan must admit that.

I couldnae give a Donald duck! It's worth watching, that'll do me.

[Iggy Pope]

Cringetastic reading Hibs fans get all worked up about teams south of the border.

That’s no a word. Not even on Kickback.
**** snakes, there’s a boy on here cannae eat his sporran or something as he’s beside himself over two Argentinian teams south of the Pacos!

English football is fair game.

[hibsbollah]

That’s no a word. Not even on Kickback.
**** snakes, there’s a boy on here cannae eat his sporran or something as he’s beside himself over two Argentinian teams south of the Pacos!

English football is fair game.

:faf: genius. I still don't understand the sporran sandwich thing .

[The Modfather]

They are great to watch, no question. However, anyone who says Man City are anything but lottery winners, in the same mould as Chelsea, are also deluding themselves. Both clubs were nothing prior to billionaire arrival, and it could just as easily be any other club. Even the most ardent Man City/Chelsea fan must admit that.

Sounds like a bit of a comfort blanket to be honest.

[Pete]

Manchester United will never be small time, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. They will always be one of the biggest clubs in the world, and will ALWAYS be biiger than Manchester City.

People who think this way are like boiling frogs. It will suddenly hit you when you’re extatic that you’ve scraped into the Europa league spaces for the first time in years at the expense of Southampton or someone.

That’s the way it’s going mate...could be another Leeds situation. There’s only one show in town now and it’s at the Etihad.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Sounds like a bit of a comfort blanket to be honest.

Mibees, but it's true. Man City and Chelsea are the hangover of the vulgar Thatcherite creed of money being the beginning and end of everything. To me they represent everything that is wrong with the modern world: the greedy, grasping and ultimately empty theory of judging everything by money. It's a pyrrhic victory.:agree:

[Hermit Crab]

Mbappe just took a really sore one there.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

They are great to watch, no question. However, anyone who says Man City are anything but lottery winners, in the same mould as Chelsea, are also deluding themselves. Both clubs were nothing prior to billionaire arrival, and it could just as easily be any other club. Even the most ardent Man City/Chelsea fan must admit that.

You are overstating things a bit. Neither club was 'nothing'.

Manchester City and Chelsea were both tradutional clubs with respectable supports.

Is their financial success any less valid than Everton's in rhe 60s, liverpool in the 70s and 80s, or Newcastle or Black urn in the 90s?

[Scouse Hibee]

You are overstating things a bit. Neither club was 'nothing'.

Manchester City and Chelsea were both tradutional clubs with respectable supports.

Is their financial success any less valid than Everton's in rhe 60s, liverpool in the 70s and 80s, or Newcastle or Black urn in the 90s?


What success did Newcastle have in the 90's? I must have missed it.

The other difference is the success of Liverpool and (Everton who by the way were very successful in the 80's) was not due to the massive influx of new money on the scale of Chelsea and Man City. However the money is there and although on very different scales between many clubs it's not that much different to the likes of Liverpool and Utd whose success helped generate enormous amounts of cash which enabled them to thrive.

I have the happy memories they will do :wink:

[Pete]

What success did Newcastle have in the 90's? I must have missed it.

The other difference is the success of Liverpool and (Everton who by the way were very successful in the 80's) was not due to the massive influx of new money on the scale of Chelsea and Man City.

Replace Newcastle with Manchester United :agree:

[Hibernia&Alba]

You are overstating things a bit. Neither club was 'nothing'.

Manchester City and Chelsea were both tradutional clubs with respectable supports.

Is their financial success any less valid than Everton's in rhe 60s, liverpool in the 70s and 80s, or Newcastle or Black urn in the 90s?

Chelsea and Man City barely had a trophy between them prior to the Abramovich/Mansoor takeovers. Both had spent decades going up and down between promotion and relegation. City were even given a free stadium by the council, to replace a total dump.

[Hermit Crab]

Chelsea and Man City barely had a trophy between them prior to the Abramovich/Mansoor takeovers. Both had spent decades going up and down between promotion and relegation. City were even given a free stadium by the council, to replace a total dump.


