Since the Liverpool and Ipswich sides of the 70s and 80s, I cannot recall looking forward to seeing a team play as much as the current City side. Even more than us if that is possible!
Yes they have spent a shed load of money. But so have other teams - United have paid over £260m on just five players in the last two seasons and that doesn't even include what they have had to pay Zlatan! It is the culture that Guardiola has changed, one that is probably best summed up by the "sacking" of Joe Hart. I, for one, found it an extraordinary decision but who would argue with it now? Equally, look at what he's done with Stones, Otamendi and Sterling to improve them as footballers.
And you could never see Guardiola "parking the bus" unlike the hypocrite his Manchester counterpart is - who could forget Mourinho moaning about the opposition doing so when he was in charge at Chelsea?
But, more than all of that, it is Guardiola's ability to keep the squad seemingly content - Aguero an unused sub on Saturday and Jesus on the bench last night for example. The celebrations with the subs when City scored against Napoli was evidence enough of that.
Whisper it - but City could be the next Barcelona and the blueprint for all English Clubs to follow. As long as they keep Guardiola long enough for that style to become integrated into the Club's DNA that is.
I actually currently enjoy watching Spurs more than city at the moment when the trio up top are on it and with Son thrown into the mix they’re superb. Plus the fact Alli and Kane are English as well (false hope for World Cup).
I couldn't care less about watching Abu Dhabi City. One of the richest states in the world spends a record amount of money on players and staff and they win lots of games and improve international relations for a state with a shocking human rights record.
It's like watching Ramsay Bolton complete Championship Manager with the infinite funds cheat.
I couldn't care less about watching Abu Dhabi City. One of the richest states in the world spends a record amount of money on players and staff and they win lots of games and improve international relations for a state with a shocking human rights record.
It's like watching Ramsay Bolton complete Championship Manager with the infinite funds cheat.
Having spent time in Manchester it's amazing how little that means to the fans or the lack of awareness. They don't feel they've bought their success, rather it's now their rightful turn in the sun after the red shites have hogged the limelight for so long. Never mind the foreign money, their stadium was a gift and the city council have bent over backwards to pump as much money as they can to develop the area and transport links to the Emptihad.
I couldn't care less about watching Abu Dhabi City. One of the richest states in the world spends a record amount of money on players and staff and they win lots of games and improve international relations for a state with a shocking human rights record.
It's like watching Ramsay Bolton complete Championship Manager with the infinite funds cheat.
Agreed... Even when Girona beat Real Madrid the other day it felt tarnished by the fact they're the latest play thing in the UAE
Firstly I think that the money in football is ruining the pyramid and I hate it.
There is though a lack of recognition that buying “sucesss” is relative. Charltons third their status is to an extent bought when compared to say Yeovil or Torquay. We buy our status because we have enough money to do that. We feed off lower status clubs to get our squad because we can.
The big complaint over the many complaints is that RD won’t support sufficient expenditure to achieve a balanced squad and its true. We all are guilty of wanting that extra very good player to make the difference. Spend to make yourself more successful. Is that so very different to Man City spending because they can ?
How many on this forum would be really gutted if our new owner whoever and whenever that may be is intent on spending to get Charlton to the very top ?
I spoke to a ‘proper’ city fan recently who had been a fan long before the money rolled into town ( basically when they were rubbish).
He recommended a couple of books about Pep, (from amazon) which I’ve got and are reading, first one called Pep confidential, about his time at Bayern, gives you a bit of insight into his way of doing things, might get a copy for Karl Robinson..
How many on this forum would be really gutted if our new owner whoever and whenever that may be is intent on spending to get Charlton to the very top?
I'd never want it... I love supporting Charlton because other than our Belgian fuckwits there has been a proper connection between the club and its fans, that was disappear if we had some Shiekh taking over because it would attract the typical plastic fan who only supports the club because we're successful and able to attract the big players for them to watch - Knowing that I'm sitting next to someone who'll disappear off to the next club the moment it all ended.
Not to mention I read the comments boards on Football Articles and see the pathetic points scoring from the plastic fans of Man City | Man Utd | Chelsea | Spurs | Arsenal and would never want to endure being a part of that as you'd no doubt get that sort of idiotic fan coming on here making a mess of what is a great forum (We get it already with Crystal Palace and Millwall fans having a say on here already yet strangely respect them as they've the decency like us to support proper teams rather than jumping on the bandwagon that comes with success).
