Leaderboard

Ken Early: City’s domination has been bought – and they’re paying the price It’s time to accept that oil-funded success and mass popularity will never go well together Pep Guardiola at Wembley Stadium on Saturday. Pep looked less like a happy football coach watching his side make history and more like an anguished scientist whose prototype civil defence robot has just run amok at a trade show. Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA Ken Early about 3 hours ago The strangest moment of Saturday’s FA Cup final came in the seconds after Manchester City’s sixth goal, when the camera cut from the mob of celebrating City players to Pep Guardiola, who was slumped on the bench with his head in his hands. Pep looked less like a happy football coach watching his side make history and more like an anguished scientist whose prototype civil defence robot has just run amok at a trade show, slaughtering several bystanders. It looked as though he understood that the very scale of the victory had begun to devalue it, that City were now in the territory of negative marginal returns, that the reaction to this turkey shoot would go beyond appreciation and congratulation, towards accusation and perhaps even condemnation. And so it proved. The Cup-winning manager’s post-match press conference is usually laudatory, but Pep’s ended with a journalist asking whether he, like his predecessor Roberto Mancini, had ever received any extra payments from City’s ownership group on top of his regular salary. Angry Guardiola looked about as angry as anyone has seen him since he arrived in England. “Do you know the question you’re asking me?” he hissed. “If I ever received money for another situation, right now, today? Honestly, do you think I deserve to have this type of question happen – what happened with Roberto I don’t know, the day we won the treble – if I received money from other situations? Oh my God. Are you accusing me of receiving money?” You could say he did not dignify the question with a denial. This was not supposed to be happening. For Pep, the whole point of moving to City was to prove that he could succeed at a club that seemed to lack the advantages of the established giants. “For a man who has spent his life in clubs steeped in history, Manchester City might indeed seem an unusual choice,” writes Martí Perarnau in The Evolution, his fly-on-the-wall account of Pep’s latter period at Bayern. “Perhaps the question answers itself . . . [Pep] feels attracted by a club less bound by tradition and custom . . . he knew that he would be able to work without feeling that he was shattering long-established customs and practices.” Club legends At Barcelona, he was carrying on a tradition of excellence inherited from Johan Cruyff; at Bayern he had to contend with club legends peering over his shoulder, commenting and criticising. At City, the history was waiting to be made and the only club legend he’d have to contend with was Noel Gallagher. “City was a blank canvas and he would be free to create as he saw fit . . . By creating a new brand of City football and the language that goes with it, he could begin to build his own unique legacy.” It must therefore be frustrating to see that this new “legacy” has not won universal acclaim. Related Ken Early: Guardiola’s joy will be tempered by Champions League regret Ken Early: Klopp must find way of improving his finished product Ken Early: Football’s new age neutralises philosophies of the past Lately Pep has taken to complaining that the media in England are biased against City in favour of the traditional big clubs, Liverpool and Manchester United. When he noted in his pre-Cup final press conference that the Daily Mail website’s top story last Monday had been about Paul Pogba rowing with Manchester United fans rather than City winning the league, he was making, in more polite terms, the exact same point that an angry Man City fan shouted into the Wembley press box on Saturday: “We’ve done the domestic f**king treble, no one’s ever done it before, but you’ll all have Mo Salah on the back of the f**king papers tomorrow!” On one level it’s obvious why media outlets might cover Manchester United and Liverpool more than City: these clubs have much larger fanbases and far more people are interested in what they’re doing. But it also needs to be acknowledged that, unlike the confrontation between Pogba and that enraged United fan, City’s story lacks the essential elements of drama. Whether they like it or not, most people see their treble as more transaction than triumph. At Wembley, City brought on three substitutes – Kevin de Bruyne, Leroy Sané and John Stones – each of whom would have been the best player in Watford’s team. There’s no magic or mystery about why their squad is so strong. They have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United. Closest comparison Football has not seen anything like this before. The closest comparison is with Chelsea after the 2003 Abramovich takeover, but their spending was nowhere near as sustained or comprehensive. Yes, in the 11 seasons from 2003-4 to 2014-15 Chelsea were football’s biggest spenders, but their net outlay of £751 million was only 10 per cent more than City’s in the same period, even though City spent very little between 2003 and 2007. Chelsea’s net spend in those 11 seasons was 64 per cent of the total combined net outlay of Real Madrid and Barcelona, whereas City’s since 2008 is more than Real Madrid’s and Barcelona’s put together. Guardiola might see the apparent obsession with City’s spending as yet more evidence of the pervasive bias against his club. After all, Manchester United under Alex Ferguson enjoyed a near-hegemonic position in English football, yet their financial power was not held against them as City’s has been. The crucial difference was this: everyone knew that United’s power and success had grown out of years of intelligent decisions. They had the best manager. They were the first club to understand the commercial potential of their brand. They invested in expanding Old Trafford at a time when that was the best economic move a club could make. They turned youth team players into sporting and commercial stars. Even those who resented United’s domination understood that it had been earned. Alleged rule breaches City’s domination has been bought, and that would feel unfair even if they were not currently being investigated for alleged rule breaches by Fifa, Uefa, the Premier League and the FA. On social media their fans often respond to criticism with variations on the theme “We won the lottery, you’re just bitter”. But bitterness is a natural reaction in the circumstances. To neutrals, City’s success is not an inspirational sports story. It’s just another depressing example of the Matthew principle we see at work in almost every economic arena, with the rich leveraging their wealth and power to get richer, and the rest left further and further behind. Free markets might sound good in economic models, but in real life they always seem to end up getting cornered, and City have had this one where they want it for a few years now. City victories are now the default outcome in this rigged game and there is not much left to say about them, so it’s not really surprising that the focus has increasingly turned to issues surrounding their funding and ownership. It’s enough to make you question the whole concept of sportswashing. Abu Dhabi might have got involved with City as a way to project and improve its global standing, but is that how things have played out? If you had polled football fans in 2007 about what they associated with Abu Dhabi, you’d probably have received a lot of blank looks. Now they’ll mention Yemen, slaves, the abuse of human rights and so on. Was it really worth it? City do at least have an army of sky-blue advocates fighting their cause on social media. When the New York Times reported last week that Uefa’s investigatory chamber was set to recommend a one-year Champions League ban for City, the response from many fans was to lash out: Uefa were corrupt, Financial Fair Play was an establishment stitch-up, the NYT journalists were Liverpool fans, and this disgraceful hit-piece on City had only been published because the NYT owned shares in Liverpool (the NYT did at one point own shares in Liverpool’s ownership group, but sold them in 2012). Clearly, many fans would rather latch on to any conspiracy theory than wait to see if the stories had substance. You shudder to imagine what might happen if Saudi Arabia ever does buy Manchester United, and that enormous worldwide fanbase becomes weaponised along similar lines. It’s been the most successful week in City’s history, and the pity is that their manager, fans and PR department have seldom sounded more angry. It’s time to accept that oil-funded success and mass popularity are never going to go together. It’s as though City are perched on the back of a dragon, peering down at a sullen populace, wondering incredulously why they are not loved. Shouldn’t it be obvious?

