Forums / The Stands: Intelligent Footy Debate
Order: Newest / Oldest
Will Man City Be Bigger Than Man United In Five Years?
Mumbai (Chelsea) 4 years ago
With Ronaldo sold, no new signing, rumors of Ronney could be sold to Real and looking at how Glazers are doing with Man you.
Do you think with splendid cash reserves of oil rich Man city --- can they over take city rivals in five years...
Yogan (Chelsea) 4 years ago
The Rooney thing was a total joke. It was an April Fools' Prank. He wouldn't ever follow Ronaldo, however friendly they were. He loves old trafford and the united team, he is english and English players don't play abroad (or at least that's what commonly happens). I think Man City need to focus on their football rather than their money.... No Man Utd will still be bigger
Tony (footytube staff) 4 years ago
No harm mumbai, but 500 years won't bring city closer to united, they might win a few things, but to end up with the worldwide support utd have.... No chance, they can't even fill their own stadium, I mean the councils stadium, until they buy it lol.
It will always be man utd, liverpool, ac milan, inter milan, barca and real madrid, it would take some amount of years to overcome the popularity of any of the clubs I have mentioned
Mumbai (Chelsea) 4 years ago
Tony@ bigger meant city will dominate United in derby and winning trophies....
Rooney left Everton for bigger things.... And so as Beckham who is english left his childhood club to join Madrid.... Anyways that is just a possibility, I would wish Rooney stays in EPL forever.
If you would have told any Leeds United fan in late 60's the same thing they would pounce.... Looking at Leeds playing style at that time they would have kicked actually. I am just pointing Ferguson is about to retire, Rooney is pulling too much on his shoulder, Giggs and compnay on the verge of retiring, Man UTD debt mounting at the same time Man city is rising. Just being realistic guys.
Tony (footytube staff) 4 years ago
Your headings wrong then, it should have been, will man city be more successful than man utd over the next 5 yrs.  That seems more feasible.
Manutd7777 (Manchester United) 4 years ago
I disagree, and I can not see that happening in 5 years, manutd had done a lot over years that can not be erased just in 5 years. Maybe they could play better but coming to silverwares there is no comparative between the two because we all know manchester united has dominated
Jetlifari (Arsenal) 3 years ago
I agree with Tony, 5 years can't replace everything Man UTD has done but I don't agree with saying "It will always be man utd, liverpool, ac milan, inter milan, barca and real madrid" that will be the most popular.... Things change, people's taste change.... You never know what's going to happen next!
Big teams attract fans when they're winning, when they're not only real fans support them.... If Man City go on a winning streak for 10-15 years you can guarantee Man City will be everyone's new team with 'pundits' jumping on the bandwagon
Jetlifari (Arsenal) 3 years ago
I think the only way Man City can overcome Man U's legacy is to first stick with a good manager until they hit their stride and to change their transfer policy.... Or else they run the risk of being Real Madrid-lite
Mumbai (Chelsea) 3 years ago
It's been 4 months this topic started and we are seeing some power shift already in city rivals. Today Ferguson announced Rooney wants to departure.
Mr. Yogan.... You were proved wrong in less than four months
ScooterHayes (Chelsea) 3 years ago
Gentlemen, please.... Don't be snippy about it.

I would imagine Rooney's departure coming as a result of all the stresses he is having to deal with. Scandal, newborn, stress at work, and a boss that's pushing him to be great. Yah. I don't think that could come to much good.

It will make a nice drama when the rights of the story are sold...
Mumbai (Chelsea) 4 years ago
I say we would be able to see this shift of power balance between city rivals right from next championship season
Mumbai (Chelsea) 4 years ago
Not underestimating millions of followers of Man UTD across the world.... But it may happen 'cause of balance sheet of Man UTD owners and new cash rich UEFA champions league inductee Man city
Blueskiesahead (Chelsea) 4 years ago
To be honest, this is a real possibility. SAF won't be around much longer either and when he goes, united simply won't be able to keep the quality of play they have been used to for so long with the amount of debt they have. Unless of course they find the perfect replacement. Which is not easy
Vela12 (Arsenal) 4 years ago
I don't think that they will be bigger than manu but they will be on the same level as them. You can compete with money< specially with bad owner ship. City will just get better and better every year until they win the premiar leauge
Juno (AC Milan) 4 years ago
I seriously doubt that will happen.