Maine Road had character, The Kippax stand was brilliant!

[Pete]

Chelsea and Man City barely had a trophy between them prior to the Abramovich/Mansoor takeovers. Both had spent decades going up and down between promotion and relegation. City were even given a free stadium by the council, to replace a total dump.

There wasn’t that much of a difference between the Manchester clubs before the Premiership era.

It could be argued that United owe their fairly recent success to the piggybacking on Rupert Murdoch, Sky and the rampant commercialisation of our game.

Not only that, they used their money to bully and unsettle players from other clubs who simply couldn’t compete. Yorke, Keane, Ferdinand, Rooney, Young...not really that different to what City are doing today.

City are slick, quick and going places. United are a husk who’s fans can only hark back to days when they had a financial advantage.

[Pete]

Maine Road had character, The Kippax stand was brilliant!

:agree:

It also had the Gallagher brothers. United can have Morrisey or whoever :greengrin

[Hibernia&Alba]

There wasn’t that much of a difference between the Manchester clubs before the Premiership era.

It could be argued that United owe their fairly recent success to the piggybacking on Rupert Murdoch, Sky and the rampant commercialisation of our game.

Not only that, they used their money to bully and unsettle players from other clubs who simply couldn’t compete. Yorke, Keane, Ferdinand, Rooney, Young...not really that different to what City are doing today.

City are slick, quick and going places. United are a husk who’s fans can only hark back to days when they had a financial advantage.


Except United had numerous league titles, cups and had been European champions, plus they were already the biggest club in the country with the biggest crowds. What had City done exactly before the Premiership era?

City currently have five titles to their name, even with Mansoor money. United had reached that number in 1957, the season before the Munich disaster.

[Joe6-2]

Sterling done about 10 step overs in the corner running down the clock and then Mata had a go at him for doing it, got right in his face and pointing and shouting at Sterling.

Thanks mate, they don't like it up em

[Pete]

Except United had numerous league titles, cups and had been European champions, plus they were already the biggest club in the country with the biggest crowds. What had City done exactly before the Premiership era?

City currently have five titles to their name, even with Mansoor money. United had reached that number in 1957, the season before the Munich disaster.

United had won slightly more but the murdoch era saw them streak ahead.

Anyway, this is about the here and now. MOTD are crucifying United just now and it must be painful if you support them.

As a neutral observer, I just love great football. That was on show today.

[Pagan Hibernia]

:agree:

It also had the Gallagher brothers.

Stone Roses wannabes 😉

Both brothers have said many times how much of an influence the roses were and Liam’s swagger is clearly stolen from Ian Brown

[Hibernia&Alba]

United had won slightly more but the murdoch era saw them streak ahead.

Anyway, this is about the here and now. MOTD are crucifying United just now and it must be painful if you support them.

As a neutral observer, I just love great football. That was on show today.

You're a neutral observer now? :faf:

You're City all the way, be honest.

[The 90+2]

You're a neutral observer now? :faf:

You're City all the way, be honest.

He also loves Oasis more than the Roses 😀 City are fantastic though! You really can’t deny it. Peps the man and him and Lennon are good friends.

[Pedantic_Hibee]

https://youtu.be/AFaQQN6tL74

Charlie Austin meets Parklife.

[JimBHibees]

De Gea would definitely get in both.

Not so sure based on recent form. His form has fallen off a cliff for months including World Cup.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What success did Newcastle have in the 90's? I must have missed it.

The other difference is the success of Liverpool and (Everton who by the way were very successful in the 80's) was not due to the massive influx of new money on the scale of Chelsea and Man City. However the money is there and although on very different scales between many clubs it's not that much different to the likes of Liverpool and Utd whose success helped generate enormous amounts of cash which enabled them to thrive.

I have the happy memories they will do :wink:

Keegan, feedinand, ginola, asprilla, challenging in the league, european runs etc.

Im sure you know more than i do, but were everton in the 60s not bankrolled by the moores family (and nicknamed the bank of england club)?

There are very few clubs in the world that cab be successful without injections of cash.

