their only crime was getting good with oil money a decade too late. chelsea did the same shit with russian oligarch money

>>157974018
>Were they really good without oil money?
the same question applies to every EPL team

>>157974044
>Catalan trencadís
they are truly sovless barcelona

shouldnt have done it now ur relegated

They were good for a bit in the 1950s or 1960s. Plus they did relegate Man Utd that time in the 1970s. The idea that Man City are completely irrelevant only really started in the Premier League era.

But lots of teams have been good for a bit, historically. Blackpool used to be great. Tottenham famously won the double back when that was the hardest thing in football to achieve. Leeds and Sunderland were good for decades. Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest were European champions. Even Ipswich were good once. Football fans have short memories.

File: 696052892_155421907606038(...).jpg (334 KB, 1440x1800)

334 KB JPG

Kek

real niggas remember shaun wright phillips

>>157974503
for me, it's Stephen Ireland

>>157974018
They've always been a default 1st tier side who have had the odd relegation throughout their history, but they weren't that successfully outside of a period in the 60s/70s. Won the League twice before oil money however once before the war, and the FA cup winners 4 times.

But 1980 onwards was mostly a decline cumulating in them being relegated to League 1 at the end of the century.

>>157974406
It was the late 60s and early 70s when they had a good side under Joe Mercer and Malcolm Allison. Won the League in 68, the FA cup in 69, the ECWC and the League Cup the next. They also "should" have won the league in 72 but bottled it.

They fucked themselves in late 70s during Allisons second stint; sold a lot of players and then bought a load of over-priced new ones bankrolled by some new spiv owners, but saw no results and they were relegated a couple of times .

>>157974049
Chelsea done it when it was allowed. Rules was created because of what Chelsea had done. City broke those rules. It's not the same shit at all.

File: 1788278405624.jpg (353 KB, 2048x1639)

353 KB JPG

>>157974018
Everything is totally legit now btw

>>157974018
That club was literally built on oil money, just like the entire Premier league

>>157974508
For me it's georgi kinladzezezledaze

>>157974447
This pic is somewhat misleading because they STILL spent a lot of money in that season, under Thaksin Shinawatra. 2006-07 they had a net spend close to £0, but then for 2007-08 - the season they lost 8-1 to Middlesbrough - their net spend soared past £30m.

>>157974842
>their net spend soared past £30m.
That's like 1/3rd Prem proven midfielder from Nottingham or Villa

>>157974601
rules were put into place mainly to stop clubs turning into late 2000s portsmouth

>>157974850
2007, dingbat.

>>157974850
Thanks for outing yourself as underage.

>>157974627
yeah they just stopped cheating in 2018. clear as day on the chart there

>>157974627
very few 4chan posters can read graphs and charts

>>157974908
they weren't fit for purpose if it was just that. could have easily required clubs to put assets in trust to fund any contracts they signed going forward to stop that kind of thing, but the big clubs also wanted to prevent new money from taking their european spots and titles, so they made the rules like this.

>>157975148
>could have easily required clubs to put assets in trust to fund any contracts they signed going forward to stop that kind of thing

Never would've passed

>>157974627
did Nvidia make this chart for them?

>>157975155
elaborate

what's really striking is how blatant and transparent it all was, almost mocking, like an open secret that the rules don't apply to them
but the real reason is that, no one really thought that someone would game the rules like that nd idt took a while for it all to catch up. and i hope they at least get their titles stripped, because really taht's the biggest problem here

>>157975171
These rules would not pass requiring contract escrows

If they'd just been more patient, they could have built an excellent team that would challenge for major trophies within the rules. Brownoid arrogance, smdh

>>157975186
why?

>>157975258
yeah, and it's not like you're talking decades, literally just a few years a couple years, like this is all retarded

>>157974018
They were never good

>>157975260
Because they are not economically viable in European football

>>157975178
>no one really thought that someone would game the rules like that
In reality everyone you meet assumed it was the case but the official media line was lets wait and see. This is the same country that was apparently in denial about grooming gangs with politicians, police and media expressing shock even though the man on the street's response was 'well yeah..duh'. We heard about that shit in school.

