If you can prove to me with a valid argument then I’d change my mind but so far I see nothing but money being thrown around to buy some of the best players in the league
If you can prove to me with a valid argument then I’d change my mind but so far I see nothing but money being thrown around to buy some of the best players in the league
Almost all modern day sporting success is down to money. In English Football before Man City it was Chelsea who were challenging Man Utd, who they themselves kept buying players. Arsenal had a few one off years of success. Blackburn also had a year of success thanks to Jack Walkers money. Before Man Utd was Liverpool and Everton thanks to the Moores family in the 70’s-80’s. Before that you are going back to Man Utd in the 50’s-60’s who bought all the good youngsters.
How DARE you bring logic here 😤
And no commas!
Im sure the correlation to money and results goes all the way back. Remember reading that the early 1900’s shows the same thing. Sort of explains why its always cities which have the best team, towns and villages didn’t have as many fans so couldn’t compete in monetary terms in the early days.
In a more general reply, Buying the best player doesn’t guarantee success. Man Utd have bought a lot of seriously good players. Its the whole club that makes a team competitive. Man city are very well run and their facilities and academy help too. Lazy to just insinuate money is the only reason.