QUOTE (Milan Are Brilliant @ Oct 23 2011, 02:39 PM)
I've never given Chelsea credit for it either... but City have taken it to another level with spending.
I don't remember anyone doing it to this level to be honest (Chelsea are the obvious alternative), United bred in Scholes, Neville brothers, Beckham, Giggs etc when they were in their prime. I'm not old enough to know too much about Liverpool in their peak but they didn't buy everyone right? I mean United weren't buying people like Del Piero, Vieri, Salas, Ronaldo, Figo etc.
City have who, Richards? Who came through their youth team.
Sure City take it to the extreme with their purchases, simply because of their extreme wealth. But it's still the same thing at the end of the day. and yes, United have produced their own great players, but they've bought some of the best players around as well.
No team can do it without the money these days, and yes, it goes back to these clubs splashing money as if it's going out of style. But it's a vicious cycle, you're either in or you're out. For the English and Italian teams to compete with the amount of money Barca and Real get through their TV deal they have to get some form of input from a backer. If they want to win then they need to spen. It's just the way things are. Do we have to like it? No, but I certainly don't blame City for joining in on it either.
And I'm happy they hammered Man U, it's been a long time coming for them.
QUOTE (Danny @ Oct 23 2011, 02:51 PM)
Man City haven't bought a single 'world's best player in his position' imho. They've just bought a lot of very, very good players instead.
I don't think anyone would call any of their defence the best in the world, ditto their midfield or even their attack.
It's just that they've bought wisely - a bunch of very good players.
They're a mile off buying the likes of Silva, Ibra, Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Ronaldo, Higuain, Rooney blah blah blah. Basically some of the best in the world.
Agreed