>>157974503
Richard Dunne

>heh, sorry kid, you didn't make all your money in the 80s and 90s. Enjoy being made an example to the rest not to upset the established order.

>>157975310
don't see why it wouldn't be with cash flush organizations. the normal clubs could just elect to operate under current ffp rules, while the state backed oil money clubs could elect a separate treatment. would obviously take some ironing out but you could make it a viable system. UEFA ffp would make it unviable in just england though you're right

Oh boy I sure can't wait to see Arsenal and Liverpool hand the trophy back and forth for the next decade. I heckin love financial disparity as long as it's yanks who own the clubs!!

>>157975404
As opposed to city winning it 4 out of 5 years?

>>157975404
think the pl will fade out of relevance desu
it already lacks star power or even decent football and no one is tuning in to watch gyokeres and declan rice

>>157975468
The highest viewed matches every year included United, Liverpool, Arsenal. Not city

>>157975476
yes im sure all your mates on aftv are saying that

>>157975468
>think the pl will fade out of relevance
That would unironically be a good thing for English football.

>>157975484
etihad has swathes of empty seats even on high profile champions league nights, anon

>>157974447
damn, I miss elANO

You know remember Roque Santa Cruz

>>157976105
he still plays
he was one of the signings that man city decided to start breaking the rules for, alongside the mighty joleon lescott

>>157976058
elano + kaka the legendary combo

>>157974018
Is any team good in soccer when they don't have unlimited money - oil or otherwise - to hoard all the best players with? You retards look down your noses at us for having salary caps in most of our sports, but this is why we have them, to prevent shit like this!
Also, does anyone truly believe that all the other big teams aren't cheating their asses off? Hell, it's already scandalous enough that the Premier League's financial rules are blatantly written to favor Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal and prevent competition from everyone else. Soccer has always been a corrupt sham of a "sport." It's hilarious for everyone to pretend this is about integrity and honor, which do not exist in soccer, and not just the big old-money brands getting rid of the new-money team they can't beat on the field.

>>157976109
Sadly for him he was 10 times better on Championship manager then in real life

Its normal to take advantge of stupid rules made by stupid people especially when are a smart person running a smart organization. City have been propping up the prem for a decade, hopefully they lead the charge for a global superleague with actual structure and respectable membership

Nothing will happen to city and the cucks will keep on seething

>>157976121
hi pep

>>157974824
based lee kuan yew

File: IMG_1285.jpg (77 KB, 1024x576)

77 KB JPG

>>157974447
Classic Sir Gareth

>>157974018
>Were they really good without oil money?
I still see bongs shittalking Anthony Gordon so they should shut up and send Man City to La Liga.

>>157974018
They were terrible, worse than Chelsea pre abrahmovic.

>>157980800
City had more League titles (2 to 1) and FA Cups (4 to 3) than Chelsea pre-Abramovich. They also had the same amount of League Cups (2). Chelsea only had edge in european titles againts City (2 CWC to 1 CWC for City). Mind you those 2/3 of Chelsea's FA Cups and half of their League Cups and CWCs were won in their successful successive player-managers period in the late 90s, just shy years away from the Abramovich takeover so for a long time City were arguably a more successful team than Chelsea. Not to mention City repeated attempts at FA Cup finals and First Division titles, more often than Chelsea
And besides League Cup, City also won all these tropies before Chelsea. Yes, including CWC. I think City were always slightly a better team. They just had a bigger downfall when they fell to 3rd tier while Chelsea were never relegated below the 2nd tier

>>157975258
oh, then why are newcastle still shit? the saudis have more money than god and yet their team seems to be decomposing before our eyes.

File: amerimutt cry.png (64 KB, 1127x685)

64 KB PNG

>>157974049
>>157974066
>>157975148
>>157976121
>>157976158
Why is every Shitty thread full of absolutely abhorrent amerimutt posts?