Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,134
- Location
- Shepley
You're right, he baits a lot but at least he spends some of the time talking about his own team...
-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
Manchester United - decline?
- Thread starter sandy10
- Start date
You're right, he baits a lot but at least he spends some of the time talking about his own team...
What's been seven times?
We talking about United retaining the title, or referring to Man City retaining the title?
My original comment was saying it will be harder for City to retain the title, as only one club has done in the past(Chelsea in 05/06) apart from United
Well its still a reasonable statistic that in 20 seasons, only one club has retained the title (on a single occasion)
If the EPL was only 7 or 8 years old, then it would be pretty pointless admittedly
What ?
Ahh, I see. Twenty years is a far more acceptable completely arbitrary number than seven or eight. That makes perfect sense.
At least three other clubs have held the title, at least one of those multiple times, yet only one has retained it on a single occasion.
Of course the period that the EPL has been played makes a difference, I thought it would be pretty obvious as to why........(the odds massively decrease that any other club should be able to retain the trophy)
Are you TRYING to make things difficult, surely its blatantly obvious?
Why do you keep saying one club? It's two, for a start. 
Secondly, I'm saying this is all completely arbitrary because IT'S ALL COMPLETELY ARBITRARY. That the Premier League has been retained by its previous winner seven times in the last twenty years has absolutely no bearing on whether Manchester City will win the title next season.
Never mind me not grasping the blatantly obvious, how are you not doing it?
EDIT: Oh I see why you keep saying one club. Because you genuinely seem to believe that there's a special rule that the Premier League invented that says only Manchester United are allowed to win it a lot? That's why you've managed it? Not the skill or ability of your team or manager? Of course!
Secondly, I'm saying this is all completely arbitrary because IT'S ALL COMPLETELY ARBITRARY. That the Premier League has been retained by its previous winner seven times in the last twenty years has absolutely no bearing on whether Manchester City will win the title next season.
Never mind me not grasping the blatantly obvious, how are you not doing it?
EDIT: Oh I see why you keep saying one club. Because you genuinely seem to believe that there's a special rule that the Premier League invented that says only Manchester United are allowed to win it a lot? That's why you've managed it? Not the skill or ability of your team or manager? Of course!
It's irrelevant when the PL started to be honest, it could still be called the old league 1 today and the fact would still remain the same and that's that over the last 20 years other than Man Utd Chelsea are the only side to ever manage to win back to back league titles and they did it once. Man Utd have retained it 6 times. That's proof that teams find it a lot harder to retain a league title than win a single one.
All that being said if ever there was a club with the finances available to give themselves the best possible chance of retaining a league title then City is certainly that club.
Last edited:
Exactly, at least someone gets it.
The amount of times teams have retained the title in the last 20 years has absolutely no bearing on whether City will do it next season. I mean, no-one would ever have said "Well, they haven't won the title in 44 years, that means they've no chance" this season, would they? Because it completely ignores the fact that their team was good enough to do it.
Likewise deciding that only the last twenty years count, and not the twenty (or 104) years before that, is equally meaningless.
and its equally meaningless that you ignore Chelsea's investments - which were just as mind-numbing when they spent loads (well even now they are spending loads, it just so happens to be on sacking/hiring managers instead of players lol)
It could even be argued that in the early 90's the amounts Blackburn spent were enormous for that time (although of course they look tiny now)
As far as I know it is only one OTHER club that have kept the EPL - Chelsea (05/06 if my memory doesnt fail me) as well as a few years later, Arsenal have won it a handful of times but all were non- consecutive, Blackburn only won it once,
Even looking at the Billions each owner has makes little difference, so imo it is meaningless if you ignore Chelsea's chances at retaining the title (1 out of 3 chances to do it)
Last edited:
They lost the title with 89 points and on goal difference against supposedly a vastly superior side. I think some perspective is needed here....
Their weakness without a doubt is their CM position so I think some money needs to be spent there and next season should have all their CBs back so they will challenge again. The way some people talk about Man Utd you would think City just won the title by 15 points or something! They kinda lost their bottle which is unlike them really but they have relied too much on Scholes and they have to address that immediately IMO
Their weakness without a doubt is their CM position so I think some money needs to be spent there and next season should have all their CBs back so they will challenge again. The way some people talk about Man Utd you would think City just won the title by 15 points or something! They kinda lost their bottle which is unlike them really but they have relied too much on Scholes and they have to address that immediately IMO
The only consistently top 4 team not spending loads is arsenal, I don't know why manyoo fans keep referring to money. If they hadn't had the money to spend over the past two decades they wouldn't have had the success they have.
It's hypocritical to say the least that city bought the league.
They have, spent over 500mil over 4years.
Real test will be next season, Will they be able to win it again...................
Can you fashion that into something resembling a response please?
You do have to sympathise with Man Utd, they can only afford £30m squad players, I do not know how they cope.
No it's not and I'm amazed how so many people can keep coming up with the same argument. Man Utd have at no point in their history purchased players because of a cash injection from a billionaire owner, every player we've ever purchased has been paid by the revenue the club brings in.
Now I don't have a problem with clubs getting these sugar daddy's because its a sign of the times I do however have a problem with those that seem to forget that the likes of City and Chelsea would be nowhere without their billionaire owners.
I also have a problem with those that think comparing the amount our squad (accumulated over the past 8 years) is comparable with City (who have accumulated their squad over the past 3)
Yes we may still be able to pay bigger transfer fees and wages than the likes of Arsenal but that's due to the club bringing in more money and having a bigger global pull