I do agree that chelsea and city are very modern, extreme and to many, particularly vulgar examples, but all big english clubs are now banking on foreign sugar daddys, including liverpool.

Man City have still done it all in an admirable way.

Is it any difderent to leicester city? Or to umpteen of the big italian clubs in the 90s?

Tye English league is all about money, and one set of fans having a go at another for their spending, or the source of rheir cash just strikes me as a bit churlish.

If we could go back to the more equitable days, id be all for it, but English football clubs sold their souls a long time ago.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Except United had numerous league titles, cups and had been European champions, plus they were already the biggest club in the country with the biggest crowds. What had City done exactly before the Premiership era?

City currently have five titles to their name, even with Mansoor money. United had reached that number in 1957, the season before the Munich disaster.

I never said city or chelsea were the eqyal of united, far from it. But neither were they livi or gretna.

I think chelsea and maybe even city had won leagues, cups and European trophy prior to their gilded era.

And city were always recognised as a very well suppprted club, it wss often a point of discussion when they were dpwn in 3rd tier that they still grew 30k crowds.

Anyway, i dont support anyone but hibs, bit i do enjoy english fitba, and i just think a lot of their critics from other equally rich clubs (utd have official noodle suppliers ffs!) Is jealousy.

Plus, lots of clubs spend lotd of money, not many play like city, who are exceptionally good (although id still habe the fergie team of the late 90s above them, bit maybe thats jusy my age).

[blackpoolhibs]

They are great to watch, no question. However, anyone who says Man City are anything but lottery winners, in the same mould as Chelsea, are also deluding themselves. Both clubs were nothing prior to billionaire arrival, and it could just as easily be any other club. Even the most ardent Man City/Chelsea fan must admit that.

What difference does it make when they are handing out the trophies? :confused:

[Here’s Lucy!]

What difference does it make when they are handing out the trophies? :confused:

Your point is a good one but, to the City and Chelsea fans who have followed them for years and years, through thick and thin, it must feel a wee bit empty.

I'm sure they both would have preferred to win the odd trophy or two with the likes of Bell, Summerbee, Lee, Marsh, Cooke, Osgood, Hudson and Bonetti than be buying cups and titles left, right and centre?

There again, I could be wrong :agree:

[blackpoolhibs]

Your point is a good one but, to the City and Chelsea fans who have followed them for years and years, through thick and thin, it must feel a wee bit empty.

I'm sure they both would have preferred to win the odd trophy or two with the likes of Bell, Summerbee, Lee, Marsh, Cooke, Osgood, Hudson and Bonetti than be buying cups and titles left, right and centre?

There again, I could be wrong :agree:

Those days are long gone, and in 10-20-30 years, nobody will worry where the money comes from, Bell and Summerbee and the likes will be remembered alongside Silva, Company and Aguero.:greengrin

[JimBHibees]

Your point is a good one but, to the City and Chelsea fans who have followed them for years and years, through thick and thin, it must feel a wee bit empty.

I'm sure they both would have preferred to win the odd trophy or two with the likes of Bell, Summerbee, Lee, Marsh, Cooke, Osgood, Hudson and Bonetti than be buying cups and titles left, right and centre?

There again, I could be wrong :agree:

Cant believe for one minute it feels empty they will be loving it.

[Pagan Hibernia]

Your point is a good one but, to the City and Chelsea fans who have followed them for years and years, through thick and thin, it must feel a wee bit empty.

I'm sure they both would have preferred to win the odd trophy or two with the likes of Bell, Summerbee, Lee, Marsh, Cooke, Osgood, Hudson and Bonetti than be buying cups and titles left, right and centre?



There again, I could be wrong :agree:

Maybe they see as a deserved reward for all those decades of rubbish football and relegations. It can’t have been easy shivering in United’s shadow.

It’s not my cup of tea tbh, especially given the shall we say shady origins of their money, and I’d much rather have Hibs ownership model with a growing HSL stake, but I wouldn’t say many city fans are too nostalgic for the old days. Those of a certain age maybe

[Haymaker]

Cant believe for one minute it feels empty they will be loving it.

