Champions League 2022/23

[accies1874]

On 19/05/2023 at 01:39, Satoshi said:

Eh? Couldn't care less about Grealish tbh.

 

6 hours ago, Satoshi said:

Yeah so he had a shocker of a first season and an ok second season when his output is still fairly average and no where near the best in the team? Seems a fairly accurate assessment.

He still isn't a regular starter for England, struggling behind world class attacking players like, er, Mason Mount and Raheem Sterling.

Surprised you picked out Watkins and McGinn who are both having great seasons and are excellent performers at this level. Both have probably benefited from selfish Grealish leaving.

He's a bit of a strange footballer really, burst onto the scene with great fanfare and Jack Charlton comparisons. Had two inconsistent seasons in the premier league, the latter resulting in relegation, followed by three seasons in the championship (with fairly average attacking numbers). His best goalscoring season, by far, was on Villas return to the premier league where he managed 8 league goals.

This isn't the career path of a superstar and it's a bit of a surprise it led to a £100m deal (after city failed to get Kane). He's now being praised for being tactically disciplined whilst still lacking any great attacking numbers? All a bit weird.

Sure pretty much everyone at Man City would have far rather signed Kvaratskhelia for 1/10 of the price, no doubt he looks a far better player.

Grealish loves a night out and was a regular at the Benjamin Mendy parties, wouldn't be a big surprise if his peak isn't that long.

But Walker has been a total radge throughout his career (Inc recent public flashing whilst drunk) and he has managed to keep playing at a high level well into his 30s so who knows.

hmmm

[Bairnardo]

3 hours ago, throbber said:

He isn’t bald behind belief, he actually has a bit of hair left but a massive bald patch so he shaves his head for it to look uniform. Bald beyond belief would be Colina the Italian ref. Or Gail Porter.

Who made you the judge of credible baldness?

[throbber]

25 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Who made you the judge of credible baldness?

Well I can’t just see him getting called incredibly bald when he clearly shaves a lot of his head. I’ve seen balder.

[Satoshi]

2 hours ago, accies1874 said:

 

hmmm

I commented because someone said they only like him as a player because they (wrongly) thought I didn't like him.

I have nothing against him.

He's an average-good player at a top side. Like many before and many after him.

No doubt he wasn't worth what they spent on him, but that's not on him.

[Derry Alli]

Grealish is 'average'

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

11 hours ago, Satoshi said:

Yeah so he had a shocker of a first season and an ok second season when his output is still fairly average and no where near the best in the team? Seems a fairly accurate assessment.

He still isn't a regular starter for England, struggling behind world class attacking players like, er, Mason Mount and Raheem Sterling.

Surprised you picked out Watkins and McGinn who are both having great seasons and are excellent performers at this level. Both have probably benefited from selfish Grealish leaving.

He's a bit of a strange footballer really, burst onto the scene with great fanfare and Jack Charlton comparisons. Had two inconsistent seasons in the premier league, the latter resulting in relegation, followed by three seasons in the championship (with fairly average attacking numbers). His best goalscoring season, by far, was on Villas return to the premier league where he managed 8 league goals.

This isn't the career path of a superstar and it's a bit of a surprise it led to a £100m deal (after city failed to get Kane). He's now being praised for being tactically disciplined whilst still lacking any great attacking numbers? All a bit weird.

Sure pretty much everyone at Man City would have far rather signed Kvaratskhelia for 1/10 of the price, no doubt he looks a far better player.

Grealish loves a night out and was a regular at the Benjamin Mendy parties, wouldn't be a big surprise if his peak isn't that long.

But Walker has been a total radge throughout his career (Inc recent public flashing whilst drunk) and he has managed to keep playing at a high level well into his 30s so who knows.

Just the language you use and the way you constantly ramble on about him is enough evidence to show me you have a strange bias against him. Apparently he’s just an ‘average-good’ player but Watkins and McGinn are ‘excellent performers’. The reason I picked those two players was because I chose the midfielder and forward who had played the most games for Villa in the season before Grealish left, in order to contrast them with the quality of KDB & Haaland. It’s night and day, really.