Dont get me wrong I'd love to see us do a Leicester (Yes I know their Thai owners are extremely rich themselves)
But in a strange way I'm happy to see us winning / drawing / losing randomly each week as it makes it more entertaining and much more enjoyable / satisfying when it does happen... I also think I'd eventually get bored with seeing us win nearly every single game - i.e. Its like when you win 5-0, the first few goals you really celebrate and go mental and then by the fifth goal there is barely any effort other than applauding the goalscorer!!
I fully understand the "I support a small club and am proud to do so" viewpoint. So do I and like many on here have done so for over 50 years including those days in the old 3rd tier with crowds of 5,000-6,000.
However, I don't get this thing about buying success vs playing exciting free flowing football - one doesn't necessarily follow the other. When we signed a certain former European Footballer Of The Year I don't think one person said that this was "buying success" - and had we been capable of keeping him I have no doubt that things in the longer run would have been better.
Chelsea were the first to "buy" the PL but their football wasn't anywhere near as exciting as the City version. As a result of Guardiola's clear out, City's net spend this season is just over £40m. Man United have spent £260m on just 5 players (Lukaku, Pogba, Matic, Mkitahryan and Lindelof) in the last two seasons but I would struggle to argue that their brand of football is as exciting as City's. Everton have spent £200m in the last two seasons and they are in the relegation zone!
Guardiola has changed their style and how he develops their players. Look at the confident defender that is Stones compared to last season. Watch how when Sterling comes on and makes a difference. These are English players who have become better ones under Guardiola and that has to be good for our international side.
Guardiola's legacy will ultimately be whether he can, as I've said this before, create a blueprint a la Barcelona. And this has to include bringing on the English youngsters such as Joel Latibeaudiere and Phil Folden in the same way that Spurs are doing with some of their youngsters. That is something Chelsea didn't do when they "bought" success as demonstrated by John Terry being the only home grown Englishman to start a Premier League game last season and why they didn't have a single English player starting on Saturday.
I spoke to a ‘proper’ city fan recently who had been a fan long before the money rolled into town ( basically when they were rubbish).
He recommended a couple of books about Pep, (from amazon) which I’ve got and are reading, first one called Pep confidential, about his time at Bayern, gives you a bit of insight into his way of doing things, might get a copy for Karl Robinson..
S'alright, he chored a copy from WH Smiths in Liverpool Street Station, hence the upturn in form. Typical bin dipper... well done Karlo!
As a football fan I would absolutely love it if a super rich buyer took over Charlton and brought top tier coaches and players to the Valley. As I see it, those fans who cherish their 'I support a small club playing shit football' self image always have the option of moving on to supporting Welling.
Mate of mine is from Manchester and a City supporter.
He's always despised United naturally as being a moneybags club that's bought their success.
Now City have a bit of cash and winning things he doesn't see anything wrong in that.
Said to him one day 'if only someone had put 1 billion pounds into Charlton then it could be us winning major trophies'.
'I'm not saying that the money hasn't helped' was his reply.
Not fucking much.
Haven't won much relatively speaking. Utd banked three trophies last season and City 0. Wouldn't be surprised if Utd out did them again in terms of silverware. Pepe's won nowt so far. I'm sure that will change with at least the Prem this season. But when he and Jose leave their respective clubs (and neither hang around too long) I would expect Mourinho to have bagged more trophies.
As a football fan I would absolutely love it if a super rich buyer took over Charlton and brought top tier coaches and players to the Valley. As I see it, those fans who cherish their 'I support a small club playing shit football' self image always have the option of moving on to supporting Welling.
Well it’s not quite as simple as that as you well know. All of us posting on this forum are like Charlton sticks of rock.
I do however agree that I’d be very happy if Doodle Von Shitloads wants us as a plaything.
They've won the Premiership a couple of times and the FA and League Cups since the money came in.
2008, so as I said, Haven't won much relatively speaking.
But I wasn't speaking relatively, just saying they''d won trophies since the cash has come in.
The point I was making is that my mate despised Man United for buying titles but doesn't see anything wrong in City doing likewise and I'm sure some of our fans would be the same.
