I don't get why they are so hated by neutrals. The fact is if not for Chelsea and Manchester City, the past 22 years of Premier League football would've been nothing but Man United and Arsenal trading titles between each other (with MAYBE Liverpool winning 1 or 2 inbetween). England would've been a two-team league like Spain or (pre-Rangers collapse) Scotland.In fact that's what it already was between 1992 and 2004 with every title being won by either Man Utd or Arsenal, with the sole exception of 1994-95 being won by Blackburn (who immediately fell off afterwards). Is that really what people want?I get why fans of Arsenal, Man U, Liverpool etc hate Chelsea/City, but if you're a supporter of a club like Everton, Aston Villa, Crystal Palace etc why would you wish for a league where the red-shirted teams win everything every single year without competition? Especially when all of these clubs have significantly more beef with the redshirts than they do with either Chelsea or City.
>>154850230imagine thinking buying the league and cheating makes things better.both of these clubs should be expelled
>>154850256So you want England to be a non-competitive league like Spain or Scotland where the same 1 or 2 teams win every single year? That's what we were in the years after the establishment of the Premier League but before Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea.It's a simple fact that in the modern era it's totally impossible to consistently compete with the top revenue-producing clubs (Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barcelona, etc) without being bought by billionaires who are willing to invest enough to compete for titles year-in, year-out. Without that, you may get the odd random success like Blackburn where they snatch a singular title, but they'll inevitably fall-off straight afterwards and have all their best players stolen by the redshirts or by wealthy foreign clubs.
>>154850230Newcastle will win insh-aaaahahahahahhahaah
>>154850325united success then was down to the manager. since fergie left they've spent more than City or Chelsea and won no leagues whatsoever.
>>154850393It was initially down to Ferguson, yes. Man Utd hadn't won the league in 26 years before his first title in 1993. They were in danger of becoming yesterday's club just like Everton, Villa or Spurs did. But by striking gold by becoming the dominant team right at the inception of the Premier League when more money and more international attention was flowing into the English game than ever before, they became permanently entrenched as a top team.I personally don't think the post-2013 decline of Man Utd ever happens in a world where Man City and Chelsea were never bought out. Pep probably takes over after Fergie rather than Moyes.>>154850389They functionally cannot win, because the EPL brought the drawbridge up after Chelsea and City bought their way into winning titles. The rules are now set up in a way where a small or medium-sized club can never again become part of the elite. They can't do it organically, because even if they do have a good season (like Palace winning the FA Cup last year) their best players just get pilfered afterwards. And they can't do it with "oil money" because FFP now forbids that.Even traditional big clubs like Aston Villa are screwed because there isn't really a viable path anymore for them to break into the "big 6".
I don't have any feelings about them whatsoever. They're just there.
>>154850484That's the normal attitude to have IMO. You don't have to like Chelsea or City (especially if your team has any sort of local enmity towards them, eg. West Ham never liked Chelsea), but at the same time I don't get this cuckery where fans of random lower-table or Championship teams will bore-on endlessly about "115 charges" but will then turn around and slobber all over Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal's dicks.I've seen fans of teams like Palace saying they'd rather Arsenal win the league than City because "muh City blood money" or "they're cheats". Imagine being so cucked that you'd cheer for a local rival just because Sky Sports and Twitter told you Man City are public enemy #1.
>>154850230Chelsea good because they had a sovl team with JT, Lampard, Drogba and so onShitty only had KDB
There are no neutrals when it comes to football in England
It's not that hard to understand. People hate the system and the members trying to uphold the system. City and Chelsea wanted to dominate the same hated system. They aren't some martyrs saving us from the oligopoly boredom. They want to be the new oligopoly.
>>154850541The early City era was pretty soulful. The 2011 FA Cup win and 2012 league title. They still had some players knocking about from pre-2008 playing alongside the new money boys. Back then all neutrals supported City over United. You had Sunderland fans mocking the Utd fans after full-time when they heard of Aguero's last minute winner. Wouldn't happen these days.>>154850554"Neutral" in this case means people supporting teams who are neutral in the conflict. So for instance if you're a Sunderland fan, you don't have any particular reason to favour either Arsenal or Man City to win the title.>>154850561>They aren't some martyrs saving us from the oligopoly boredom. They want to be the new oligopoly.Ultimately sport is supposed to be entertaining, and while I'd rather have no oligopoly at all, I'd much rather have one where a range of 5 teams (Man City, Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal) could all feasibly win the league, rather than be like Spain/Scotland where it just comes down to which of the El Classico/Old Firm teams is in better form that year.
>>154850256unless your club is in the Championship or lower, you're completely hypocritical
I don't think other fans care that much and I doubt city and chelsea are more hated than arsenal man u or liverpool
>>154850627I think if you went back to the late 2010s that was the case, but the media push post-covid has been relentless with Sky et al ingraining the idea of Arsenal/Liverpool as "the good guys" versus "evil boring cheating Man City".You will see it brought up in totally random places eg. BBC News doing interviews with Southampton fans after they were expelled for spying and they're all responding "BUT WOT ABOUT MANSITTY'S 115 CHARGES?!" What reason does a Southampton fan have to give a fuck about City?
>>154850592>Ultimately sport is supposed to be entertaining, and while I'd rather have no oligopoly at all, I'd much rather have one where a range of 5 teamsAgreed. Just trying to highlight some of the reasons why they are "hated". People really dislike an undeserving serial winner. Whether it's City, Bayern, PSG, Rockefeller, the Clintons, Meta, Visa, Mastercard, Wall Street banks, zoning lobbies, licensing bodies, state-sponsored television channels
>>154850256>when my yummy red club loses it's because others did a heckin cheating
Fans of every English club would love owners like Abramovich or UAE. Newcastle fans gave them shit along everyone else, now not a peep. I'm sure Manchester City fans also did it to Chelsea for few years.
>>154851209Newcastle owners want to sell the club
>>154851979
>>154850230CITEH1. fuck man uthink my list is complete here actually
>>154852004>things people say to eachother are relatedBravo. holy shit, God please euthanize any academic in soft sciences.
>>154850230old money goodnew money bad
>>154850463>They functionally cannot win, because the EPL brought the drawbridge up after Chelsea and City bought their way into winning titles. The rules are now set up in a way where a small or medium-sized club can never again become part of the elite>why do you hate the big 6
h8 these teams, love todd boehler