Man City are pushing for a potential treble this season with Grealish as a key player, so I’m not sure anyone will be overly bothered they didn’t sign Kvaratskhelia instead. They could have both if they wanted.

[Satoshi]

1 hour ago, Bonksy+HisChristianParade said:

Just the language you use and the way you constantly ramble on about him is enough evidence to show me you have a strange bias against him. Apparently he’s just an ‘average-good’ player but Watkins and McGinn are ‘excellent performers’. The reason I picked those two players was because I chose the midfielder and forward who had played the most games for Villa in the season before Grealish left, in order to contrast them with the quality of KDB & Haaland. It’s night and day, really.

Man City are pushing for a potential treble this season with Grealish as a key player, so I’m not sure anyone will be overly bothered they didn’t sign Kvaratskhelia instead. They could have both if they wanted.

Probably can't have both now given they are deeply mired in financial misconduct.

Grealish is a better player than McGinn or Watkins, he's an average-good player in the context of the City side he is in. McGinn and Watkins are excellent performers relative to the team they are in.

But don't take my word for it, Grealishs stats say it all. No strange bias against him for me, a strange bias for him for you. You do wear his Pjs after all.

Thankfully, for both of us, the figures don't really lie. Grealish is fine. There are far better Man City players. There are quite a few far better players in his position outside of Man City too.

[milhouse]

On 19/05/2023 at 09:16, VincentGuerin said:

 

And there's your sports-washing right there.

City are vile.

Their fans love to make the 'other teams spend money too' and you can't talk to a City fan for more than thirty seconds without them referring to 'net-spend'.

However, this is disingenuous in the extreme. City's wealth allows them to spend massively on infrastructure. It allows them to keep players. Pretty much any other cub you name, including fucking Barcelona, have lost players against their will. City haven't. The wealth they have (which is essentially limitless) allows them to plan years ahead. By this point you'd expect them to have a well-managed net-spend. That's what happens when you've had a decade of unlimited funds to develop your fitba club (project).

That wealth also allows them to cheat the regulations and just lawyer their way out of it.

Add in that they play in a very strong league (an advantage they have over PSG) and you have the perfect scenario to build an amazing team. It's not really surprising that City have succeeded where PSG haven't.

Of course they're very good. But f**k them and all who sail in them. They are utter, utter c***s.

Disagree. I've worked with a number of Man City fans, all who genuinely supported them at Maine Rd when they were dreadful. I don't begrudge them the current state of things at all. Man City were always unfashionable, like my own team, PTFC, but with a dedicated fanbase, and if someone wanted to pump billions into Thistle I'd be nothing other than delighted. By contrast, Man Utd were, and still are, the glory-hunters team. I still remember kids in Glasgow running around in Man Utd tops in the 90s thinking they were Cantona never having set foot in Manchester. 

Leicester-style fairy tales are a complete anomaly. If you want to win things repeatedly, you need to have the most money. It's never been different. Man City fans are just fortunate it's their club.

[Iminavest]

On 19/05/2023 at 10:24, Derry Alli said:

Guardiola, coming home from Turkey with yet another Champions League winners medal.

Winning the champions league and joining an Oasis reunion in the same summer, is there anything he can't do?

[VincentGuerin]

On 20/05/2023 at 16:37, milhouse said:

Disagree. I've worked with a number of Man City fans, all who genuinely supported them at Maine Rd when they were dreadful. I don't begrudge them the current state of things at all. Man City were always unfashionable, like my own team, PTFC, but with a dedicated fanbase, and if someone wanted to pump billions into Thistle I'd be nothing other than delighted. By contrast, Man Utd were, and still are, the glory-hunters team. I still remember kids in Glasgow running around in Man Utd tops in the 90s thinking they were Cantona never having set foot in Manchester. 

Leicester-style fairy tales are a complete anomaly. If you want to win things repeatedly, you need to have the most money. It's never been different. Man City fans are just fortunate it's their club.

I mean, this is just another example of why sports-washing works. This isn't a rebuttal to anything I've objected to.