Before I die I would like to see us win something major like the EPL or FA Cup or League Cup anything but checkatrade I would bask in that sunshine for a couple of years . So if anyone wants to dump 1 billion into CAFC please do so within the next 20!years or so
I'll never understand people who get upset about teams 'buying' the league. Every team has bought the league if they've won it. Blackburn did it, United did it, Arsenal did it, and then Chelsea and City came along to at least make the title race a little bit more interesting again. Eric Cantona, Cristiano Ronaldo and Jaap Stam didn't exactly grow up in the academy, Thierry Henry and Sylvain Wiltord weren't rough diamond free transfers and Blackburn broke transfer records in their sole Premier League title win. Money has always been a central part of winning the Premier League, be it via steel magnates in the 90s, or oil barons in the 00s. Man Utd were having money plowed into them as far back as 1910 and spent massively in the 60s when maximum wage caps were abolished. They spent £8m on transfers in 1989 which was an insane amount then and that re-established them fully. The only major difference is that City and Chelsea did theirs all at once, which rubs people up the wrong way. As a fan of a non-Premier League team though I enjoy seeing more of a title race and seeing better players in the league. We get to watch Sergio Aguero, David Silva and Kevin De Bruyne play instead of Darius Vassell, Richard Dunne and Sun Jihai. All I see us getting out of it is good football to watch on the telly in between our lot turning out against Rotherham and Shrewsbury. I'll happily watch shit-tier football if Charlton are involved but I'll never complain that the Premier League has got better teams to watch in recent years
I'll never understand people who get upset about teams 'buying' the league. Every team has bought the league if they've won it. Blackburn did it, United did it, Arsenal did it, and then Chelsea and City came along to at least make the title race a little bit more interesting again. Eric Cantona, Cristiano Ronaldo and Jaap Stam didn't exactly grow up in the academy, Thierry Henry and Sylvain Wiltord weren't rough diamond free transfers and Blackburn broke transfer records in their sole Premier League title win. Money has always been a central part of winning the Premier League, be it via steel magnates in the 90s, or oil barons in the 00s. Man Utd were having money plowed into them as far back as 1910 and spent massively in the 60s when maximum wage caps were abolished. They spent £8m on transfers in 1989 which was an insane amount then and that re-established them fully. The only major difference is that City and Chelsea did theirs all at once, which rubs people up the wrong way. As a fan of a non-Premier League team though I enjoy seeing more of a title race and seeing better players in the league. We get to watch Sergio Aguero, David Silva and Kevin De Bruyne play instead of Darius Vassell, Richard Dunne and Sun Jihai. All I see us getting out of it is good football to watch on the telly in between our lot turning out against Rotherham and Shrewsbury. I'll happily watch shit-tier football if Charlton are involved but I'll never complain that the Premier League has got better teams to watch in recent years
I'll never understand people who get upset about teams 'buying' the league. Every team has bought the league if they've won it. Blackburn did it, United did it, Arsenal did it, and then Chelsea and City came along to at least make the title race a little bit more interesting again. Eric Cantona, Cristiano Ronaldo and Jaap Stam didn't exactly grow up in the academy, Thierry Henry and Sylvain Wiltord weren't rough diamond free transfers and Blackburn broke transfer records in their sole Premier League title win. Money has always been a central part of winning the Premier League, be it via steel magnates in the 90s, or oil barons in the 00s. Man Utd were having money plowed into them as far back as 1910 and spent massively in the 60s when maximum wage caps were abolished. They spent £8m on transfers in 1989 which was an insane amount then and that re-established them fully. The only major difference is that City and Chelsea did theirs all at once, which rubs people up the wrong way. As a fan of a non-Premier League team though I enjoy seeing more of a title race and seeing better players in the league. We get to watch Sergio Aguero, David Silva and Kevin De Bruyne play instead of Darius Vassell, Richard Dunne and Sun Jihai. All I see us getting out of it is good football to watch on the telly in between our lot turning out against Rotherham and Shrewsbury. I'll happily watch shit-tier football if Charlton are involved but I'll never complain that the Premier League has got better teams to watch in recent years
Leicester ?
Who drove a coach and horses through the Championship FFP rules in order to buy promotion, even though the owners subsequently turned £100 million of the debt to them into equity before they faced a QPR type situation. In the promotion season, Leicester's wages alone were about 130% of turnover.
