The Premier League

Maybe City should get Mark Hughes back when Fulham sack him.

That is if United don't snap him up.

Good, unbiased post by the way, Puke.

Mancini bought Johnson, Balotelli, Boateng, Kolarov, Yaya, Silva and Milner. He got Vierra for nowt.

ALL of the above have been a success to some extent. Nonehave been failures.

They need shut of santa Cruz, bellamy, Wright Philips, Bridges, and maybe even Lescott, but maybe he deserves more time.

They are likely to sign Dzeko in January which gives them an aerial option at home (can't get much better away) when teams sit back with a mass defence.

Mancini has had this team for 20 games, his team. They are now top of the league.

Can't get much better than that. The object is come in the top 4. He has been in the top 4 all season.

What more can he do? Apart from maybe win a meaningless trophy like the FA cup after 4 years, or the league after 7.

Then he would be a legend, if other comparators are anything to go on.

patrique wrote:Mancini bought Johnson, Balotelli, Boateng, Kolarov, Yaya, Silva and Milner. He got Vierra for nowt.
ALL of the above have been a success to some extent. Nonehave been failures.
They need shut of santa Cruz, bellamy, Wright Philips, Bridges, and maybe even Lescott, but maybe he deserves more time.
They are likely to sign Dzeko in January which gives them an aerial option at home (can't get much better away) when teams sit back with a mass defence.
Mancini has had this team for 20 games, his team. They are now top of the league.
Can't get much better than that. The object is come in the top 4. He has been in the top 4 all season.
What more can he do? Apart from maybe win a meaningless trophy like the FA cup after 4 years, or the league after 7.
Then he would be a legend, if other comparators are anything to go on.

City have spent more in the past 2 years than most other English Clubs have in their history. Being in the top 4 is the absolute minimum expected from them. Being only 1 point ahead of a United side "in turmoil" having played 3 more games would have to be considered a disappointment. Maybe not for City fans getting dizzy from being so high in the table but certainly for Sheik and his expensive game of Fantasy Football.

Jonsmith wrote:

patrique wrote:Mancini bought Johnson, Balotelli, Boateng, Kolarov, Yaya, Silva and Milner. He got Vierra for nowt.
ALL of the above have been a success to some extent. Nonehave been failures.
They need shut of santa Cruz, bellamy, Wright Philips, Bridges, and maybe even Lescott, but maybe he deserves more time.
They are likely to sign Dzeko in January which gives them an aerial option at home (can't get much better away) when teams sit back with a mass defence.
Mancini has had this team for 20 games, his team. They are now top of the league.
Can't get much better than that. The object is come in the top 4. He has been in the top 4 all season.
What more can he do? Apart from maybe win a meaningless trophy like the FA cup after 4 years, or the league after 7.
Then he would be a legend, if other comparators are anything to go on.

City have spent more in the past 2 years than most other English Clubs have in their history. Being in the top 4 is the absolute minimum expected from them. Being only 1 point ahead of a United side "in turmoil" having played 3 more games would have to be considered a disappointment. Maybe not for City fans getting dizzy from being so high in the table but certainly for Sheik and his expensive game of Fantasy Football.

In the last 150m years Preston North end have spent..........,

and it brought them great unrivalled success.

mancini has spent 117 million. Much less than most managers such as Redknapp, ferguson, Hughes, Benitez and Martin O'Neill.

mancini we were discussing, apparently under fire, according to Boc.

117 Million in 1 year on top of the players already there when he arrived?! No other manager has spent money like that in such a short period in England. Not even close.
I've already said Mancini is where City wants to be so in that sense he's right on track, but given what he's spent and inherited a top 4 finish is nothing to write home about, see how he gets on in the CL next year assuming City get there. With City's resources he will be, and should be, judged by higher standards than any other manger.

And I do agree with Kevin Mccarra's summation. "United have lowered the bar and the others can't clear it".

Europe will tell much.

And I admit I would love to see City win the Europa Cup, putting them level with Liverpool and United as having won two out of the three European trophies.

Obviously Liverpool cannot win the cup winners cup, and United don't look like winning the Europa Cup anytime soon, so City would be in pole position to be the only British club to join the giants of the game like Ajax, Bayern, real Madrid, Barcelona, and Juventus to win all three.

But they need to finish in the top 4 first of all.

Unless they fancy trying to beat Rangers most league wins record...............

Jonsmith wrote:117 Million in 1 year on top of the players already there when he arrived?! No other manager has spent money like that in such a short period in England. Not even close.
I've already said Mancini is where City wants to be so in that sense he's right on track, but given what he's spent and inherited a top 4 finish is nothing to write home about, see how he gets on in the CL next year assuming City get there. With City's resources he will be, and should be, judged by higher standards than any other manger.

