Premier League 2023-2024

[Armagh18]

I've enjoyed City's emergence. I think FFP rules are good in the sense of stopping clubs going nuts and going bust writing off mountains of debt, but if some rich individual wants to buy a club and waste millions/billions of their personal fortune, knock yourself out.

We all know PL is big business and the financial side of things and mismanagement of clubs will always be talking points. And by clubs we're literally talking international corporations here. But end of the day, reason why we watch is because it's a game, sport, and the teams that do well are the ones that attract top players and get a manager in to get the best out of them. From that perspective City have been the best the last decade and I find it amusing they have put so many noses out of joint. Trying to imply that their successes are missing some sort of integrity. That's a laugh, integrity or loyalty do not exist in the game. English football sold out a very long time ago.

But they are just Sunderland with oil money. Yeah sure they have been the best but lets call a spade a spade, no one is signing for city in 2003. The idea that their revenues can equal Utd's or Madrid's is for the birds. The rules are there to protect clubs from themselves. If they have broken them, then they have to face the consequences.

Oh God that's arrogant. Sunderland with 6 league titles? What were Utd before they changed the cooperate side of things and blew everyone away with their money. Finances were only a problem when oil money came into the game. So what, clubs are not in need of protection if a rich benefactor is willing to personally write it all off. Top 4 never had a problem when they thought top 4 was set in stone and the ladder pulled up.

Yeah, their money earned from being yhe best team in the land, not from some Russian or Arab crook buying yhe club as a toy.

[Look-Up!]

I've enjoyed City's emergence. I think FFP rules are good in the sense of stopping clubs going nuts and going bust writing off mountains of debt, but if some rich individual wants to buy a club and waste millions/billions of their personal fortune, knock yourself out.

We all know PL is big business and the financial side of things and mismanagement of clubs will always be talking points. And by clubs we're literally talking international corporations here. But end of the day, reason why we watch is because it's a game, sport, and the teams that do well are the ones that attract top players and get a manager in to get the best out of them. From that perspective City have been the best the last decade and I find it amusing they have put so many noses out of joint. Trying to imply that their successes are missing some sort of integrity. That's a laugh, integrity or loyalty do not exist in the game. English football sold out a very long time ago.

But they are just Sunderland with oil money. Yeah sure they have been the best but lets call a spade a spade, no one is signing for city in 2003. The idea that their revenues can equal Utd's or Madrid's is for the birds. The rules are there to protect clubs from themselves. If they have broken them, then they have to face the consequences.

Oh God that's arrogant. Sunderland with 6 league titles? What were Utd before they changed the cooperate side of things and blew everyone away with their money. Finances were only a problem when oil money came into the game. So what, clubs are not in need of protection if a rich benefactor is willing to personally write it all off. Top 4 never had a problem when they thought top 4 was set in stone and the ladder pulled up.

Yeah, their money earned from being yhe best team in the land, not from some Russian or Arab crook buying yhe club as a toy.

They were the benefactors of circumstance, being the best team in the land at the advent of the PL era and the large increase in revenues from TV money and commercial opportunities in Asia. Fair play to them and they made hay and essentially made these avenues a closed shop.

City and Chelsea got creative and found "other ways", meeted and greeted and wooed and secured revenues elsewhere. So who's to say it's not "their money". Who's to say it's less noble than selling shirts in China. Up until last year Chelsea have had great successes, great investments in the infrastructure and facilities all debt free. City likewise, new stadium, top of the range facilities, I'm sure there's plenty of debt on the books but that's an inhouse thing and doubt they're paying any real interest on it.
Utd are up to their eyeballs despite their revenues plus the place is crumbling down around them if you listen to the experts. So who's the fools.

[trailer]

I've enjoyed City's emergence. I think FFP rules are good in the sense of stopping clubs going nuts and going bust writing off mountains of debt, but if some rich individual wants to buy a club and waste millions/billions of their personal fortune, knock yourself out.

We all know PL is big business and the financial side of things and mismanagement of clubs will always be talking points. And by clubs we're literally talking international corporations here. But end of the day, reason why we watch is because it's a game, sport, and the teams that do well are the ones that attract top players and get a manager in to get the best out of them. From that perspective City have been the best the last decade and I find it amusing they have put so many noses out of joint. Trying to imply that their successes are missing some sort of integrity. That's a laugh, integrity or loyalty do not exist in the game. English football sold out a very long time ago.