The fact that these folk are genuine City fans is neither here nor there. The point is that their club has been hijacked as a PR tool by a dreadful regime and they are just going along with it. Not to mention the awful impact they're having on the game itself. They're driving a truck through the rules and the notion of regulation in the sport.

Your post backs mine up if anything. It's sad that a club can be hijacked like this. And it's equally sad, if understandable, that the fans are seduced by the ill-gotten success.

City are moral wronguns and they are damaging for the sport. All the talk of genuine fans or how they're really such a fantastic team or whatever is the whole fucking point of sportswashing. That's how and why it works.

Edited May 21, 2023 by VincentGuerin

[Scary Bear]

17 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I mean, this is just another example of why sports-washing works. This isn't a rebuttal to anything I've objected to.

The fact that these folk are genuine City fans is neither here nor there. The point is that their club has been hijacked as a PR tool by a dreadful regime and they are just going along with it. Not to mention the awful impact they're having on the game itself. They're driving a truck through the rules and the notion of regulation in the sport.

Your post backs mine up if anything. It's sad that a club can be hijacked like this. And it's equally sad, if understandable, that the fans are seduced by the ill-gotten success.

City are moral wronguns and they are damaging for the sport. All the talk of genuine fans or how they're really such a fantastic team or whatever is the whole fucking point of sportswashing. That's how and why it works.

How are City damaging for the sport? If anything they are good for the sport as they play outstanding football. The Premiership spunk money to the point that people just roll their eyes when they hear FFP mentioned. It’s nonsense. The rich clubs are always going to spunk money. How much did Chelsea spunk on players at that last window? They don’t even have anything to show for it. Yet, they are not falling foul of any rules. It’s a load of bollocks. 

[VincentGuerin]

8 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

How are City damaging for the sport? If anything they are good for the sport as they play outstanding football. The Premiership spunk money to the point that people just roll their eyes when they hear FFP mentioned. It’s nonsense. The rich clubs are always going to spunk money. How much did Chelsea spunk on players at that last window? They don’t even have anything to show for it. Yet, they are not falling foul of any rules. It’s a load of bollocks. 

I don't know where to start.

This is like a message from the City Group PR Dept.

[VincentGuerin]

16 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

How are City damaging for the sport? If anything they are good for the sport as they play outstanding football. The Premiership spunk money to the point that people just roll their eyes when they hear FFP mentioned. It’s nonsense. The rich clubs are always going to spunk money. How much did Chelsea spunk on players at that last window? They don’t even have anything to show for it. Yet, they are not falling foul of any rules. It’s a load of bollocks. 

Ok, you put in some effort to your post, so I'll give you a proper answer as I see it. And 'Chelsea are bad too' is absolutely true, and some of these points would also apply to them, but it is not an argument against City being dreadful for the sport.

1) They are trying to single-handedly destroy regulation in fitba. They weaseled out of the UEFA charges through time-barring and act like they were cleared on all counts. They weren't. This isn't just about City. This is about the concept of financial regulation in the sport. If City can simply drive an expensive truck of lawyers through the notion that football can be regulated, the knock on effects down the chain will be a disaster for football. The fact that the 'old' clubs use FFP as a form of protectionism does not mean the game doesn't need it.

1b) - To get round FFP Chelsea have had to offer players nine-year contracts etc to rely on amortisation. I.e. take massive risks and expose themselves down the line. Other clubs, even top-level ones, have had to sell players to balance the FFP books or curb spending. City just don't give a f**k, and once those rules are broken, the game will feel it very quickly. And it won't be City who suffer.

2) They are cheats. This is beyond reasonable doubt to anyone who follows what they do and has functioning critical faculties. They inflate sponsorship deals, they hide their true spending (see Mancini), and they bend over backwards to avoid complying with any kind of financial regulation or oversight. There's a reason for that. They sign up for rules, knowingly break them, then just lawyer their way out of it.