Difference for me is players who actually want to play for the team, for the badge. City's players talk up about how much Manchester is blue and all that nonsense but the second they don't get UCL football or the money runs out are they going to stick around for the badge?
Difference for me is players who actually want to play for the team, for the badge. City's players talk up about how much Manchester is blue and all that nonsense but the second they don't get UCL football or the money runs out are they going to stick around for the badge?
Dunno. Will Lukaku and Pogba? Probably not. Sanchez and Ozil want out of Arsenal now as it is, and you'll probably see an Eden Hazard-shaped hole in the door if Chelsea's money ever went. I think that's true of just about every team in the Premier League since Tony Hibbert's contract wasn't renewed.
Difference for me is players who actually want to play for the team, for the badge. City's players talk up about how much Manchester is blue and all that nonsense but the second they don't get UCL football or the money runs out are they going to stick around for the badge?
Dunno. Will Lukaku and Pogba? Probably not. Sanchez and Ozil want out of Arsenal now as it is, and you'll probably see an Eden Hazard-shaped hole in the door if Chelsea's money ever went. I think that's true of just about every team in the Premier League since Tony Hibbert's contract wasn't renewed.
They're a dying breed but that's thanks to foreign money. Shearer staying at Newcastle and Gerrard staying at Liverpool for example.
Difference for me is players who actually want to play for the team, for the badge. City's players talk up about how much Manchester is blue and all that nonsense but the second they don't get UCL football or the money runs out are they going to stick around for the badge?
Dunno. Will Lukaku and Pogba? Probably not. Sanchez and Ozil want out of Arsenal now as it is, and you'll probably see an Eden Hazard-shaped hole in the door if Chelsea's money ever went. I think that's true of just about every team in the Premier League since Tony Hibbert's contract wasn't renewed.
They're a dying breed but that's thanks to foreign money. Shearer staying at Newcastle and Gerrard staying at Liverpool for example.
But didn't they Gerrard resist a move despite foreign money? Gerrard was supposed to be the cherry on top of Roman's oil revolution, and apparently would have been if not for some alleged dodgy characters in Liverpool allegedly making some fairly serious threats if he did move (allegedly). I also heard that Shearer had agreed a move to United but he didn't want to upset Jack Walker at Blackburn who hated Utd. I don't know if foreign money is entirely to blame for players constantly moving. I'd lay that more at the door of the Sky TV money and the unfettered role of agents in the game post-Bosman. Every club has ridiculous amounts of money to throw around and every agent can get himself a fat fee just for shifting his player sideways from Stoke to West Brom. I remember the days when after a fee was agreed the next hurdle was convincing the player to join. Now it feels like the fee is the only hurdle for mid-level players; you're always going to get more money, your agent will push it to line his pockets, you're gone.
The other side of it I think is that clubs are more bastardy themselves. Managers rotate at an insane rate and that means that one coach's favourite won't be the next; van Gaal shuffled off Jonny Evans and Welbeck, neither of whom Ferguson would have sold, and both of whom Mourinho would have liked to have I imagine. Chelsea's youth prospects don't stand a chance when there's a new coach every few years who might not fancy them. Clubs will also quite happily shuffle off a player going through a bad spell or struggling to come back from injury because they know they can replace them. Football's just become a harsher business all round in recent years.
Comments
Yes they have spent a shed load of money. But so have other teams - United have paid over £260m on just five players in the last two seasons and that doesn't even include what they have had to pay Zlatan! It is the culture that Guardiola has changed, one that is probably best summed up by the "sacking" of Joe Hart. I, for one, found it an extraordinary decision but who would argue with it now? Equally, look at what he's done with Stones, Otamendi and Sterling to improve them as footballers.
And you could never see Guardiola "parking the bus" unlike the hypocrite his Manchester counterpart is - who could forget Mourinho moaning about the opposition doing so when he was in charge at Chelsea?
But, more than all of that, it is Guardiola's ability to keep the squad seemingly content - Aguero an unused sub on Saturday and Jesus on the bench last night for example. The celebrations with the subs when City scored against Napoli was evidence enough of that.
Whisper it - but City could be the next Barcelona and the blueprint for all English Clubs to follow. As long as they keep Guardiola long enough for that style to become integrated into the Club's DNA that is.