But they are just Sunderland with oil money. Yeah sure they have been the best but lets call a spade a spade, no one is signing for city in 2003. The idea that their revenues can equal Utd's or Madrid's is for the birds. The rules are there to protect clubs from themselves. If they have broken them, then they have to face the consequences.

Oh God that's arrogant. Sunderland with 6 league titles? What were Utd before they changed the cooperate side of things and blew everyone away with their money. Finances were only a problem when oil money came into the game. So what, clubs are not in need of protection if a rich benefactor is willing to personally write it all off. Top 4 never had a problem when they thought top 4 was set in stone and the ladder pulled up.

Yeah, their money earned from being yhe best team in the land, not from some Russian or Arab crook buying yhe club as a toy.

They were the benefactors of circumstance, being the best team in the land at the advent of the PL era and the large increase in revenues from TV money and commercial opportunities in Asia. Fair play to them and they made hay and essentially made these avenues a closed shop.

City and Chelsea got creative and found "other ways", meeted and greeted and wooed and secured revenues elsewhere. So who's to say it's not "their money". Who's to say it's less noble than selling shirts in China. Up until last year Chelsea have had great successes, great investments in the infrastructure and facilities all debt free. City likewise, new stadium, top of the range facilities, I'm sure there's plenty of debt on the books but that's an inhouse thing and doubt they're paying any real interest on it.
Utd are up to their eyeballs despite their revenues plus the place is crumbling down around them if you listen to the experts. So who's the fools.

Haaland's wages are being paid off the back of some poor Indian slave.

[Look-Up!]

I've enjoyed City's emergence. I think FFP rules are good in the sense of stopping clubs going nuts and going bust writing off mountains of debt, but if some rich individual wants to buy a club and waste millions/billions of their personal fortune, knock yourself out.

We all know PL is big business and the financial side of things and mismanagement of clubs will always be talking points. And by clubs we're literally talking international corporations here. But end of the day, reason why we watch is because it's a game, sport, and the teams that do well are the ones that attract top players and get a manager in to get the best out of them. From that perspective City have been the best the last decade and I find it amusing they have put so many noses out of joint. Trying to imply that their successes are missing some sort of integrity. That's a laugh, integrity or loyalty do not exist in the game. English football sold out a very long time ago.

But they are just Sunderland with oil money. Yeah sure they have been the best but lets call a spade a spade, no one is signing for city in 2003. The idea that their revenues can equal Utd's or Madrid's is for the birds. The rules are there to protect clubs from themselves. If they have broken them, then they have to face the consequences.

Oh God that's arrogant. Sunderland with 6 league titles? What were Utd before they changed the cooperate side of things and blew everyone away with their money. Finances were only a problem when oil money came into the game. So what, clubs are not in need of protection if a rich benefactor is willing to personally write it all off. Top 4 never had a problem when they thought top 4 was set in stone and the ladder pulled up.

Yeah, their money earned from being yhe best team in the land, not from some Russian or Arab crook buying yhe club as a toy.

They were the benefactors of circumstance, being the best team in the land at the advent of the PL era and the large increase in revenues from TV money and commercial opportunities in Asia. Fair play to them and they made hay and essentially made these avenues a closed shop.

City and Chelsea got creative and found "other ways", meeted and greeted and wooed and secured revenues elsewhere. So who's to say it's not "their money". Who's to say it's less noble than selling shirts in China. Up until last year Chelsea have had great successes, great investments in the infrastructure and facilities all debt free. City likewise, new stadium, top of the range facilities, I'm sure there's plenty of debt on the books but that's an inhouse thing and doubt they're paying any real interest on it.
Utd are up to their eyeballs despite their revenues plus the place is crumbling down around them if you listen to the experts. So who's the fools.

Haaland's wages are being paid off the back of some poor Indian slave.

Get your point but it'd probably be more accurate to say his wages are being paid by poor fools like me and you getting ripped off every time we go to fill up our cars.

The poor Indian slaves are more likely to be exploited by the likes of Addidas and Nike, who account for a huge portion of the wages of ALL the players in the PL.