Gosh Jon, I must have been thinking well ahead of you, if you note my post above.

Two CLs in a quarter of a century would NOT spell success for City I fear, if they remained a rich club.

Well I couldn't see Mancini being manager in 2034 if that was the case.

Some clubs accept failure, others...........

patrique wrote:

Jonsmith wrote:117 Million in 1 year on top of the players already there when he arrived?! No other manager has spent money like that in such a short period in England. Not even close.
I've already said Mancini is where City wants to be so in that sense he's right on track, but given what he's spent and inherited a top 4 finish is nothing to write home about, see how he gets on in the CL next year assuming City get there. With City's resources he will be, and should be, judged by higher standards than any other manger.

Gosh Jon, I must have been thinking well ahead of you, if you note my post above.

Two CLs in a quarter of a century would NOT spell success for City I fear, if they remained a rich club.

Well I couldn't see Mancini being manager in 2034 if that was the case.

Some clubs accept failure, others...........

Exactly Pat, I'm glad you now see the difference.. City are an inflated ego of a club. No such thing as loyalty or decency in that club any longer. They want to buy the Champions League and will stuff money into the club until that happens, cast out loyal managers and players if they don't provide instant success. City stand out as the most obscene part of an already obscene business.
United of course have been proved to have more integrity than that, and have one of the biggest supporter bases of any soccer club in the world as a result.
Maybe soccer fans are smarter than we give them credit for?

Jonsmith wrote:
Exactly Pat, I'm glad you now see the difference.. City are an inflated ego of a club. No such thing as loyalty or decency in that club any longer. They want to buy the Champions League and will stuff money into the club until that happens, cast out loyal managers and players if they don't provide instant success. City stand out as the most obscene part of an already obscene business.
United of course have been proved to have more integrity than that, and have one of the biggest supporter bases of any soccer club in the world as a result.
Maybe soccer fans are smarter than we give them credit for?

Jesus JS - give it a fooking rest FFS! United on the high moral ground? Would ya cop on. Fergie has ridden roughshod over PL clubs for years - poaching, tapping up and using their wealth for years when they had it. Then Chelsea came along with their money and the United pout was on - didn't have things their own way anymore. Football has NO integrity - none! United sold out to an American who has run them into the ground - not a good business move but that's greed for you. They have had no loyalty to their fans over the years either. Wake up will ya. Why TF did their loyal fans take to wearing green and yellow scarves?

Jayo Cluxton wrote:

Jonsmith wrote:
Exactly Pat, I'm glad you now see the difference.. City are an inflated ego of a club. No such thing as loyalty or decency in that club any longer. They want to buy the Champions League and will stuff money into the club until that happens, cast out loyal managers and players if they don't provide instant success. City stand out as the most obscene part of an already obscene business.
United of course have been proved to have more integrity than that, and have one of the biggest supporter bases of any soccer club in the world as a result.
Maybe soccer fans are smarter than we give them credit for?

Jesus JS - give it a fooking rest FFS! United on the high moral ground? Would ya cop on. Fergie has ridden roughshod over PL clubs for years - poaching, tapping up and using their wealth for years when they had it. Then Chelsea came along with their money and the United pout was on - didn't have things their own way anymore. Football has NO integrity - none! United sold out to an American who has run them into the ground - not a good business move but that's greed for you. They have had no loyalty to their fans over the years either. Wake up will ya. Why TF did their loyal fans take to wearing green and yellow scarves?

Come on Jayo, this is a Man United fan we are dealing with, they are well able to criticise other clubs but Auld Whiskey nose is sarcosanct....It really does make me laugh when you hear them giving out about teams buying the league or that Chelsea and now City have footballl ruined.....United were buying league titles all through the 1990's but of course this is never mentioned by them...

Puke. Where did United get the money to buy the league through the 90's?? United never had a Sheik Mansour or an Abramovic. Money was generated by United, not handed to them. Of course when that is pointed out to Fergie's critics they pass it off, doesn't matter.. To my mind, using your money and power in any business is perfectly natural, but there us a huge difference in building a club into a position to do this and a small club suddenly being handed a bottomless purse. The League obviously agrees with this and that's why they're bringing in the Fair Play Spending Rules.

Jayo I said in my post Professional Soccer was an obscene business but if you can't see that City have brought the PL to a new low with some of their actions then you just don't want to see it.
I don't see your point about the Green and Yellow. The Glazers bought out United in a takeover while it was a public trading company, a move the fans protested against from the beginning?

