13 thoughts on “City did not learn from a 60 year old failed 'Project'

  1. With top notch articles like this and the Jesper Olsen feature yesterday, I think I’ll be visiting your blog more often in future. Keep up the good work. 🙂

  2. Calling Sunderland a ‘Tyneside Club’ is the equivalent of calling Man Utd a Merseyside outfit. Barring that gaffe the rest of the article is quite good. However Man Utd have not been shy of flashing the cash in the past, and there was a period that Liverpool went through of buying up descent players just to have them on the bench or in the reserves so no one else could have them.

    As for buying silverware, it worked at Chelsea although at the cost of some horrendous payouts and flops, and managers, and a universal loathing etc,etc.
    City are replicating that approach admirably.

    Chris Boyle, Sunderland

  3. Len Shackleton put it succinctly in his book “Clown prince of soccer” he said. “The best 11 footballers do not necessarily maker the best football 11”. I think it says it all .

  4. Good article – apart from the major offence of calling Sunderland a Tyneside club. We are Wearside!

    Its even worse than calling people from Sunderland “Geordies”. Some would allow that but the majority would say we are Mackems.

    I also remember City in the 70s under Malcolm Allison trying to buy success with big money signings like Kaziu Deyna. Sunderland went to Maine Road and thrashed them 4-0

  5. money doesnt buy you success

    * Blackburn spent a fortune and only got 1 premier lge title before getting relegated 3 yrs later.
    * Newcastle spent £100m in the 1990’s to try and win trophies and won nothing.
    * Leeds spent big to try and become a force and ending up in ruins before getting relegated and have not come back.
    * Aston Villa, Tottenham have both spent big money and have done nothing.

    * Chelsea is a rare case of a small club who spent massive amounts of cash to successfully buy success as they have spent over £450m in just 7 yrs and last I knew their sugar daddy had pumped around £700m into the club.

    *Man City sugar daddy has spent around £450m on players and £1.08b in total to try and buy their way out of being the nobody small club they are to a successful one and i know it will fail as they have so far failed at every target they have set since his takeover, City are a small club and that will never change.

    ***Sir Alex Ferguson and Manchester United has only spent £448m in Fergie’s 24 yrs at the club and only 4 times have we spent over £20m on a player (28.1m Veron, 29.1m Ferdinand, 27m Rooney, 30.75m Berbatov) and broke the british transfer record like only 6 times and have never spent massive amounts of cash in a transfer market, Fergie has bought reasonably and have always preferred to develop his own players though the youth system. we have earned everything we have ever won though hard work, determination and dedication whiles others try to buy glory because they dont cant earn it and dont deserve it.

  6. ‘Tyneside Club’..FFS, do your research pal…Geography not your strong point ????

    Other than that, interesting read.

    Hawaaaaaaaaaay !!! :=)

  7. I forgot Liverpool who have spent the last 20 yrs trying to buy success and under rafa benitez spent £250m in his 6yrs which was more than us by the way scousers and he won next dooor to nothing…..Liverpool have spent around £450m in last 18 yrs in an failed attempt to buy dominance.

    * Arsene Wenger has spent around £240m in his 14 yrs at Arsenal to which the club has spent £300m in last 18yrs.

    * now there is Birmingham trying to buy success which is funny as they are nothing and wont achieve anything and Blackburn are in talks with a new owners who is planning to try and buy success with a £100m budget set straight away.

    what ever happened to the days when clubs would try and earn success, now so many small clubs try to buy it because they are crap and dont deserve nothing.

  8. I already know the bitters tried to buy success in the 70’s, they throguht they was gonna rule the world and did nothing and yet here they are talking again whiles again doing nothing.

    bout time Man City faces the fact they are a small club that will foreve be in our shadow.

    pathetic little bitter rags of wastelands, relegation is their next stop.

    Man City – 2010 version of leeds Utd…..Relegation and bankrupcy looms.

  9. It looks like you folks are owed an apology. For whatever reason, I have always regarded Sunderland as being in the same geographical area as Newcastle. It was confirmed in my mind by the following entry on Tyneside.com which states that “it is a concise guide to Tyneside and Tyne & Wear covering Newcastle Upon Tyne, Gateshead, North Shields, South Shields and parts of Sunderland.”

    You guys obviously see things in a different way so I bow to your superior knowledge.

  10. Tyne & Wear is the area between Newcastle (Tyneside) and Sunderland (Wearside). It generally comes under Tyneside.com due to some of the post codes in Tyne & Wear are the same as Newcastle – NE. Technically speaking though, SAFC should be referred as a Tyne & Wear club as it does sit between the Tyne & Wear but the less we have to do with Tyneside the better really!

  11. Some more geography for you Frank. Sunderland is the biggest City between Leeds and Edinburgh. Newcastle being the 2nd biggest.

  12. Thanks to the many posters who pointed out the error, SAFC is now referred to in the article as a Wearside club rather than Tyneside!

Comments are closed.