I know a few old school Chelsea fans and they are loving it. What really pisses them off is all the fans moaning when they draw 2-2 away at Swansea or don't qualify for Europe.

[Smartie]

I remember Chelsea and City being referred to as sleeping giants during the late 80s/ early 90s.

They were both big clubs with big supports, a decent history and a level of past success.

It's funny how they are now derided as only being big clubs because of money now that they are up there beating the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal, clubs who enjoyed a large financial advantage over them at that time.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Cant believe for one minute it feels empty they will be loving it.

Told this story before, but I have a friend of a friend in Manchester who gave up his Man City season ticket about two or three seasons ago now, after having it since 1990. He said he just doesn't recognise the club anymore and feels alienated from it. That must be a minority view, but fair play to guy, as it can't be easy to walk away when the good times arrive, after enduring so many bad times.

[Hibernia&Alba]

What difference does it make when they are handing out the trophies? :confused:

It makes no difference to the feeling of winning trophies, but it's a lottery win which makes a massive difference in winning them. If Mansoor had bought Hibs, we'd be dominating Scottish football. Fair play to them, they can enjoy it, but it's a massive shortcut to success. £1.4 billion of somebody else's money in ten years buys you a fair few trophies. They aren't the first, and the petro-clubs are everywhere now - look at PSG, for example, a club that was only founded in 1971.

[hibsbollah]

Cant believe for one minute it feels empty they will be loving it.

I'm not totally sure that's right. There is a chat that Man City fans are finding the tiki taka a bit boring. Which probably doesn't help the atmosphere. It probably also doesn't help that there are only a handful of clubs in the world that will actually have a go at Citeh and not just defend for 90 mins. So it's a bit like watching the school bully kick the wee boy from the year below in the playground.

And it IS definitely more satisfying to be a Leicester fan winning the league than a City fan. Because you haven't got all your mates going "aye but you just bought the league' 'where were you when you when you were ****' etc etc. It must be annoying.

There was a good chat about it on totally podcast yesterday. Rafael Honegstein said that Bayern fans were similar when Pep was there. Yes winning is great, but can we get the ball forward a bit quicker please?!

Spoilt bassas I say.

[BILLYHIBS]

Told this story before, but I have a friend of a friend in Manchester who gave up his Man City season ticket about two or three seasons ago now, after having it since 1990. He said he just doesn't recognise the club anymore and feels alienated from it. That must be a minority view, but fair play to guy, as it can't be easy to walk away when the good times arrive, after enduring so many bad times.

Hmmmm!

I can empathise with that scenario to a degree.

I felt the same way when Joe Harper arrived and Gordon and ORourke went out.

Bye bye Tornadoes!

:grr:

[hibsbollah]

I know a few old school Chelsea fans and they are loving it. What really pisses them off is all the fans moaning when they draw 2-2 away at Swansea or don't qualify for Europe.

Personally I think Sarri ball is better to watch than Peps style. Chelsea are playing lovely stuff.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'm not totally sure that's right. There is a chat that Man City fans are finding the tiki taka a bit boring. Which probably doesn't help the atmosphere. It probably also doesn't help that there are only a handful of clubs in the world that will actually have a go at Citeh and not just defend for 90 mins. So it's a bit like watching the school bully kick the wee boy from the year below in the playground.

And it IS definitely more satisfying to be a Leicester fan winning the league than a City fan. Because you haven't got all your mates going "aye but you just bought the league' 'where were you when you when you were ****' etc etc. It must be annoying.

There was a good chat about it on totally podcast yesterday. Rafael Honegstein said that Bayern fans were similar when Pep was there. Yes winning is great, but can we get the ball forward a bit quicker please?!

Spoilt bassas I say.

I would make them have Terry Butcher as manager for one season!

Listen, I wouldn't be complaining if a billionaire pulled up at Easter Road in his Bugatti and started throwing fifty quid notes out of a briefcase; but let's be honest about where the subsequent success came from. I suppose that's the way football has gone, in order to compete at the highest level.

