It’s hilarious seeing it. I hate city dominating but the are literally doing what United have done for 20 years under Sir Alex… Buy the best players and dominate the league.
And Liverpool before that, Chelsea after it, and so on and so forth.
Shankly might have picked the players back in the 60’s but it was Eric Sawyer who arranged all the financing. In other words, they needed money to build the team and sign the best players.
Go back far enough and once the wage cap was lifted every team used money to buy success. Some also tried and failed.
Also in Liverpool (the city)back in the day the biggest team were 100% Everton. Once Liverpool became successful (under Shankly)those percentages began to change. In other words, there were plastic success chasing glory hunters even back in those days.
Also in Liverpool (the city)back in the day the biggest team were 100% Everton. Once Liverpool became successful (under Shankly)those percentages began to change. In other words, there were plastic success chasing glory hunters even back in those days.
I know what you’re saying but that is a really modern way of looking at it. This is forgetting a significant thing in the way football fans behaved in the 50s and 60s, at least in Liverpool, can’t speak for other places obviously, but it was extremely common for people to ‘support’ both clubs. You had your preferred chosen side of course but it was far from unusual for people to attend the match of whoever was at home that week, Everton or Liverpool.
I think people are more angry about where the money comes from (which wasn’t an issue when Liverpool and United dominated respectively) and the fact that regardless of spending a lot of money, there is growing evidence that City have been ignoring the existing financial rules for years anyway
Again, you’re not wrong. Where the money comes from is a valid, but in my opinion, separate argument from the money ruins football thing. As for the breaches, I agree, the rules may have been brought in by the current elite to limit competition or you may disagree with that. It’s irrelevant if the rules were in place and broken there should be punishments.
It’s hilarious seeing it. I hate city dominating but the are literally doing what United have done for 20 years under Sir Alex… Buy the best players and dominate the league.
And Liverpool before that, Chelsea after it, and so on and so forth.
Shankly might have picked the players back in the 60’s but it was Eric Sawyer who arranged all the financing. In other words, they needed money to build the team and sign the best players.
Go back far enough and once the wage cap was lifted every team used money to buy success. Some also tried and failed.
Also in Liverpool (the city)back in the day the biggest team were 100% Everton. Once Liverpool became successful (under Shankly)those percentages began to change. In other words, there were plastic success chasing glory hunters even back in those days.
No one will ever admit this though.
I know what you’re saying but that is a really modern way of looking at it. This is forgetting a significant thing in the way football fans behaved in the 50s and 60s, at least in Liverpool, can’t speak for other places obviously, but it was extremely common for people to ‘support’ both clubs. You had your preferred chosen side of course but it was far from unusual for people to attend the match of whoever was at home that week, Everton or Liverpool.
I think people are more angry about where the money comes from (which wasn’t an issue when Liverpool and United dominated respectively) and the fact that regardless of spending a lot of money, there is growing evidence that City have been ignoring the existing financial rules for years anyway
Again, you’re not wrong. Where the money comes from is a valid, but in my opinion, separate argument from the money ruins football thing. As for the breaches, I agree, the rules may have been brought in by the current elite to limit competition or you may disagree with that. It’s irrelevant if the rules were in place and broken there should be punishments.
difference is neither club had a unethical, backwards state backing them for non sporting reasons