Which kind of brings me back to my original points. It's a bit late in the day to be only becoming outraged because of the emergence of City.

[seafoid]

I've enjoyed City's emergence. I think FFP rules are good in the sense of stopping clubs going nuts and going bust writing off mountains of debt, but if some rich individual wants to buy a club and waste millions/billions of their personal fortune, knock yourself out.

We all know PL is big business and the financial side of things and mismanagement of clubs will always be talking points. And by clubs we're literally talking international corporations here. But end of the day, reason why we watch is because it's a game, sport, and the teams that do well are the ones that attract top players and get a manager in to get the best out of them. From that perspective City have been the best the last decade and I find it amusing they have put so many noses out of joint. Trying to imply that their successes are missing some sort of integrity. That's a laugh, integrity or loyalty do not exist in the game. English football sold out a very long time ago.

But they are just Sunderland with oil money. Yeah sure they have been the best but lets call a spade a spade, no one is signing for city in 2003. The idea that their revenues can equal Utd's or Madrid's is for the birds. The rules are there to protect clubs from themselves. If they have broken them, then they have to face the consequences.

Oh God that's arrogant. Sunderland with 6 league titles? What were Utd before they changed the cooperate side of things and blew everyone away with their money. Finances were only a problem when oil money came into the game. So what, clubs are not in need of protection if a rich benefactor is willing to personally write it all off. Top 4 never had a problem when they thought top 4 was set in stone and the ladder pulled up.

Yeah, their money earned from being yhe best team in the land, not from some Russian or Arab crook buying yhe club as a toy.

The nobility of the debt the Glazers used to buy Man Utd. The Glazers were a mining family from Sunderland and only paid themselves £100 a week, compared to what is going on at Man City.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

[Look-Up!]

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

The history books say otherwise and I'll reply to whatever posts I like thanks.

So Manchester derby stopped being a derby when the tankings were reversed and titles started going to blue side again  . Suppose football only started in 92 

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

The history books say otherwise and I'll reply to whatever posts I like thanks.

So Manchester derby stopped being a derby when the tankings were reversed and titles started going to blue side again  . Suppose football only started in 92 

Well they don't, they won about 5 trophies before oil money
I never said you couldn't, but you don't speak for anyone else so you can "imagine" whatever you think his point is all you like. I'll resume that conversation with him if he cares enough to respond.
As for football starting in 92, no it didn't, we were the most successful club in the country before then too, nice try though

[Look-Up!]

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

The history books say otherwise and I'll reply to whatever posts I like thanks.

So Manchester derby stopped being a derby when the tankings were reversed and titles started going to blue side again  . Suppose football only started in 92 

Well they don't, they won about 5 trophies before oil money
I never said you couldn't, but you don't speak for anyone else so you can "imagine" whatever you think his point is all you like. I'll resume that conversation with him if he cares enough to respond.
As for football starting in 92, no it didn't, we were the most successful club in the country before then too, nice try though

He made a point that was pretty obvious . I concur, no imagining about it.

Liverpool won 1 league title in 30 years. You could deduce from that they were only a force for one year in that period but you'd be wrong. Same way you're wrong suggesting City were never a force, pre or post 1950. To suggest otherwise is completely ignorant of facts.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

The history books say otherwise and I'll reply to whatever posts I like thanks.

So Manchester derby stopped being a derby when the tankings were reversed and titles started going to blue side again  . Suppose football only started in 92 

Well they don't, they won about 5 trophies before oil money
I never said you couldn't, but you don't speak for anyone else so you can "imagine" whatever you think his point is all you like. I'll resume that conversation with him if he cares enough to respond.
As for football starting in 92, no it didn't, we were the most successful club in the country before then too, nice try though

He made a point that was pretty obvious . I concur, no imagining about it.

Liverpool won 1 league title in 30 years. You could deduce from that they were only a force for one year in that period but you'd be wrong. Same way you're wrong suggesting City were never a force, pre or post 1950. To suggest otherwise is completely ignorant of facts.

Well it wasn't, that's why it was questioned as the facts proved otherwise.
Yes correct, you would be wrong if you deduced that, because they won several other major honours in that time frame whilst still carrying the stature of being a big club.
Citeh on the other hand haven't been a force since oil money, because they won next to nothing in their entire history before it, simple really.