And what happens if/when they money tap is switched off e.g. Leeds, Blackburn,The Rangers, our pink chums in Gorgie? Chelsea and Man City's wealth is of a much higher level, but that also means any crash will also be of a greater magnitude.

[hibsbollah]

I would make them have Terry Butcher as manager for one season!

Listen, I wouldn't be complaining if a billionaire pulled up at Easter Road in his Bugatti and started throwing fifty quid notes out of a briefcase; but let's be honest about where the subsequent success came from. I suppose that's the way football has gone, in order to compete at the highest level.

And what happens if/when they money tap is switched off e.g. Leeds, Blackburn,The Rangers, our pink chums in Gorgie? Chelsea and Man City's wealth is of a much higher level, but that also means any crash will also be of a greater magnitude.

Re the Bugatti man driving up, of course we would all love it. But it's also naive to imagine that scenario wouldn't change and commodify/cheapen the experience of being a fan.

[One Day Soon]

I would make them have Terry Butcher as manager for one season!

Listen, I wouldn't be complaining if a billionaire pulled up at Easter Road in his Bugatti and started throwing fifty quid notes out of a briefcase; but let's be honest about where the subsequent success came from. I suppose that's the way football has gone, in order to compete at the highest level.

And what happens if/when they money tap is switched off e.g. Leeds, Blackburn,The Rangers, our pink chums in Gorgie? Chelsea and Man City's wealth is of a much higher level, but that also means any crash will also be of a greater magnitude.


I'm just not sure about that, the eternal difficult struggle is half the experience I think. I can't imagine being like a Celtc fan greeting cup after league after cup with dulled overfed senses if we were somehow awash with funny money. I always wonder about the clubs that are transformed out of all recognition - especially with stadium moves - and whether it really feels like the same part of their lives that it used to be for the supporters. I don't think I could put a price, for example, on how important it was to stay at Easter Road.

I suppose it must be possible to have a happy medium but I'd hate for Hibs to be at either the whim of a massively wealthy owner or having to face a huge crash from heady heights if the owner lost interest/never had it in the first place (Newcastle style) or was suddenly lost (Leicester style), or the money ran out (Leeds style). At least with Tom Farmer we've had someone consistent and steady, clearly committed to the long term future of the club and willing to do what was needed to provide a rock solid base for the future - including enabling a blocking minority fan shareholding. We'll certainly be transformed out of all recognition at the end of his tenure, compared to the start, in infrastructure and financial stability terms.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'm just not sure about that, the eternal difficult struggle is half the experience I think. I can't imagine being like a Celtc fan greeting cup after league after cup with dulled overfed senses if we were somehow awash with funny money. I always wonder about the clubs that are transformed out of all recognition - especially with stadium moves - and whether it really feels like the same part of their lives that it used to be for the supporters. I don't think I could put a price, for example, on how important it was to stay at Easter Road.

I suppose it must be possible to have a happy medium but I'd hate for Hibs to be at either the whim of a massively wealthy owner or having to face a huge crash from heady heights if the owner lost interest/never had it in the first place (Newcastle style) or was suddenly lost (Leicester style), or the money ran out (Leeds style). At least with Tom Farmer we've had someone consistent and steady, clearly committed to the long term future of the club and willing to do what was needed to provide a rock solid base for the future - including enabling a blocking minority fan shareholding. We'll certainly be transformed out of all recognition at the end of his tenure, compared to the start, in infrastructure and financial stability terms.

But whit aboot titles and playing Champions League? We'd all love that for a wee while, even if we felt a tad dirty. I admit I would love to experience all of that, but there is risk, no question, ethically and financially. This is played as the teams walk out at Emptihad and Stamford Wigs :wink:


https://youtu.be/hzLtCMDQv_0

[blackpoolhibs]

It makes no difference to the feeling of winning trophies, but it's a lottery win which makes a massive difference in winning them. If Mansoor had bought Hibs, we'd be dominating Scottish football. Fair play to them, they can enjoy it, but it's a massive shortcut to success. £1.4 billion of somebody else's money in ten years buys you a fair few trophies. They aren't the first, and the petro-clubs are everywhere now - look at PSG, for example, a club that was only founded in 1971.