City a small club???? Are Liverpool a small club? Look at English football history and see who the big clubs were.

Stupid United fans - just pissed off that some Sugar Daddy did not buy the club - instead the Glazers ruined it - ho ho ho! If Abramovich or Mansour wanted to buy United would the fans have protested?? Would they fook! If some billionaire wants to buy it tomorrow would the fans protest? Would they fook! If they then started throwing the money at players would the fans protest? Would they fook. Off the high horse there JS ...

What are these new lows that City have brought out of interest?????

I was in the pub last night and they were showing a non league game with the sound turned down.

someone said it was FC United playing, and the number 10 needs to stay out of the pub. Trying to look like Maradona before the operation, but not playing like him.

It was a poor standard but at least both teams showed loads of running and such, sometimes missing in the premiership.

the team in blue got an equaliser near the end but it looked like a hand ball, climbing on the defender and off side. Still, for non league the ref did ok, apart from one wild reckless tackle by a winger from FC United which should have been a straight red. The player looked fairly old so maybe the ref was being unduly lenient.

The Puke wrote:What are these new lows that City have brought out of interest?????

Providing an indoor booking office to keep fans out of the Manchester rain. And heated seats for the fans for winter.

They also built a new wing to the kid's hospital, redeveloped the area around the stadium, and have just bought large tracts of Openshaw to redevelop this deprived area.

Shocking indeed.

patrique wrote:

The Puke wrote:What are these new lows that City have brought out of interest?????

Providing an indoor booking office to keep fans out of the Manchester rain. And heated seats for the fans for winter.

They also built a new wing to the kid's hospital, redeveloped the area around the stadium, and have just bought large tracts of Openshaw to redevelop this deprived area.

Shocking indeed.

that is sickening....they should be fcuked out of the league post haste.....Next thing Mancini will be getting his son a gig there as agent and paying him way over the odds or Vincent Kompany will be conveniently forgetting to turn up for his manditory drug test....

The Puke wrote:that is sickening....they should be fcuked out of the league post haste.....Next thing Mancini will be getting his son a gig there as agent and paying him way over the odds or Vincent Kompany will be conveniently forgetting to turn up for his manditory drug test....

And then Mancini will start bullying refs and not giving interviews to the BBC and then the ticket prices (for the loyal fans) will go through the roof. One of the younger players may even be caught out with some granny. God fordbid they decide not to bother their arses with the FA Cup .... new lows indeed ...

Jayo Cluxton wrote:City a small club???? Are Liverpool a small club? Look at English football history and see who the big clubs were.

Stupid United fans - just pissed off that some Sugar Daddy did not buy the club - instead the Glazers ruined it - ho ho ho! If Abramovich or Mansour wanted to buy United would the fans have protested?? Would they fook! If some billionaire wants to buy it tomorrow would the fans protest? Would they fook! If they then started throwing the money at players would the fans protest? Would they fook. Off the high horse there JS ...

City a big club?! C'mon Jayo, it's a term open to interpretation but I don't know how you'd have City down as a big club in the recent or not so recent past. Champions League is where the big teams play, City haven't even had a sniff of the CL in it's current format, until now.

Glazers ruined United!? In the 5 years since they took over United appeared in 2 Champions League Finals and they are currently at the top of the League, albeit with a drop in standard this year.
If some Billionaire took over United and bought out the debt they wouldn't need to invest one single penny more, United's profits would more than cover the cost of any transfers needed to keep the club at the top. That's the difference Jayo.. United don't need a sugar Daddy to succeed and never did. Dismiss that fact and call it irrelevant until you are sky blue in the face but it won't make it any less of a fact.

Jonsmith wrote:City a big club?! C'mon Jayo, it's a term open to interpretation but I don't know how you'd have City down as a big club in the recent or not so recent past. Champions League is where the big teams play, City haven't even had a sniff of the CL in it's current format, until now.

Glazers ruined United!? In the 5 years since they took over United appeared in 2 Champions League Finals and they are currently at the top of the League, albeit with a drop in standard this year.
If some Billionaire took over United and bought out the debt they wouldn't need to invest one single penny more, United's profits would more than cover the cost of any transfers needed to keep the club at the top. That's the difference Jayo.. United don't need a sugar Daddy to succeed and never did. Dismiss that fact and call it irrelevant until you are sky blue in the face but it won't make it any less of a fact.