Man Utd's superclub status isn't build in 5 years anyway. So it wouldn't be overtaken by Man City within or after 5 years. Chelsea with their billions couldn't manage. They won 2 league titles and surrender the next 3.... Man city haven't even won one. I couldn't see what futures lie for both clubs (eg, Man Utd selling who and who, Glazers destroying Man Utd, Man City's got banned from europe due to overspending, Oil magnates found bored and decides to leaves) but in 5 year, unless Man Utd got relegated.... Hell, even if they got relegated, I still don't foresee Man City to overtake them
Tony (footytube staff) 4 years ago
The first sensible comment I have read in this thread yet juno.  
Mumbai (Chelsea) 4 years ago
@Tony :Man UTD fans have to think unbiased and sensible before deciding what is sensible ; in debate you prove your point rather than just state emotionally
Juno (AC Milan) 4 years ago
Seriously, 500 years put forth by Tony is too much, but another 50 years seems logical. (Considering you win some and you lose some). That is unless Man City suddenly win the next 20 or so EPL titles.... Then I'll eat my shoe
Tony (footytube staff) 4 years ago
Thank god i'll be dead by then, that would be hard to take, but I can't imagine it, but rest assured, i'll be watching from up above
Mauijim (Manchester United) 2 years ago
We can curse them from above, eh Tony?
Joeymac (Manchester United) 2 years ago
Mumbai, then there's no point of this thread, seeing that you can't prove a point that is five years down the road...
Mumbai (Chelsea) 4 years ago
You are missing point here....

Chelsea and Man you are not from same city.
Chelsea got bigger than city rivals Arsenal (it didn't took away all teh fans)in terms of championship and trophies.

Man UTD --- this year would have struggled without Rooney for sure;
If Man UTD is not spending and Man city brings players whom people like to watch.... And this if has really realistic chance.... Than table can turn.

Also as mentioned above after Ferguson retires and old wines like Giggs, Scholes is done.... Who is next to take Man UTD on the shoulder except for Rooney....



Juno (AC Milan) 4 years ago
I presume you are replying to me....

I state an example. Take Lyon for instance. Champion for 7 of the last 8. You would have say that they are the benchmark of France football during then, but anyone from France would agree that St Etienne, Marseille, and Bordeaux are really the big boys of France football. Up until their 7 in a row titles, they won zilch. Yes, that took them up to the big boys level, but have they overtaken the real big boys? I wouldn't say so.

If you are speaking in terms of sporting reasons for overtaking like the titles and championships, I'll tell you this kind of stats changes over time.... In the 80s -pre1993, Liverpool was so dominant that you wouldn't believe Man Utd would ever overhaul their record titles win. What do we have here at this moment of time? Man Utd is on the verge of doing so bar Chelsea pipping them.

So when you wanna use the word 'bigger' (on your thread title)in terms of Football, most likely people will consider these things.
Fan base. - How widely supported are you?
Financial - How rich is the club? Does the club plays its match in a really big stadium as in 40000 and above?
Sporting achievement - How much did your club achieve in the history of domestic and European competition.

Note, its 'History' I'm using. So it does take in the fact what any club did before its current turmoil.

Now back to topic. If judging by just sporting achievement, Leeds Utd is still arguably bigger than Man City. And If you are just comparing Man City and Man Utd, they'll take a whole lot longer years to overtake ManUtd than Leeds.

P/s: FYI, Chelsea's 3 league title is small fry compared to Arsenal's 12 right now. Chelsea need at least another 9 straight title wins to even equal them.
Tony (footytube staff) 4 years ago
I think the {bigger} in your heading has confused a lot of us, I get your point
Sharpoon (Hull City) 4 years ago
They could maybe be bigger in five years time, nearly everythings possible with money. But as is often repeated in these sort of debates 'you can't buy history. '
Blueskiesahead (Chelsea) 4 years ago
I think many are missing something here. Its not just city improving. United at the moment is at the pinacle of footballing greatness. Now matter how good you get, you can only get as good as them. However with the current ownership, future retirement of fergie, and amount of bandwagonning fans united has (not trashing you guys, but lets face it, united has more fans around the world than any club and most of those fans beleive ronaldo still plays for them). So as the years go by, the clubs ability to spend (an ever growing need for superpower clubs such as united) will gradually decline as we have already seen in the past few seasons so long as the glazers are around. That debt aint going anywhere and the glazers are only making it bigger.