So basically to keep the old school happy, everyone but the selected few who are established clubs with history and tradition, should just know their place and play accordingly? :confused:

[One Day Soon]

But whit aboot titles and playing Champions League? We'd all love that for a wee while, even if we felt a tad dirty. I admit I would love to experience all of that, but there is risk, no question, ethically and financially. This is played as the teams walk out at Emptihad and Stamford Wigs :wink:


https://youtu.be/hzLtCMDQv_0


Champions League? Come on be serious, we'll never be Hearts...

[Hibernia&Alba]

So basically to keep the old school happy, everyone but the selected few who are established clubs with history and tradition, should just know their place and play accordingly? :confused:

Not at all; I've said I don't begrudge clubs like Man City and Chelsea enjoying their success; I would enjoy it too. But I wouldn't expect anything less, if Hibs became the richest club in the world overnight, as Man City did when Mansoor bought it. If you can throw £1.4 billion at a problem, chances are the problem will be resolved. Money is everything at the top level now; gone are the days of Notts Forest winning two European Cups on a shoestring budget.

These types of petro clubs have every right to enjoy their success, but we also have the right to explain what made it happen - a winning lottery ticket. It could have been Bolton Wanderers, or even Hibs!

[bingo70]

So basically to keep the old school happy, everyone but the selected few who are established clubs with history and tradition, should just know their place and play accordingly? :confused:

I think the argument is that clubs should grow, within their means.

I don't think clubs should know their place and stick to that but if a club was to develop a philosophy and grow naturally then that is likely to be more enjoyable than through an artificial influx of cash.

I know there's not many examples of teams competing at the top end of the league for trophies but you could argue that's what the likes of Bournemouth, Swansea (pre-relegation), Brighton, Huddersfield etc have done. Bournemouth are probably a good example of a club punching well above their means without winning lots. Will their fans be enjoying this period more than the Man City fans? I suspect they probably will.

If i was to move down south tomorrow and got to pick a team to support that i'd go to home and away, Man City would probably be one of the last teams i'd pick. (FWIW i think i'd probably pick someone like Crystal Palace, Everton or Newcastle)

[Pete]

So basically to keep the old school happy, everyone but the selected few who are established clubs with history and tradition, should just know their place and play accordingly? :confused:

That’s pretty much it. Being elevated above your natural status by glory hunters is just as “dirty” as being funded by billionaires.

How many clubs in places like Norway are struggling for support because it’s become normalised to “support” a team from Liverpool or Manchester? Places 99% of this support (who are responsible for their position) probably couldn’t point to on a map?

City and Chelsea are a symptom of the disease caused by these “established” clubs, not the cause of it.

[blackpoolhibs]

Not at all; I've said I don't begrudge clubs like Man City and Chelsea enjoying their success; I would enjoy it too. But I wouldn't expect anything less, if Hibs became the richest club in the world overnight, as Man City did when Mansoor bought it. If you can throw £1.4 billion at a problem, chances are the problem will be resolved. Money is everything at the top level now; gone are the days of Notts Forest winning two European Cups on a shoestring budget.

These types of petro clubs have every right to enjoy their success, but we also have the right to explain what made it happen - a winning lottery ticket. It could have been Bolton Wanderers, or even Hibs!


I think the argument is that clubs should grow, within their means.

I don't think clubs should know their place and stick to that but if a club was to develop a philosophy and grow naturally then that is likely to be more enjoyable than through an artificial influx of cash.

I know there's not many examples of teams competing at the top end of the league for trophies but you could argue that's what the likes of Bournemouth, Swansea (pre-relegation), Brighton, Huddersfield etc have done. Bournemouth are probably a good example of a club punching well above their means without winning lots. Will their fans be enjoying this period more than the Man City fans? I suspect they probably will.