Interpretation is right. United didn't win a title for 26 years until 1993 and before that went 41 years without a title - or almost half the century. (So they won no league for more than 3/4s of the 1900s! So what makes them a big club now? Is it since the Champions (Joke - 1st to 4th) League? Liverpool won 11 titles and 4 European Cups (when it was for Champions!!) in the period United won fook all! Champions League makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. But thats alright with you? An elite club money spinner that generates huge wealth for the clubs involved and gives poor tossers like Wolves and West ham no chance - and militates against their financial position even further. Whats the answer for these clubs? Sell more hats and scarves is it?

So the way you see it is if that the club with the biggest merchandising in the world are entitled to be the biggest club and buy the best players etc?

Jayo Cluxton wrote:

The Puke wrote:that is sickening....they should be fcuked out of the league post haste.....Next thing Mancini will be getting his son a gig there as agent and paying him way over the odds or Vincent Kompany will be conveniently forgetting to turn up for his manditory drug test....

And then Mancini will start bullying refs and not giving interviews to the BBC and then the ticket prices (for the loyal fans) will go through the roof. One of the younger players may even be caught out with some granny. God fordbid they decide not to bother their arses with the FA Cup .... new lows indeed ...

Ooh Fergie the Big bully giving out about referees and whatnot.. Next thing he'll be tripping them up and taking their lunch money. Someone stand that man in the naughty corner!
As for the refusal to talk to the BBC, he still talks to Sky lads so you can watch his nuggets of wisdom on there.
Heated seats are a great idea though, hopefully they heat them for the list of former Premiership top players rotting on the bench. And the warmth might soothe Tevez after his substitution fits so he doesn't punch any of his young team mates in the face when they question him.
He misses his family though the poor mite. When Mancini gave them a few days off he rushed straight back to..... Tenerife..

patrique wrote:

Jonsmith wrote:

patrique wrote:Mancini bought Johnson, Balotelli, Boateng, Kolarov, Yaya, Silva and Milner. He got Vierra for nowt.
ALL of the above have been a success to some extent. Nonehave been failures.
They need shut of santa Cruz, bellamy, Wright Philips, Bridges, and maybe even Lescott, but maybe he deserves more time.
They are likely to sign Dzeko in January which gives them an aerial option at home (can't get much better away) when teams sit back with a mass defence.
Mancini has had this team for 20 games, his team. They are now top of the league.
Can't get much better than that. The object is come in the top 4. He has been in the top 4 all season.
What more can he do? Apart from maybe win a meaningless trophy like the FA cup after 4 years, or the league after 7.
Then he would be a legend, if other comparators are anything to go on.

City have spent more in the past 2 years than most other English Clubs have in their history. Being in the top 4 is the absolute minimum expected from them. Being only 1 point ahead of a United side "in turmoil" having played 3 more games would have to be considered a disappointment. Maybe not for City fans getting dizzy from being so high in the table but certainly for Sheik and his expensive game of Fantasy Football.

In the last 150m years Preston North end have spent..........,

and it brought them great unrivalled success.

mancini has spent 117 million. Much less than most managers such as Redknapp, ferguson, Hughes, Benitez and Martin O'Neill.

mancini we were discussing, apparently under fire, according to Boc.

that was posted with a hint of sarcasm P which obviously you missed, it was posted after yet another defeat suffered by City against a club all their millionaires should be beating easily if we were to listen to everything you say about them. The truth is i couldnt give two flying f**ks about City Mancini or any other premiership club manager or player.

For years i followed Man United but now i rarely bother, money has taken over greed is rife and it doesnt make for much entertainment - aside from United Arsenal and Spurs there isnt another team in the premiership you could watch.

Boc,

EVERY team in the Premiership is composed of MILLIONAIRES.

why should one lot of millionaires beat another lot?

At least the City players are not paying £200 for twenty Marlboro.

Jayo Cluxton wrote:

The Puke wrote:that is sickening....they should be fcuked out of the league post haste.....Next thing Mancini will be getting his son a gig there as agent and paying him way over the odds or Vincent Kompany will be conveniently forgetting to turn up for his manditory drug test....

And then Mancini will start bullying refs and not giving interviews to the BBC and then the ticket prices (for the loyal fans) will go through the roof. One of the younger players may even be caught out with some granny. God fordbid they decide not to bother their arses with the FA Cup .... new lows indeed ...

I blame the Sheik.

Imagine putting money into a club, instead of draining it to pay for say....shopping malls in the USA?

patrique wrote:Boc,

EVERY team in the Premiership is composed of MILLIONAIRES.

why should one lot of millionaires beat another lot?

At least the City players are not paying £200 for twenty Marlboro.

every team may have its millionaires P but in Citys case they are ALL millionaires even the third choice keeper is one!!!

WTF has the price of 20 Marlboro got to do with anything

sums up soccer when you start talking about a bunch of overpriced fags