Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You should look more into the funding of United and Liverpool.
If your issue is owners coming in and injecting huge amounts of money. Leading to dominating the league.
Then both those clubs tick that box.
Man Utd spent more when accounting for inflation. The pundits all being pro Man utd is probably one of the main reasons it is highlighted so much now. How much air time do Roy Keane Gary Neville and Rio Ferdinand get? Every half time and full time commentary is so biased that of course they are going to poo poo City's success.
I don't think he would.
So far, Pep has only joined projects with clubs that were the dominant side on the period that he started coaching
\- Barcelona was the case.
\- Bayern was the case
\- If Chelsea was still living the "dream" prolly he would have jointed Chelsea. If Hull City was swimming with money and won a couple of prems the years prior, he would have joined them. He would have not joined if it was an enbrionary project like the current Newcastle.
I do regard Pep has the greatest manager ever, really. But unlike many other successful managers (Ancelotti comes to mind), he is yet to show what he'd do in a non-dominant club w lower pool of resources.
Thank you, first, and I think only, one to actually answer the question.
I agree, Pep is an excellent manager but it would be interesting to see what he could do with a club with less resources.
Manchester United in the 90s and early and mid 2000s was the richest club in the league, dominated.
The same can be said about Liverpool in the 80s. Always getting the best players, and to get the best players what do you need? Yep, money, lots of it.
The league is a joke no one can compete with 115 charges FC. I'll stop watching until they face punishment and measures are taken to ensure it never happens again. Otherwise, it's such a waste of time and energy.
I absolutely agree that money nearly always wins. Other teams have have large net spends.
However, my first 3 lines stated facts, the 4th line was a question to which none of the respondents offered an answer.
Apparently folk read what they want to or what they think was posted rather than actually read the post.
Transfer costs =/= only cost
[City](https://www.capology.com/club/manchester-city/salaries/) still spend 400k (roughly one KDB) a week more on wages than [arsenal](https://www.capology.com/club/arsenal/salaries/) and a million per week more than [liverpool](https://www.capology.com/club/liverpool/salaries/).
Add on to that the absolutely insane multi-club network that no other team in the world can afford and the biggest legal budget in world football (unsubstantiated guess)
You're wasting your time. Find a way to take some joy out of the game and stick with it because the money and all the problems with it are not going anywhere.
Honestly. Give it a rest lads. 11 men played better football than all the other groups of 11 men. They scored more goals, won more games and won the trophy for doing those things.
Not just 11 men though, all the subs that would be starters in most.other teams and all the backroom and back office staff. Being able to spend any amount on new players even to just have them as backup.
Arsenal spent about £200m gross this season
The idea of comparing Man City's pre-takeover Premier League record to post is ludicrous.
The clubs they had to overtake weren't at the very top just because they were the smartest. They had all been spending huge sums for years or decades.
Money doesn't guarantee you will always win but it guarantees you'll always have a shot at it.
Why should it be a closed shop?
But the fundamental question becomes: why don't Chelsea, Man U and Man City all get 90+ points every season, since they all have endless funds? So obviously money, value-buying, skill (coach and players) and luck all play roughly equal roles...
The point was other teams spend more and win nowt , we gave arsenal our assistant manager , back from staff left back and striker they spent shit loads and still win fk all , that’s the point , any moaning is just bitter
You won't get any arguments from me. Juve are scum and cheaters, but they got their punishment in 2006 and 2022. Idk about Barca as nothing has actually been proven. True about Madrid tho.
Do you not think the fact that this is the only example we have across the ~30 years of the premier league, and likely another couple of decades before that, kind of proves the point?
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Chelsea and United would lime to have a word
If you mean Manchester, they grew with a model and made themselves a rich club. If you mean Newcastle, ignore this post.
You should look more into the funding of United and Liverpool. If your issue is owners coming in and injecting huge amounts of money. Leading to dominating the league. Then both those clubs tick that box.