If i was to move down south tomorrow and got to pick a team to support that i'd go to home and away, Man City would probably be one of the last teams i'd pick. (FWIW i think i'd probably pick someone like Crystal Palace, Everton or Newcastle)

I know what those arguing against these clubs who have come into money are saying, but i just disagree. Its shall we call it natural order taking its course for this part of their history and footballs history.

We can get all sentimental over history and how its been achieved, but in reality its money that makes teams bigger and better, with the odd and it is very odd exception.

Call it lottery wins, call it what you like, its happening now and will continue to happen, just like it did with bookies or toilet roll owners in the past, its just bigger sums and jealousy by those who were top dogs and are being replaced with new and bigger amounts.

I'd take a rich sheik at Easter Road as our new owner, and wouldn't think twice about it when we were winning leagues and competing in the Champions league.

What is it about fans who prefer mundane self funded monotony, i certainly don't understand it? :confused:

[CockneyRebel]

I think the argument is that clubs should grow, within their means.

I don't think clubs should know their place and stick to that but if a club was to develop a philosophy and grow naturally then that is likely to be more enjoyable than through an artificial influx of cash.

I know there's not many examples of teams competing at the top end of the league for trophies but you could argue that's what the likes of Bournemouth, Swansea (pre-relegation), Brighton, Huddersfield etc have done. Bournemouth are probably a good example of a club punching well above their means without winning lots. Will their fans be enjoying this period more than the Man City fans? I suspect they probably will.

If i was to move down south tomorrow and got to pick a team to support that i'd go to home and away, Man City would probably be one of the last teams i'd pick. (FWIW i think i'd probably pick someone like Crystal Palace, Everton or Newcastle)


Thanks for including my home town team. You are now on my Christmas card list.

[Pete]

I'm not totally sure that's right. There is a chat that Man City fans are finding the tiki taka a bit boring. Which probably doesn't help the atmosphere. It probably also doesn't help that there are only a handful of clubs in the world that will actually have a go at Citeh and not just defend for 90 mins. So it's a bit like watching the school bully kick the wee boy from the year below in the playground.

And it IS definitely more satisfying to be a Leicester fan winning the league than a City fan. Because you haven't got all your mates going "aye but you just bought the league' 'where were you when you when you were ****' etc etc. It must be annoying.

There was a good chat about it on totally podcast yesterday. Rafael Honegstein said that Bayern fans were similar when Pep was there. Yes winning is great, but can we get the ball forward a bit quicker please?!

Spoilt bassas I say.

I think the only team who can claim not to have “bought” the title in the modern era is indeed Leicester. You could argue for the early Man U team with Beckham etc..but they were had financial muscle beyond most others and used it.

I didn’t listen to the podcast but some people (the British in particular) being bored with this style of football came to my attention when Spain were at their pomp. “Boringly brilliant” was the often repeated by those analysing their games.

Is their something in our sporting DNA that finds all this too effeminate while preferring the devastating way that Leicester smashed and grabbed their way to the title?

“Just get it forward!!!”😂

[Hibernia&Alba]

Thanks for including my home town team. You are now on my Christmas card list.

Croydon?

[hibsbollah]

I think the only team who can claim not to have “bought” the title in the modern era is indeed Leicester. You could argue for the early Man U team with Beckham etc..but they were had financial muscle beyond most others and used it.

I didn’t listen to the podcast but some people (the British in particular) being bored with this style of football came to my attention when Spain were at their pomp. “Boringly brilliant” was the often repeated by those analysing their games.

Is their something in our sporting DNA that finds all this too effeminate while preferring the devastating way that Leicester smashed and grabbed their way to the title?

“Just get it forward!!!”😂

There's the style of play which is one thing (the better your players, the more Incentive you have to devise a game plan to maximise the touches and create the biggest spaces possible) but there's also the effect on Sporting Competition. Monopoly capitalism in the world of football means that the top players are levitating to the top teams at such a rate that the Juves, PSGs, Bayern's are winning every year. Dortmund this season, Leicester in 2015 give us some welcome relief from time to time but the reality is that FFP needs to grow some cojones and actually do their job.