United would likely be in liverpool's position right now as well if fergie had retired back in 02 as he had planned. The scot has been the only thing keeping united together without a doubt. The talent he has is indisputable and the experience is unrivaled. But he has to retire someday as he has already stated and don't expect it to last much longer. When he goes, an instant decline in the level of play we see in united will be evident. This is of course assuming that the glazers are still in control of the club. If they fix their debt however then this may not be the case. That can only happen if someone takes over from the glazers however as I have already stated. That decline won't likely stop either because the manager that takes over from SAF won't likely be able to pull the same strings, or have the same eye for young, cheap talent that the united legend has.

After all this happens and as we see the quality of play improve and more titles won by city, we will see more city jersey's running around all over the world not knowing the difference between shaun wright phillips and adebayor but still willing to dish out $100 a jersey to prove that they are indeed fans of the game. Not only will this make city more money, but it will take away from uniteds influx of cash that they currently have. We have already seen the effects of this. United used to be the most profitable clubs in europe not so long ago. They're already going down in that list. I believe they've gone from 1st or 2nd to 4th or 5th over the past few seasons. It may be a slow decline, but expect that fall in profits to only increase as years go by with city in the mix. Certainly won't help now will it?

Now as many have said, money can't buy history. It's so true. But the lack of it certainly can make people forget about it. Look at liverpool, leeds, nottingham forrest. These are only the most notable of clubs. If united isn't careful, they can fall into the same situation pool is currently facing and the one that leeds and nottingham have already gone through. I'm not saying it will be that drastic, but don't put it out of the picture. Your history means nothing if you've become only a mid table club for the next 50 years
Ant (Liverpool) 4 years ago
"United at the moment is at the pinacle of footballing greatness". I'm not sure I agree, that seems a bit generous. I believe that in recent years, they have been an excellent team. If they were the pinnacle of footballing greatness, they'd win every game by five goals or more and win every tournament with ease. They've lost seven league games this season already.

Every club has rises and falls, that's a natural thing. I agree with most of what you say. I think whoever replaces Fergie will have a mountain to climb. No matter what they do, it won't be as good as Ferguson did it. People will mutter, "this isn't the United way" and so on. Purely because SAF has been at the helm for far longer than most United fans have been United fans. It's all they know.

Regarding history, you can't dismiss it so readily. History and a trophy room is really all a team has in the long run. Yes, add to it by all means, but unless you remember your past achievements, why do it at all?
Blueskiesahead (Chelsea) 4 years ago
I think you missunderstood that statement. I'm basicly saying that united can not really get much better than they have been over the past few seasons. They have won everything they can win with very stiff competition. Sure they may not be the perfect team, but no team is perfect, which is what makes football so exciting. There is and always will be room for improvement.

Now about history, yes it is important to a clubs fans. And really that is what matters. But if we're measuring how good a team is, I as a chelsea fan could care less about liverpool's 18 league titles. As far as I am concerned, we're better than liverpool at the moment and are poised to remain better for many many years. (not thrashing liverpool, just an example). And when I rate a team, yes the history comes into play, but shouldnt the future be more important? Lets use another team as an example. Real madrid may have been team of the century, but only a fool would rank them team of the last decade. And team of this year? Hardly. Now with the amount of inconsistency's that envelopes the club in terms of management and boardroom policies, one can hardly expect much better for the long term unless something changes. Personally, I would much rather have a club with potential than one that can only speak of the titles they have won 20 years ago
Mumbai (Chelsea) 4 years ago
I can not agree more to Blueskiesahead.... If I believe fans like me and Blueskies started watching soccer when Chelsea were rising and than we supported the team.... Same thing will happen with new generation of fans - when new football followers start following soccer closely if they will see City is improving and fighting club playing exciting soccer and winning trophies, they will surely back City rather than United.... And that would only add their fans....
And we have perfect example of Liverpool of 80's ; they are not on same level as United

Same thing can happen with United.... It can happen fast specially when the club from their own city doing great thing
Ant (Liverpool) 4 years ago
Why does this attitude not surprise me? Teams that are enjoying relatively new success will of course choose to ignore the past.