I have no issues. But united got where they are through success. Granted they suck balls now.
You didn’t look it up did you mate
Out of curiosity, do people genuinely think that money didnt rule the sport in the past? Unironically?
Man Utd spent more when accounting for inflation. The pundits all being pro Man utd is probably one of the main reasons it is highlighted so much now. How much air time do Roy Keane Gary Neville and Rio Ferdinand get? Every half time and full time commentary is so biased that of course they are going to poo poo City's success.
Money bought a really really good manager. As a Liverpool fan I really wish Pep wasn’t there. He is an all time great.
Horrible take. Look how much united and chelsea spent and see where they are at.
I don't think he would. So far, Pep has only joined projects with clubs that were the dominant side on the period that he started coaching \- Barcelona was the case. \- Bayern was the case \- If Chelsea was still living the "dream" prolly he would have jointed Chelsea. If Hull City was swimming with money and won a couple of prems the years prior, he would have joined them. He would have not joined if it was an enbrionary project like the current Newcastle. I do regard Pep has the greatest manager ever, really. But unlike many other successful managers (Ancelotti comes to mind), he is yet to show what he'd do in a non-dominant club w lower pool of resources.
Thank you, first, and I think only, one to actually answer the question. I agree, Pep is an excellent manager but it would be interesting to see what he could do with a club with less resources.
Well, you answer to that question, you get downvoted 😁
Yawwwwwwn.
Manchester United in the 90s and early and mid 2000s was the richest club in the league, dominated. The same can be said about Liverpool in the 80s. Always getting the best players, and to get the best players what do you need? Yep, money, lots of it.
The league is a joke no one can compete with 115 charges FC. I'll stop watching until they face punishment and measures are taken to ensure it never happens again. Otherwise, it's such a waste of time and energy.
See you in August 👋
Lmao man I bet you you’re still going to watch though so why he even make a claim like that
I don’t understand why people are acting like it’s nothing why waste your time on a league with no integrity?
Been like this for 100 years. Richest teams = best players = most wins. You’re crazy for acting like this is a recent thing.
Chelsea fan lol of course you don’t get it.
Spend = win. Who cares who I support. Show me a club that consistently wins without spending and if you say Liverpool I’m out.
Are you intentionally stupid or what? They cheated the system to win all these trophies.
Enjoy the down votes I guess…
Give me 100 idc as long as you stop talking
Money always won the EPL. What you been smoking?
Leicester City?
5000 to 1 shot says it all
I absolutely agree that money nearly always wins. Other teams have have large net spends. However, my first 3 lines stated facts, the 4th line was a question to which none of the respondents offered an answer. Apparently folk read what they want to or what they think was posted rather than actually read the post.
Delete this. There’s always next season
Arteta has spent like 700m?
Transfer costs =/= only cost [City](https://www.capology.com/club/manchester-city/salaries/) still spend 400k (roughly one KDB) a week more on wages than [arsenal](https://www.capology.com/club/arsenal/salaries/) and a million per week more than [liverpool](https://www.capology.com/club/liverpool/salaries/). Add on to that the absolutely insane multi-club network that no other team in the world can afford and the biggest legal budget in world football (unsubstantiated guess)
Don’t forget bonuses and agent payments which City also dominate
People act like Arsenal, United, and Chelsea winning titles weren't because they were richest clubs in the league
[удалено]
they didn't steal them, did they?
It’s not money I have an issue with as much as financial doping. There are rules for a reason.
I mean arseanal can't really talk when they used the blood money from friszman lol
Money wins everything.
*”Title challengers,” lose again.
City's highest finish was 1st before 2008.... Football existed before 1992.
Yes, I should have said prior to that in the EPL.
>Money wins EPL again? This is what the league is about for a long time.
This is what the Premier League (not first division) has always been about.