[Look-Up!]

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

The history books say otherwise and I'll reply to whatever posts I like thanks.

So Manchester derby stopped being a derby when the tankings were reversed and titles started going to blue side again  . Suppose football only started in 92 

Well they don't, they won about 5 trophies before oil money
I never said you couldn't, but you don't speak for anyone else so you can "imagine" whatever you think his point is all you like. I'll resume that conversation with him if he cares enough to respond.
As for football starting in 92, no it didn't, we were the most successful club in the country before then too, nice try though

He made a point that was pretty obvious . I concur, no imagining about it.

Liverpool won 1 league title in 30 years. You could deduce from that they were only a force for one year in that period but you'd be wrong. Same way you're wrong suggesting City were never a force, pre or post 1950. To suggest otherwise is completely ignorant of facts.

Well it wasn't, that's why it was questioned as the facts proved otherwise.
Yes correct, you would be wrong if you deduced that, because they won several other major honours in that time frame whilst still carrying the stature of being a big club.
Citeh on the other hand haven't been a force since oil money, because they won next to nothing in their entire history before it, simple really.

Jesus you're tedious. Counting only top flight league and major cup competitions, domestic or European, City have featured, either winner or runners up 18 times pre oil money.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

The history books say otherwise and I'll reply to whatever posts I like thanks.

So Manchester derby stopped being a derby when the tankings were reversed and titles started going to blue side again  . Suppose football only started in 92 

Well they don't, they won about 5 trophies before oil money
I never said you couldn't, but you don't speak for anyone else so you can "imagine" whatever you think his point is all you like. I'll resume that conversation with him if he cares enough to respond.
As for football starting in 92, no it didn't, we were the most successful club in the country before then too, nice try though

He made a point that was pretty obvious . I concur, no imagining about it.

Liverpool won 1 league title in 30 years. You could deduce from that they were only a force for one year in that period but you'd be wrong. Same way you're wrong suggesting City were never a force, pre or post 1950. To suggest otherwise is completely ignorant of facts.

Well it wasn't, that's why it was questioned as the facts proved otherwise.
Yes correct , you would be wrong if you deduced that, because they won several other major honours in that time frame whilst still carrying the stature of being a big club.
Citeh on the other hand haven't been a force since oil money, because they won next to nothing in their entire history before it, simple really.

Jesus you're tedious. Counting only top flight league and major cup competitions, domestic or European, City have featured, either winner or runners up 18 times pre oil money.

Not quite, nobody cares about runners up by the way so not sure why you've counted that.
2 leagues, 4 fa cups and 2 league cups in their entire history pre oil money. 8 major trophies in about 115 years
And before you mention it, because I know it's coming, the cup winners cup is not a major. Feyenoord won Big Ears that year, not Citeh.

[Look-Up!]

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

The history books say otherwise and I'll reply to whatever posts I like thanks.

So Manchester derby stopped being a derby when the tankings were reversed and titles started going to blue side again  . Suppose football only started in 92 

Well they don't, they won about 5 trophies before oil money
I never said you couldn't, but you don't speak for anyone else so you can "imagine" whatever you think his point is all you like. I'll resume that conversation with him if he cares enough to respond.
As for football starting in 92, no it didn't, we were the most successful club in the country before then too, nice try though

He made a point that was pretty obvious . I concur, no imagining about it.

Liverpool won 1 league title in 30 years. You could deduce from that they were only a force for one year in that period but you'd be wrong. Same way you're wrong suggesting City were never a force, pre or post 1950. To suggest otherwise is completely ignorant of facts.

Well it wasn't, that's why it was questioned as the facts proved otherwise.
Yes correct , you would be wrong if you deduced that, because they won several other major honours in that time frame whilst still carrying the stature of being a big club.
Citeh on the other hand haven't been a force since oil money, because they won next to nothing in their entire history before it, simple really.

Jesus you're tedious. Counting only top flight league and major cup competitions, domestic or European, City have featured, either winner or runners up 18 times pre oil money.

