Liverpool or Man City

[king canary 7,605]

You could argue that super rich owners have actually made the top of the division more competitive. Before Abramovic changed the game with Chelsea it was just Man U and Arsenal trading titles with one unexpected win for Blackburn (driven by money). You can argue that Serie A/Ligue Un/Bundesliga are all uncompetitive because nobody has the money to compete with Juve/PSG/Bayern.

[splendidrush 700]

It's only more competitive because we have six Teams that could possibly win it, that said Tottenham haven't won it since 61.

The trouble is, it's the same six, every year,  in fact, from memory,  the Top six were in place by the end of September, meaning the League was established within six weeks of the opening day. 

I understand that we need to be in the Premiership for the money, but honestly,  it's a cr@p product. 

[king canary 7,605]

7 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

It's only more competitive because we have six Teams that could possibly win it, that said Tottenham haven't won it since 61.

 The trouble is, it's the same six, every year,  in fact, from memory,  the Top six were in place by the end of September, meaning the League was established within six weeks of the opening day. 

I understand that we need to be in the Premiership for the money, but honestly,  it's a cr@p product. 

That is kind of the nature of modern football though. Success brings in money which brings in the best players which brings in more success etc etc. Even when the odd team breaks through (Leicester in the Premier League, Dortmund in Germany, Porto and Ajax in Europe) they get ripped apart by the teams with all the money. 

Longer term the answer probably has to lie in proper salary and spending caps because right now the simple fact is that spending power drives success.

[SwindonCanary 455]

They said it was a close title race, but my thoughts were as long as 7 matches to go, both Man City and Liverpool would win all their remaining matches. 

[Essjayess 307]

1 hour ago, SwindonCanary said:

They said it was a close title race, but my thoughts were as long as 7 matches to go, both Man City and Liverpool would win all their remaining matches. 

Indeed, i posted to a couple of weeks back mentioning what a crazy but wonderful  and special thing was happening in the top two divsions, City (at the time) on the cusp of being Champions and being so unfancied to do so at season start and to, after a massive upheaval at the club. Then the Prem, mentioning Liverpool would likely finish with 97 points and just 1 defeat, yet not being Champions. Im not worried by Pool or Man, City though, they are miles ahead of every other club in the Prem, even 3rd placed Chelsea finished a whopping 25 points behind Liverpool.

Not that it means much these days, but back in the 60s and 70s when a win was 2 pts, Liverpool would have won it on 67 pts with Man. City 2nd on 66. Shows the importance in the modern era of winning games even more than in the old days.

[splendidrush 700]

9 hours ago, king canary said:

That is kind of the nature of modern football though. Success brings in money which brings in the best players which brings in more success etc etc. 

I wish that were true, it may be the case for Liverpool or Man U, but the success at Chelsea and Man C  is entirely money driven. 

 

9 hours ago, king canary said:

 

Longer term the answer probably has to lie in proper salary and spending caps because right now the simple fact is that spending power drives success.

I agree with that, unfortunately that ship has sailed.