Jordan Pickford

ITK421 over here

The thing with Martin Samuel, though, is that he's a fat, lardy, arselicking cunt. That's the thing.

As requested:

Lactose meets intolerance

On my last trip to Vietnam a few months ago, a friend asked if I would talk to the children at her sisters little English private school. I love Vietnam and the Vietnamese people who are just unbelievably friendly so I jumped at the chance to repay a little of the kindness I've received. I enjoyed it so so so much, I returned for a couple more weekends before I went back to Australia. I returned to Vietnam a couple of weeks ago and went to the school for a class on the weekend. As soon as they spotted me, I was mobbed by the kids welcoming me back, it was magic, a truly terrific feeling. Needless to say, I'll be going back.

I have been playing golf and refusing to speak Spanish for years

Dont think anyone has posted this yet, I read a series of articles a couple of months ago on Der Spiegel Online about Man City and their dealings. Since it is being discussed thought some here may find it interesting. It is pretty damming if true, lets face it they have form for financial breaches, we now have the alleged bullshitting of UEFA in addition. Most of the info used was from Football Leaks. Der Spiegel - Man City Exposed C1 Der Spiegel - Man City Exposed C2 Der Spiegel - Man City Exposed C3 Der Spiegel - Man City Exposed C4

Mission accomplished.