Let's imagine if Chelsea won the next ten premier leagues. Then, in year eleven, they lost. In fact, they never won another league for twenty years. Would you as Chelsea fans never, ever mention those ten Premier leagues? Of course you would.

That's history. A cabinet full of glistening trophies showing that no matter what other teams achieve this year, you've been there, done that already.
Juno (AC Milan) 4 years ago
I quote Blueskies "we're better than liverpool at the moment and are poised to remain better for many many years. (not thrashing liverpool, just an example). And when I rate a team, yes the history comes into play, but shouldn't the future be more important? "

First point. Nobody knows that for sure. Definitely not Blueskies. Because the next time Liverpool wins the league title, it could be another domination for all you know. Football nowadays are unpredictable. Who would have guess there would be anyone opening a thread claiming Man city would be bigger than Man Utd in 5 years purely based on $$?

And the second point is, when you speaks of shouldn't the future be more important, I say resoundingly 'yes'. But do Chelsea think of future when they build (Abramovic) the club? Where is the youngsters coming through the ranks? Going out to buy is call 'thinking' about the future? Its fine, at least they do plan, but even when they are buying youngster, how often do you see Chelsea playing them other than the superstars they bought?

And quote:'poised to remain better for many many years. ' is up until Abramovich decides to leave. Chelsea's total salary outweigh what they could earn. Quote:"Your history means nothing if you've become only a mid table club for the next 50 years". Roman leaves and Chelsea says 'Goodbye' to planet earth. Okay, I'm overstating it. But at least goodbye to the EPL. Same goes for Man City.

Quote:"Personally, I would much rather have a club with potential than one that can only speak of the titles they have won 20 years ago" This sentence only works for fair weather fans. Liverpool fans has been a nuisance for keep repeating they'll win the next title to add to their last title of 20 years ago, BUT! They are true fans. To stand by your clubs when they are down, and to cheer them on when the going gets hard is what really 'Fanatics' are about. To readily say the quoted sentence would meant that you've only started supporting your club when they are on the way up. Lets see how one would respond when club you support is on the way down is a true measure of loyalty
Joeymac (Manchester United) 3 years ago
Of course a team with a future is going to say the future is more important, and a team with a past will say the past and history is
Juno (AC Milan) 3 years ago
Yeah, but the truth is every club has a future. We can't assume Leeds Utd for example, will never climb back to EPL, and never ever qualify for Europe, and never ever win another title! No one in their right mind 5 years back will predict Man City will be loaded with cash not even Real Madrid can compete. So if Man City and Chelsea has future, so do many other clubs. Future is mysterious, but history is clear
Joeymac (Manchester United) 3 years ago
Yeah you never know what can happen, that's why we love this game
Big9al (Newcastle United) 4 years ago
In 5 years huh? I'm SURE THEY CAN! With roberto mancini city will bring a trophy not don't have to waiting in 5 years next season they will get a trophy, could be from FA cup or EPL premiership. I firmly believe the management in city will try to move in some payers next summer, santa zruz, sylvinho, bellamy, robinho, and bridge could be leave out and its a chance to mancini to strengthen the his squad with the international players. Pazzini, giovinco, palombo, hamsik, and cassano could be manchester city players next season.... I firmly believe at least 3 italian stars will be move in to manchester city. And they could win at least 1 trophy and I'm sure it will be FA cup
ScooterHayes (Chelsea) 4 years ago
Okay, now since this is a City-United thread, I expect the same replies as we have gotten so far. But I gotta' side with City on this one. At least, partly.

When the thread states "overtake", the only ways you can statistically look at that is if they can do it on an economical basis, a fan basis, or if they can do it on a competitive basis.

I'll play the realist! What would happen if United didn't perform next year? If the rest of the game of football somehow advanced past them, or in the EPL they just suddenly became a flop? You don't plan for that, but it is always an option. It has happened to other teams. United can't be exempt just because they near religion status.

