2018/19 Premier League

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

That's the sad thing right now for United fans, as much as they've spent they still need a whole lot more on that roster if they wanna consistently compete simply for top four, let alone challenge City. And changing managers alone might not even do much, the issues with United are far more than just the manager.

Maybe so, but one of the principle issues is that nobody is pulling together.

Everyone in the club is at odds with each other.

[Slava]

Meh, let's be honest; no one is challenging City. They've bought a fantastic squad and they could probably win the league with the "B" team (although I'm not entirely sure what that is). They looked good without Kevin de Bruyne in the lineup for however long, had Sane sitting on the bench and didn't miss a step.

I get that United and Liverpool think that they should be competing with them, and I think that there are a few that should be in the mix. But in reality, they've doped up financially and as more details emerge of the brazen disregard for the FFP systemit just becomes increasingly clear that of course none of the others can compete. That's why it's supposed to be illegal.

[devo22]

it's not about competing with City for me, that's beyond the point. It's about at least competing with Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea. It's about being content with 8th place and a negative GD.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Well United should be competing with City, if they spent better the past few years they would be too. But even just from the Pep buying, for what it cost United to buy Pogba, Lukaku, Bailly and Lindelof they could have had Bernardo Silva, Laporte, Stones, Sane and Jesus. I realize Mourinho probably ruins all of them anyway, but that's a massive difference in quality for the same money spent. City have the financial doping advantage to be sure, but they also happen to be much better run than most other clubs. To use the most obvious pun ever, they are indeed a well oiled machine.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well United should be competing with City, if they spent better the past few years they would be too. But even just from the Pep buying, for what it cost United to buy Pogba, Lukaku, Bailly and Lindelof they could have had Bernardo Silva, Laporte, Stones, Sane and Jesus. I realize Mourinho probably ruins all of them anyway, but that's a massive difference in quality for the same money spent. City have the financial doping advantage to be sure, but they also happen to be much better run than most other clubs. To use the most obvious pun ever, they are indeed a well oiled machine.

OK, I'll bite. How are they "much better run than most other clubs."? The idea that they've just realised where the holes are and spent gobs of money to fill them doesn't impress that upon me, and honestly it all seems to come back to money. What are they doing that not many others are doing?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Money on it's own doesn't mean success, they have a better organization in place with better football people, better scouting, better coaching. Money certainly helps, but all the money in the world can't make up for mismanagement. United are mismanaged, they have the financial resources to compete with City, but lack the management to do so.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But even just from the Pep buying, for what it cost United to buy Pogba, Lukaku, Bailly and Lindelof they could have had Bernardo Silva, Laporte, Stones, Sane and Jesus.

I don't buy that almost all United signings have been poor because of (lack of) quality. It all comes down to coaching to me - just look at Alexis Sanchez, wo is a shadow of his former self under Mourinho. He simply doesn't get the best out of his players. He could buy Mbappe tomorrow and mess it up.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I certainly won't disagree that Mourinho sucks the life out of players, and if you swapped the four United players for the five City players Mourinho probably ruins them all. But even if the four United players played to their best, City's players are probably still better, plus they get a free quality player on top. For me it seems City tend go for more volume in transfers and United tend to go more for splash transfers.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Money on it's own doesn't mean success, they have a better organization in place with better football people, better scouting, better coaching. Money certainly helps, but all the money in the world can't make up for mismanagement. United are mismanaged, they have the financial resources to compete with City, but lack the management to do so.

Well you know what they say...Money doesn't buy happiness. Of course neither does poverty!

Honestly, for City fans to tell everyone that it's not all about money is laying it on pretty thick though. If it's not a big deal, why cheat? They're not contravening FFP just to show us how clever they are.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I believe the old proverb goes if you're not cheating, you're not trying. The issue in general though is that FFP is pointless. Maybe the time will come when football embraces more of that North American sports socialism with salary caps or transfer limits.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I believe the old proverb goes if you're not cheating, you're not trying. The issue in general though is that FFP is pointless. Maybe the time will come when football embraces more of that North American sports socialism with salary caps or transfer limits.

that would suck because Europe loves the big teams. Most leagues simply have a top 3 for a century (porto, sporting and benfica or ajax, psv and feyenoord for example). There is a thrill of a big team coming to your stadium and making it hard for them that doesn't exist in North American sports. Taking a point off the big boys sometimes decides relegation battles.

Man City and PSG are the new big teams, but until they make a Champions League final, they are still nothing and this lack of tradition and throwing money at things might end up being a flawed strategy.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

That's the sad thing right now for United fans, as much as they've spent they still need a whole lot more on that roster if they wanna consistently compete simply for top four, let alone challenge City. And changing managers alone might not even do much, the issues with United are far more than just the manager.

What are they then if they're not the manager?

He is the main issue at the moment.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

City have the financial doping advantage to be sure, but they also happen to be much better run than most other clubs. To use the most obvious pun ever, they are indeed a well oiled machine.

Or maybe it's the manager factor?

[cam_wmh]

City managerially would be better run, but worldwide reach, and marketability? Yeah they’d be 5th or 6th in England.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

City managerially would be better run, but worldwide reach, and marketability? Yeah they’d be 5th or 6th in England.

But even then though, thats a long ways from where they started in a very short period of time and if the current trend continues well, it'll suck being a United fan when they become 'The Annoying Little Brother.'

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Locke

But even then though, thats a long ways from where they started in a very short period of time and if the current trend continues well, it'll suck being a United fan when they become 'The Annoying Little Brother.'

What are you on about?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

What are you on about?

You know what I mean, City were nobodies while United were winning, the tables are turned with no indication of changing anytime soon.

City took a back seat and watched United spend and win and now United are going to get their turn to do the same.

The major difference is that back in the day City couldnt compete financially with United whereas now United can still very much compete financially with City, if they want to despite Jose's constant griping.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

City managerially would be better run, but worldwide reach, and marketability? Yeah they’d be 5th or 6th in England.

Agreed.

They're in a good place at the moment with Oil money and Pep. That won't last forever.

The more ignorant here appear to think it's as simple as spend and win whereas if you look at United now and Liverpool of the last 25+ years it's not that simple.

We'll see how they do once Pep moves onto his next project.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bagor

What are they then if they're not the manager?

He is the main issue at the moment.



Or maybe it's the manager factor?

Mourinho is terrible and I'm not defending him at all, but the bigger issue for United to me is the Glazers and Woodward. Even if United sack Mourinho, not sure you can trust them to get the right manager in his place. I suppose anyone would be better given how dire the football is, but their track record isn't confidence inspiring.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Mourinho is terrible and I'm not defending him at all, but the bigger issue for United to me is the Glazers and Woodward. Even if United sack Mourinho, not sure you can trust them to get the right manager in his place. I suppose anyone would be better given how dire the football is, but their track record isn't confidence inspiring.

the problem to me still is not having a clear structure in place. They still operate like they did when Sir Alex was around - but giving your manager that kind of power is only a good idea when you have an absolute legend like him. Thy desperately need a Director of Football so that Woodward can fully concentrate on the sponsorship deals and so on.

[devo22]

Fulham sack Slavisa Jokanovic and bring in Claudio Ranieri.