You buy it, you break it.

At first I wanted Joffrey on the Iron Throne. Then I wanted Ramsay The Bastard. Then the Night King. Out of the hundreds of wonderful characters there were only 3 whom I absolutely loathed: Euron fucking Greyjoy, Sanza fucking miserable cunt, and Bran fucking Evel Knievel Stark. Fuck my life.

My milkshake brings all the boys to Farage.

Got it finished. Had an absolute blast making this with her.

I'm devastated Greyworm is still alive. Miserable, dickless cunt.

Wasnt sure whether to dig up the world of a woman thread but im a lazy get so this will do My Mrs has attached a feeding device for birds to our bedroom window. Yes our bedroom window. So now at the crack of dawn there are all manner of winged bastards headbutting the fucking thing. I suggested it be moved but she wont do it because she says that they are used to that source of food. I'm stopping all sexual favours and fucking off to the spare room. That will teach her.

My boy. But no.

£5.25 for a milkshake should be the story here.

Opinions eh? The Shield's gave a very satisfying closing to each and every character for me. Truly exceptional.

There's no such thing as destiny, karma etc. I used to think there was but i'm too long in the tooth to fall for that shite these days. Stuff happens and you can apply any kind of narrative that you want to it. If we win the CL then the narrative is that we missed out on the league but then conquered Europe, Klopp finally overcame his issues in finals etc; if Spurs do it then all of the breaks they got during the competition will be used as some kind of explanation. You can make any narrative you want out of it but it will mainly be nonsense. Stuff will happen during the final and the team who scores more goals (or penalties) will win the thing.

Danny Murphy is a bad Tory, so no surprise that he's wanting to ignore all of this.

I saw Kiefer Sutherland on a breakfast show promoting a new country music album he’s recorded. I haven’t cried like that since 1992.

That should be long enough to assassinate someone and inadvertently start a world war.

As ever work means I cannot attend more than a handful. if anyone wants a season ticket for next year let me know

It's not appropriate to attack politicians in the street because you don't like their views, no.

4:30 in

Just watched the last one so letting it sink in. Initial thoughts are it was weak. Dany death underwhelming and poorly acted IMO. Should've been a crescendo to the whole fable. Kind of suspected that Jon would go back north of the wall. Didn't expect that for Arya though, spin off series beckons? Seemed like they were going for the "a better world beckons" ending like the end of LOTR but they didn't do it overly well. 8 seasons done. I think I'm going to watch them all through again as soon as I can. I haven't been riled as much as some by the last few series but there has been a drop off and a rush to completion. Will go down in history as probably the best fantasy show produced and one of the top 10 in most people's lists.

Oilyfingers.

The reaction to the vandalism of a model railway group. People have donated loads to help replace the damaged tracks. Rod Stewart donated £10k and so far they’ve got £60k.

I like how this Bale thing is playing out -- framework is there for it to look like a fuck up if they do not get him. But if they do!!! Oh happy days, two fellas over 30 pulling in north of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ---- A WEEK!!!

Stealth Brexit thread.

Klopp has never been in this position before as a manager. Who knows what he will do. I agree that he values loyalty extremely high. I think he loves Gomez too, maybe he does rate him higher De Ligt, not sure - wouldn't surprise me. Wouldn't surprise me if he wanted him either. Who thought Klopp would spend £75m on a CB before he did or that price on a GK? Many dismissed it as it was against his past approach. In the past t Dortmund he didn't have these resources. He didn't have the luxury to attract the elite, fund to get them. He wasn't competing with a City squad where it seems you have to get over 97 points a season to have a chance to win the title. We need the best as that's what City are doing. If Klopp thinks De Ligt is someone who can help us do that for the present & future, I wouldn't rule it out happening. I wouldn't rule out it not happening too - I don't know. But we can't judge what Klopp has done in the past. Before he came to LFC everyone thought he'd play 4-2-3-1 here. We've mostly seen 4-3-3. He's pragmatic with everything. He doesn't like sending players on loan & then he shifted that idea too, he said himself as the youth league wasn't good enough to make players progress. His transfer spending has changed too used to be bargain buys, more recently that hasn't been the case - we've paid big prices as we need the elite. I think it's best to not assume with Klopp as he's about as pragmatic as it comes.

thats 6 points in the bag for next season

Funny how for over the last 24 hours City fans have wanted all journalists tarred and feather but now Bluto comes along and he's suddenly better than sliced bread....Although to be fair to the saviour of journalism Samuels has had more than his fair share of sliced bread, usually with a tub of anchor butter and chips

That euphoric domestic treble feeling.