3) The multi-club model infects other countries and is inherently dishonest and skews the game. See how they worked the Aaron Mooy transfer and how that was accounted. Anyone who wants fitba to be run that way is an utter wrongun. Not to mention the stock-piling of players at multi-clubs and indeed at City itself. Players who would be contributing to the game and other clubs if not for the revenue of a dreadful state. There's been a rumour for a while that they're looking at taking on a Scottish club to their stable. Wait and see how that pans out.

4) They are a club with no financial consequences. Talk of net spend etc completely misses the point with City. They have essentially unlimited wealth, which means the usual pressures applied to a fitba club don't affect them. They have never lost a player against their will, and they will never do so for financial reasons. They can spend limitlessly on club infrastructure in a way that allows their net spend to stay relatively low. Success doesn't just come from spending on the pitch. City are backed by a fucking country, and the unfair sporting advantage of this is blatantly obvious. But the fact that they have this incredible team is not a justification for what they do, it is why they do it and it is sad that so many people are seduced by it.

5) The regime they get this money from are complete wronguns, and City are being used to launder their international reputation. How any fitba supporter could see this as anything other than an utter affront to the game is beyond me. Other owners are bad too, but that doesn't get City off the hook. The fucking Saudi government admires this so much that they're copying it. Is this what you want football to be?

City are both a cause of problems in the game and a symptom of wider problems in the game. I find it amazing that any fan of Scottish football can look at them and think they're a good thing.

[Crawford Bridge]

@VincentGuerin

What's your opinion of Ukio Bankas? 

[Frosty]

On 20/05/2023 at 03:08, Satoshi said:

He's a bit of a strange footballer really, burst onto the scene with great fanfare and Jack Charlton comparisons

Compared to Jack Charlton? By who? Helen Keller?

Comparing Mark Yardley to Pele would be a better comparison!

[VincentGuerin]

35 minutes ago, Crawford Bridge said:

@VincentGuerin

What's your opinion of Ukio Bankas? 

Did it not go bust?

Are you one of these lads completely incapable of any discussion without 'what about...?'

[Crawford Bridge]

5 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Did it not go bust?

Are you one of these lads completely incapable of any discussion without 'what about...?'

It was a genuine question. 

Fair enough though, you don't want to undermine your own sanctimonious position. 

[VincentGuerin]

21 minutes ago, Crawford Bridge said:

It was a genuine question. 

Fair enough though, you don't want to undermine your own sanctimonious position. 

I mean, if you think UKIO Bankas, last heard of about a decade ago, are a threat to fitba, I'd love to hear your working.

Things like this are exactly what City's owners rely on. What about Chelsea. What about Vlad. What about Portsmouth. What about net spend. This desire to see hypocrisy and shout it down as the worst evil is a very unhealthy thing used by baddies to distract from criticism.

Hypocrisy isn't worse than Man City's owners.

Ask me any question you want about Vlad rather than just being a wee lassie about it.

[velo army]

I don't see how it's sanctimonious to rail against Man City and what they're doing. It's big picture thinking. Too many folk just shrug their shoulders as if hyper capitalism in football is inevitable and not so bad.

Football as we know it is a frog being slowly boiled alive. 

VAR came in not because of sporting integrity, but to reduce the element of chance in games. Same with the 5 subs. It's there to ensure that investment, rather than fortune, is the determiner of outcomes.

Clubs able to own huge stables of "lesser" clubs robs those clubs of their history and identity. 

International football is currently the only thing really keeping me invested in football (the Jags doing well atm is nice, but we're a yo-yo club, so that's got a shelf life), the club game, especially at the elite level, is a scuddy emperor whose clothes we're called to admire. 

VG is right here.

[eez-eh]

1 hour ago, VincentGuerin said:

Things like this are exactly what City's owners rely on. What about Chelsea. What about Vlad. What about Portsmouth. What about net spend. This desire to see hypocrisy and shout it down as the worst evil is a very unhealthy thing used by baddies to distract from criticism.

The classic internet discussion tactic to shut down an opinion that someone doesn’t like. Something bad is also happening somewhere else, so how dare you be passionate about something in particular without also calling out every other injustice in the world.