Not quite, nobody cares about runners up by the way so not sure why you've counted that.
2 leagues, 4 fa cups and 2 league cups in their entire history pre oil money. 8 major trophies in about 115 years
And before you mention it, because I know it's coming, the cup winners cup is not a major. Feyenoord won Big Ears that year, not Citeh.

Cup winners cup certainly is and at least you're acknowledging facts now, not the imagined 5 trophies you previously quoted.

Runners up is certainly relevant, winning leagues and coming 2nd shows that you are a force in your competition and one of the bigger players.

Sure hasn't this Liverpool team been lauded as the greatest PL team of all time by many despite their 1 trophy. Seems runners up carries more weight for some more than others. Maybe it was the fact they ran City so close.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Liverpool have only been a force since Bill Shankly took over in the late 50s.

The idea that only Man Utd vs Liverpool is a genuine rivalry is wrong.

Not quite, 5 league titles (and 3 2nd divisions) before the 50s . Nice try though

In 1950 there weren't 2 teams far ahead on the title list.
Liverpool and Everton had 5 
Arsenal, Villa and Sunderland had 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

Liverpool were part of the pack. Until Shankly changed everything

They were a force before 1950 as number of titles shows, and post 1950 too, as number of titles shows.
Not sure what your underlying point is here but whatever it is, it's not holding up.

As were City a force pre 50's and post as their numerous titles show in league and cup (pre 2010s), including at European level, plus several runners up seasons. Pre 50's too Utd won about 2 leagues? Fergie and Busby era's are the anomalies if you want to be technical about it accounting for all but 2 of their leagues?
I'd imagine that's his point which was in reply to someone saying City was a soul less club lacking tradition or history and Utd-Liverpool could only be classed as a proper rivalry.

Citeh were never a force before oil money.
Yea I'm sure he doesn't need you answering for him, if he wanted to respond he would.
But city are a soulless club lacking a proper history and Liverpool-United is a proper rivalry.

The history books say otherwise and I'll reply to whatever posts I like thanks.

So Manchester derby stopped being a derby when the tankings were reversed and titles started going to blue side again  . Suppose football only started in 92 

Well they don't, they won about 5 trophies before oil money
I never said you couldn't, but you don't speak for anyone else so you can "imagine" whatever you think his point is all you like. I'll resume that conversation with him if he cares enough to respond.
As for football starting in 92, no it didn't, we were the most successful club in the country before then too, nice try though

He made a point that was pretty obvious . I concur, no imagining about it.

Liverpool won 1 league title in 30 years. You could deduce from that they were only a force for one year in that period but you'd be wrong. Same way you're wrong suggesting City were never a force, pre or post 1950. To suggest otherwise is completely ignorant of facts.

Well it wasn't, that's why it was questioned as the facts proved otherwise.
Yes correct , you would be wrong if you deduced that, because they won several other major honours in that time frame whilst still carrying the stature of being a big club.
Citeh on the other hand haven't been a force since oil money, because they won next to nothing in their entire history before it, simple really.

Jesus you're tedious. Counting only top flight league and major cup competitions, domestic or European, City have featured, either winner or runners up 18 times pre oil money.

Not quite, nobody cares about runners up by the way so not sure why you've counted that.
2 leagues, 4 fa cups and 2 league cups in their entire history pre oil money. 8 major trophies in about 115 years
And before you mention it, because I know it's coming, the cup winners cup is not a major. Feyenoord won Big Ears that year, not Citeh.

Cup winners cup certainly is and at least you're acknowledging facts now, not the imagined 5 trophies you previously quoted.

Runners up is certainly relevant, winning leagues and coming 2nd shows that you are a force in your competition and one of the bigger players.

Sure hasn't this Liverpool team been lauded as the greatest PL team of all time by many despite their 1 trophy. Seems runners up carries more weight for some more than others. Maybe it was the fact they ran City so close.

No it isn't. It was the equivalent of 3rd tier football for teams that won domestic cup competitions to give them a taste of European football, and has been since discontinued so it's not even close to being a major. I also said "about 5 trophies".
Big clubs don't count runner up, let's deal in the facts, 8 majors pre oil money is laughable and backs up my point.
No I'd say it's more the fact they won the league by the biggest points margin and at the earliest point in the season, that's probably why.

[brokencrossbar1]

A great man once said 'If you are first you are first. If you are second you are nothing.'