We don't need De Ligt, Garth Crooks likened Gomez to a young Bobby Moore. He has to be right at some point.

The EARLY bird caught the worm, Rojo.

And so it proved. The Cup-winning manager’s post-match press conference is usually laudatory, but Pep’s ended with a journalist asking whether he, like his predecessor Roberto Mancini, had ever received any extra payments from City’s ownership group on top of his regular salary. Angry Guardiola looked about as angry as anyone has seen him since he arrived in England. “Do you know the question you’re asking me?” he hissed. “If I ever received money for another situation, right now, today? Honestly, do you think I deserve to have this type of question happen – what happened with Roberto I don’t know, the day we won the treble – if I received money from other situations? Oh my God. Are you accusing me of receiving money?” You could say he did not dignify the question with a denial. This was not supposed to be happening. For Pep, the whole point of moving to City was to prove that he could succeed at a club that seemed to lack the advantages of the established giants. “For a man who has spent his life in clubs steeped in history, Manchester City might indeed seem an unusual choice,” writes Martí Perarnau in The Evolution, his fly-on-the-wall account of Pep’s latter period at Bayern. “Perhaps the question answers itself . . . [Pep] feels attracted by a club less bound by tradition and custom . . . he knew that he would be able to work without feeling that he was shattering long-established customs and practices.” Club legends At Barcelona, he was carrying on a tradition of excellence inherited from Johan Cruyff; at Bayern he had to contend with club legends peering over his shoulder, commenting and criticising. At City, the history was waiting to be made and the only club legend he’d have to contend with was Noel Gallagher. “City was a blank canvas and he would be free to create as he saw fit . . . By creating a new brand of City football and the language that goes with it, he could begin to build his own unique legacy.” It must therefore be frustrating to see that this new “legacy” has not won universal acclaim. Related Ken Early: Guardiola’s joy will be tempered by Champions League regret Ken Early: Klopp must find way of improving his finished product Ken Early: Football’s new age neutralises philosophies of the past Lately Pep has taken to complaining that the media in England are biased against City in favour of the traditional big clubs, Liverpool and Manchester United. When he noted in his pre-Cup final press conference that the Daily Mail website’s top story last Monday had been about Paul Pogba rowing with Manchester United fans rather than City winning the league, he was making, in more polite terms, the exact same point that an angry Man City fan shouted into the Wembley press box on Saturday: “We’ve done the domestic f**king treble, no one’s ever done it before, but you’ll all have Mo Salah on the back of the f**king papers tomorrow!” On one level it’s obvious why media outlets might cover Manchester United and Liverpool more than City: these clubs have much larger fanbases and far more people are interested in what they’re doing. But it also needs to be acknowledged that, unlike the confrontation between Pogba and that enraged United fan, City’s story lacks the essential elements of drama. Whether they like it or not, most people see their treble as more transaction than triumph. At Wembley, City brought on three substitutes – Kevin de Bruyne, Leroy Sané and John Stones – each of whom would have been the best player in Watford’s team. There’s no magic or mystery about why their squad is so strong. They have a net transfer spend of more than £1.2 billion over the 11 seasons since the 2008 takeover. That’s almost 50 per cent more than their closest rival over that period – the Qatar-funded PSG – and half a billion pounds more than the team in third place, Manchester United. Closest comparison Football has not seen anything like this before. The closest comparison is with Chelsea after the 2003 Abramovich takeover, but their spending was nowhere near as sustained or comprehensive. Yes, in the 11 seasons from 2003-4 to 2014-15 Chelsea were football’s biggest spenders, but their net outlay of £751 million was only 10 per cent more than City’s in the same period, even though City spent very little between 2003 and 2007. Chelsea’s net spend in those 11 seasons was 64 per cent of the total combined net outlay of Real Madrid and Barcelona, whereas City’s since 2008 is more than Real Madrid’s and Barcelona’s put together. Guardiola might see the apparent