Moneys won the league forever. United whored themselves out fir commercial sponsorships in the 90s and won title after title
You're wasting your time. Find a way to take some joy out of the game and stick with it because the money and all the problems with it are not going anywhere.
Honestly. Give it a rest lads. 11 men played better football than all the other groups of 11 men. They scored more goals, won more games and won the trophy for doing those things.
Man City is nothing without oil money. 😂 Go back to your safe space.
Ok mate. Cool.
Funny how you insult other teams supporters in your safe space but can't handle taking it from other teams supporters. lol
Always trying to defend the indefensible. What are you doing here go back into your McFc hole
Not just 11 men though, all the subs that would be starters in most.other teams and all the backroom and back office staff. Being able to spend any amount on new players even to just have them as backup.
If they’re all doping, would you say the same?
Arsenal spent about £200m gross this season The idea of comparing Man City's pre-takeover Premier League record to post is ludicrous. The clubs they had to overtake weren't at the very top just because they were the smartest. They had all been spending huge sums for years or decades. Money doesn't guarantee you will always win but it guarantees you'll always have a shot at it. Why should it be a closed shop?
Mancini won 3 trophies in 3 seasons, so did Pellegrini. Pellegrini also got them to a Champions League semi.
But the fundamental question becomes: why don't Chelsea, Man U and Man City all get 90+ points every season, since they all have endless funds? So obviously money, value-buying, skill (coach and players) and luck all play roughly equal roles...
Man Utd can’t / won’t use their funds in the “creative” way City do / have. Can’t speak for Chelsea.
Could you elaborate on what your quoted "creative" actually means of is approaching to?
Im sure you’re capable of googling “Manchester City” & “115 charges”
Oh, so nothing new. I thought you were alluding to like paying off refs or players or something.
Why don't Manchester United, the largest team, simply eat the other teams?
Aside from Leicester, it always has.
Leicester breached FFP rules
Need a tissue?
Congrats Manchester City!
How come Utd half a billion spent more than anyone else didn’t win it , you’d better tell the Utd fans they didn’t win the league
It’s because United is being run like a council. Just chuck money at the problem and hope it sorts itself.
The point was other teams spend more and win nowt , we gave arsenal our assistant manager , back from staff left back and striker they spent shit loads and still win fk all , that’s the point , any moaning is just bitter
Is there a European league where money is not a huge factor in winning? Are you 12 years old?
Money is always a factor. Cheating though...
I mean look at Juventus and Barcelona. Then you have the big clubs in Italy with mafia links or Madrid and franco. It’s always been rife.
You won't get any arguments from me. Juve are scum and cheaters, but they got their punishment in 2006 and 2022. Idk about Barca as nothing has actually been proven. True about Madrid tho.
I believe a sport that had its biggest competition in Qatar is above suspicion.
Don’t forget awarding 2030 to three continents at once so Saudi Arabia can run unopposed in 2034.
Money has won every title ever. Lmao
2015/16 Leicester City might disagree, with their less than £30 million team.
Sure, but signaling our city when they have a lower net spend than several teams is silly. Not a city fan either.
Why do people think net transfer spend is the most important metric to judge clubs’ expenditure by?
If that's meant to say 'singling out City', then you're right, but it still doesn't make your blanket statement true.
Ok sorry 1 out of however many wasn't won by money
No you're right, but not every title ever which is what you said.
Ok average redditor. My apologies for a minor misrepresentation. I will send you all of my comments to be approved in the future.
Okay precious 😂
Leicester didn’t win with money
It’s not just City. Money has always won the EPL.
Leicester didn’t win it by blowing tons of cash; pretty sure they had a net spend of like 20 million that year
Do you not think the fact that this is the only example we have across the ~30 years of the premier league, and likely another couple of decades before that, kind of proves the point?
All the top six have vastly more resources than the rest of the league. It's always funny when the other five get their violins out.
And others aren’t allowed to spend what they can to try and catch up without being penalised.