It would take at least 20 years of semi-perfection by another team to match what United has achieved, then it would actually be "bigger" or equal to United. If next season, however, their status did miraculously change to "falling giant", I don't think all of that history will save you. It may bring you comfort, but I think people live more in the now than anything; if you don't win for another 5 seasons, things will feel very real.

City does have more money. If they adopt the money buys titles attitude, you can't doubt it has worked, and you can't doubt it is still working today. A team with lots of history and enchantment doesn't win trophies: a team with a lot of money does. Money may come from selling DVD boxsets of your previous seasons, but you have to live in the current season and hope your team can pull it off again. Teams like Chelsea and United are fighting it out this year because they have the most money put into their teams with quality players that are cohesive (please don't go at the money doesn't buy a "team" argument, I covered that base haha).

City could buy into the titleship of the top clubs. They could break out and win everything next season with the most stacked team anybody has ever seen. They could buy into foreign markets more with their enormous cash-flow. They could create a history of winning the most trophies in the shortest amount of time. Don't just stubbornly deny some of the possibilities; I wholeheartedly agree United has an amazing history in football, a huge cash-flow, and a huge fan base. But only one of those things is unchangeable. Bad press ruins things overnight. Bankruptcy comes. Coaches leave. Nobody is immune.

And uh.... Yup

Kimaway17 (Liverpool) 4 years ago
They could be. They have all the money. And this season they have been amazing. They could attract more great players to their team. They have the money. So yes they could
Juno (AC Milan) 4 years ago
How many titles did Blackburn bought? How about Chelsea? Lets say Madrid in past decade since Galacticos era where they spent more than anyone else, did they dominate the last 10 years?
Raj (Chelsea) 4 years ago
I think the 'bigger' argument needs some clarifying first. What makes a club bigger than the other? Is it fanbase/the trophy cabinet/worldwide merchandising or current form? I'm leaning towards the former here. As a supporter of Chelsea and using our club as an example of the 8 and more good years we've had, I'm fully aware of where we stand as a football club. We could arguably be considered among the European elite-in the present day, when we have the calibre of players being linked to the club and the constant good run we have in the league and in Europe. BUT, does that make us a 'bigger' club than Arsenal? Painfully, no. Liverpool? Certainly not. We're on our way to charting our own history but we still have quite the voyage to make to get there. We're making good long strides but it will take time to catch up and go further.

Each opinion is subjective of course, a person can only chalk out what he thinks by what he's seen. A 50 year old Chelsea supporter would admit that Liverpool are a bigger club because he's lived through the highs and lows of the club and bases his opinion collectively over the years.

So, looking into the next 5 years, City have the potential to field a better team and squad than United but be a bigger club, they will not.
Juno (AC Milan) 4 years ago
A sound mind with some wise words indeed
GTUnited (Arsenal) 4 years ago
Yep agree with you there
Pragathish (AC Milan) 4 years ago
I'll echo the comments above me, by Raj. Many of you would have heard this phrase too many times, but i'll repeat:"Money can't buy history and tradition"
Being big is exactly defined by your history, fans and the amount of silverware. Even if man city manage to be more successful than utd, that won't make them any bigger than utd, unless United face an epic meltdown like Leeds United, which is very very very unlikely, in other words impossible, to happen.

Man City will never be bigger than Man utd. Simple as fact.
Fromtheisland (Toronto) 4 years ago
Bigger? No. Better? Maybe. It will take decades for Man City to be bigger than Man you, maybe even a full century, but I do believe Man city is moving in the right direction, although they need focus on building from within a little more, rather than just buying players. Man UTD has too much history and too many trophies, but Man city has the cash flow. Personally i've took a liking to Man City and believe that they will be cream of the crop soon in the Premiership
SirStig (Arsenal) 4 years ago
Maybe on the pitch they might be bigger in a few years time, but as a household name they certainly won't. Especially here in the states. Most people have heard of Man Utd at least once in their lives. It'll take a lot for Man City to become a household name or even as popular as Man Utd is globally. Man Utd have had almost half a century worth of building up their name and reputation. It'll probably take Man City just as long to achieve the same thing. One league title for Man City won't be enough for them to be bigger. They'll just have to win 14 titles or so in order to do it lol



   
Kick4Life - changing lives through football