[JeMeSouviens]

There's the style of play which is one thing (the better your players, the more Incentive you have to devise a game plan to maximise the touches and create the biggest spaces possible) but there's also the effect on Sporting Competition. Monopoly capitalism in the world of football means that the top players are levitating to the top teams at such a rate that the Juves, PSGs, Bayern's are winning every year. Dortmund this season, Leicester in 2015 give us some welcome relief from time to time but the reality is that FFP needs to grow some cojones and actually do their job.

The counter argument is that FFP perpetuates the status quo, making it not even breakable-by-oligarch. It's only by capping spend way below what clubs actually earn that you could fix that.

[Hibernia&Alba]

There's the style of play which is one thing (the better your players, the more Incentive you have to devise a game plan to maximise the touches and create the biggest spaces possible) but there's also the effect on Sporting Competition. Monopoly capitalism in the world of football means that the top players are levitating to the top teams at such a rate that the Juves, PSGs, Bayern's are winning every year. Dortmund this season, Leicester in 2015 give us some welcome relief from time to time but the reality is that FFP needs to grow some cojones and actually do their job.

Man City are great to watch, as were Guardiola's Bayern Munich and Barcelona teams. The FFP rules seem to have slipped by the wayside recently. Aren't City currently being investigated for possible misuse of sponsorships, in order to inflate income and thus spending? Basically accused of sponsoring themselves. Wherever you find big money, you find shady practices, be it in football or anywhere else. There is always one set of laws for the rich and another set for everyone else. The transfer fees and wages at the top clubs are outrageous but show no signs of slowing. Whether it's sustainable long term is an interesting question; perhaps today's game will be looked back upon as a gilded age akin to the last days of Rome. Then again, perhaps the current trend will keep rolling along. My hunch is that the gap between the mega clubs and the rest will continue to grow, just as inequality in wider society will keep growing.

[Hibernia&Alba]

The counter argument is that FFP perpetuates the status quo, making it not even breakable-by-oligarch. It's only by capping spend way below what clubs actually earn that you could fix that.

That won't happen, as it's the biggest and most powerful clubs which dominate UEFA.

[JeMeSouviens]

That won't happen, as it's the biggest and most powerful clubs which dominate UEFA.

:agree:

The only way it would happen is post a big club breakaway where they already had a closed shop. Like the NFL. At that point, it makes good sense for club owners to keep costs down.

[JeMeSouviens]

Man City are great to watch, as were Guardiola's Bayern Munich and Barcelona teams. The FFP rules seem to have slipped by the wayside recently. Aren't City currently being investigated for possible misuse of sponsorships, in order to inflate income and thus spending? Basically accused of sponsoring themselves. Wherever you find big money, you find shady practices, be it in football or anywhere else. There is always one set of laws for the rich and another set for everyone else. The transfer fees and wages at the top clubs are outrageous but show no signs of slowing. Whether it's sustainable long term is an interesting question; perhaps today's game will be looked back upon as a gilded age akin to the last days of Rome. Then again, perhaps the current trend will keep rolling along. My hunch is that the gap between the mega clubs and the rest will continue to grow, just as inequality in wider society will keep growing.

It's not so much sponsoring themselves that's the problem as doing so at way above market rates.

[Haymaker]

It's not so much sponsoring themselves that's the problem as doing so at way above market rates.

:agree: think their stadium branding was ridiculous.

[Hibernia&Alba]

:agree: think their stadium branding was ridiculous.

In other words, cheating. I propose immediate expulsion from UEFA competitions, transfer ban for five years with all assets frozen. Interpol crawling all over the place, HMRC also seizing computers. Also immediate closure of all oil wells in the middle-east and conversion to 100 per cent renewables. Good for the planet, good for fitba :agree::greengrin

Motion carried. :aok:

[Here’s Lucy!]

In other words, cheating. I propose immediate expulsion from UEFA competitions, transfer ban for five years with all assets frozen. Interpol crawling all over the place, HMRC also seizing computers. Also immediate closure of all oil wells in the middle-east and conversion to 100 per cent renewables. Good for the planet, good for fitba :agree::greengrin

Motion carried. :aok:

:faf: :top marks