obsession with City’s spending as yet more evidence of the pervasive bias against his club. After all, Manchester United under Alex Ferguson enjoyed a near-hegemonic position in English football, yet their financial power was not held against them as City’s has been. The crucial difference was this: everyone knew that United’s power and success had grown out of years of intelligent decisions. They had the best manager. They were the first club to understand the commercial potential of their brand. They invested in expanding Old Trafford at a time when that was the best economic move a club could make. They turned youth team players into sporting and commercial stars. Even those who resented United’s domination understood that it had been earned. Alleged rule breaches City’s domination has been bought, and that would feel unfair even if they were not currently being investigated for alleged rule breaches by Fifa, Uefa, the Premier League and the FA. On social media their fans often respond to criticism with variations on the theme “We won the lottery, you’re just bitter”. But bitterness is a natural reaction in the circumstances. To neutrals, City’s success is not an inspirational sports story. It’s just another depressing example of the Matthew principle we see at work in almost every economic arena, with the rich leveraging their wealth and power to get richer, and the rest left further and further behind. Free markets might sound good in economic models, but in real life they always seem to end up getting cornered, and City have had this one where they want it for a few years now. City victories are now the default outcome in this rigged game and there is not much left to say about them, so it’s not really surprising that the focus has increasingly turned to issues surrounding their funding and ownership. It’s enough to make you question the whole concept of sportswashing. Abu Dhabi might have got involved with City as a way to project and improve its global standing, but is that how things have played out? If you had polled football fans in 2007 about what they associated with Abu Dhabi, you’d probably have received a lot of blank looks. Now they’ll mention Yemen, slaves, the abuse of human rights and so on. Was it really worth it? City do at least have an army of sky-blue advocates fighting their cause on social media. When the New York Times reported last week that Uefa’s investigatory chamber was set to recommend a one-year Champions League ban for City, the response from many fans was to lash out: Uefa were corrupt, Financial Fair Play was an establishment stitch-up, the NYT journalists were Liverpool fans, and this disgraceful hit-piece on City had only been published because the NYT owned shares in Liverpool (the NYT did at one point own shares in Liverpool’s ownership group, but sold them in 2012). Clearly, many fans would rather latch on to any conspiracy theory than wait to see if the stories had substance. You shudder to imagine what might happen if Saudi Arabia ever does buy Manchester United, and that enormous worldwide fanbase becomes weaponised along similar lines. It’s been the most successful week in City’s history, and the pity is that their manager, fans and PR department have seldom sounded more angry. It’s time to accept that oil-funded success and mass popularity are never going to go together. It’s as though City are perched on the back of a dragon, peering down at a sullen populace, wondering incredulously why they are not loved. Shouldn’t it be obvious? Was just going to post that. Another very good piece by Ken Early.

Rio Ferdinand would do this time.

I've got one for him - try to be less of a little cunt.

That's some "Ibe is better than Sterling" level revisionism right there. Gomez has never got anywhere close to outshining Van Dijk. If our defence was Gomez, Lovren and Matip we'd concede 40 goals a season. It's no coincidence that every one of them look quality alongside Van Dijk.

Great that but me being the dope I am showed it my lad....

The amount of money they’ve wasted on shite, they’d probably be doing themselves a favour.

Deep breath: Mowgli, Maray, Wreckfish, Italian Supper Club, Italian Fish, Leon, Lunya, Salt House, Rocket & Ruby, Bacaro, The Art School, 60 Hope St, The London Carriage Works, Rojo Pintxos, Bakchich, Deli Fonseca, Röski, Etsu, Oktopus, Pen Factory, Panoramic. That’s just the independents that sprang to mind. I’ll have forgotten loads. Also a couple of decent chain gaffs that are always consistent like Wahaca, Wagamama and Pizza Express. Then there are all the little cafes and coffee shops that do limited menus.

Started making ours today.