It's like watching Ramsay Bolton complete Championship Manager with the infinite funds cheat.
I'd rather support a lower league team who are not buying glory... Oh wait.. I do.
There is though a lack of recognition that buying “sucesss” is relative. Charltons third their status is to an extent bought when compared to say Yeovil or Torquay. We buy our status because we have enough money to do that. We feed off lower status clubs to get our squad because we can.
The big complaint over the many complaints is that RD won’t support sufficient expenditure to achieve a balanced squad and its true. We all are guilty of wanting that extra very good player to make the difference. Spend to make yourself more successful. Is that so very different to Man City spending because they can ?
How many on this forum would be really gutted if our new owner whoever and whenever that may be is intent on spending to get Charlton to the very top ?
He recommended a couple of books about Pep, (from amazon) which I’ve got and are reading, first one called Pep confidential, about his time at Bayern, gives you a bit of insight into his way of doing things, might get a copy for Karl Robinson..
Not to mention I read the comments boards on Football Articles and see the pathetic points scoring from the plastic fans of Man City | Man Utd | Chelsea | Spurs | Arsenal and would never want to endure being a part of that as you'd no doubt get that sort of idiotic fan coming on here making a mess of what is a great forum (We get it already with Crystal Palace and Millwall fans having a say on here already yet strangely respect them as they've the decency like us to support proper teams rather than jumping on the bandwagon that comes with success).
Dont get me wrong I'd love to see us do a Leicester (Yes I know their Thai owners are extremely rich themselves)
But in a strange way I'm happy to see us winning / drawing / losing randomly each week as it makes it more entertaining and much more enjoyable / satisfying when it does happen... I also think I'd eventually get bored with seeing us win nearly every single game - i.e. Its like when you win 5-0, the first few goals you really celebrate and go mental and then by the fifth goal there is barely any effort other than applauding the goalscorer!!
However, I don't get this thing about buying success vs playing exciting free flowing football - one doesn't necessarily follow the other. When we signed a certain former European Footballer Of The Year I don't think one person said that this was "buying success" - and had we been capable of keeping him I have no doubt that things in the longer run would have been better.
Chelsea were the first to "buy" the PL but their football wasn't anywhere near as exciting as the City version. As a result of Guardiola's clear out, City's net spend this season is just over £40m. Man United have spent £260m on just 5 players (Lukaku, Pogba, Matic, Mkitahryan and Lindelof) in the last two seasons but I would struggle to argue that their brand of football is as exciting as City's. Everton have spent £200m in the last two seasons and they are in the relegation zone!
Guardiola has changed their style and how he develops their players. Look at the confident defender that is Stones compared to last season. Watch how when Sterling comes on and makes a difference. These are English players who have become better ones under Guardiola and that has to be good for our international side.
Guardiola's legacy will ultimately be whether he can, as I've said this before, create a blueprint a la Barcelona. And this has to include bringing on the English youngsters such as Joel Latibeaudiere and Phil Folden in the same way that Spurs are doing with some of their youngsters. That is something Chelsea didn't do when they "bought" success as demonstrated by John Terry being the only home grown Englishman to start a Premier League game last season and why they didn't have a single English player starting on Saturday.
He's always despised United naturally as being a moneybags club that's bought their success.
Now City have a bit of cash and winning things he doesn't see anything wrong in that.
Said to him one day 'if only someone had put 1 billion pounds into Charlton then it could be us winning major trophies'.
'I'm not saying that the money hasn't helped' was his reply.
Not fucking much.
I do however agree that I’d be very happy if Doodle Von Shitloads wants us as a plaything.
The point I was making is that my mate despised Man United for buying titles but doesn't see anything wrong in City doing likewise and I'm sure some of our fans would be the same.
Leicester ?
The other side of it I think is that clubs are more bastardy themselves. Managers rotate at an insane rate and that means that one coach's favourite won't be the next; van Gaal shuffled off Jonny Evans and Welbeck, neither of whom Ferguson would have sold, and both of whom Mourinho would have liked to have I imagine. Chelsea's youth prospects don't stand a chance when there's a new coach every few years who might not fancy them. Clubs will also quite happily shuffle off a player going through a bad spell or struggling to come back from injury because they know they can replace them. Football's just become a harsher business all round in recent years.