Premier League 2021/22 Thread

[filbertway]

Just now, majaco said:

Have you never given it a "Come on, City" at Filbert Street or since?

Never, I'm not sure if it's a generational thing. I remember my grandad used to say "are you off down the city this weekend?"

 

I also spent 3 years at uni with a few Man City fans so that also probably didn't help

 

[Spudulike]

42 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Who genuinelly cares  They're the biggest "City" in the Country which is why people call it them.

 

Same as "United". Or do I mean Peterborough United?

The Manchester club do not have exclusivity on the name 'City' despite what they and Sky think. I genuinely care. 

 

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Naaah I call them City. I've never one referred to us at City in my life

 

Blimey 

 

39 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Never, I'm not sure if it's a generational thing. I remember my grandad used to say "are you off down the city this weekend?"

 

I also spent 3 years at uni with a few Man City fans so that also probably didn't help

 

It shouldn't be a generational thing. 'Leicester' is a rugby club. I couldn't let ManC fans get away with referring to their club as 'City' when in mixed company. They need to know its bad etiquette. Sometimes little things are important. 

[Paninistickers]

57 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Naaah I call them City. I've never one referred to us at City in my life

 

Eh? Is this a wind up? Haven't read the whole thread so apologies if I miss the irony.

 

I've never, ever called us anything but City inside Leicester. Every single person around me, everyone who I know, every convo I've ever overheard in Leicester calls us City. Not Leicester. Not the foxes (only stringer uses that term, but he's unwell and not all there so I let him.off).  

 

 

 

 

[Unabomber]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

Naaah I call them City. I've never one referred to us at City in my life

 

You’re having a laugh 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

The Manchester club do not have exclusivity on the name 'City' despite what they and Sky think. I genuinely care. 

 

Blimey 

 

It shouldn't be a generational thing. 'Leicester' is a rugby club. I couldn't let ManC fans get away with referring to their club as 'City' when in mixed company. They need to know its bad etiquette. Sometimes little things are important. 

They don't, nor do we. Lots of Leicester fans grew up/live outside of Leicester and talk about football with people who don't support Leicester. I've never lived in Leicester and if I mentioned 'City' to my friends or someone I was meeting for the first time they would assume I meant Man City, in the same way that if I mentioned 'Rooney' they would assume I meant Wayne and not his brother John. 

 

It's not exactly great etiquette to jump on every post you see where someone uses 'City' to mean something other than what you use it to mean. I dread to think what your response is when the chants of "come on Leicester" go up at the King Power - "why are you singing about the rugby team, you fools?!"

[SkidsFox]

2 hours ago, Stadt said:

Exactly, if you can afford ~ £150m for Kane you could stretch to whatever Dortmund might want and you have a potential all time great on your hands for a decade (maybe).

 

Kane is at best a medium term option and that’s generous. 

That we don't know if Kane has many more good seasons left in him, makes it less likely that a club will spend mega bucks on him (Man Ciddy may prove us wrong)

However, the alternative route (which was a factor behind the Madrid galactic policy) also carries a risk. Madrid president Perez used to argue that the really big signings were less of a risk, as they could always be sold on eg a Beckham or Ronaldo. But you always run the risk of signing a James or a Kaka. Edit. Or a Bale.

Edited 23 July 2021 by SkidsFox

[don_danbury]

where did this price tag come from anyway? man city's record fee is like 60 odd mill, so now they're gonna pay 160? can't even imagine man city doing that.

[The Bear]

We don't know that Haaland even wants to go to Man City. He may just be waiting patiently until next summer when the club of his choice can afford him at a bargain £67m instead of Dortmund's current asking price of £150m.

 

Or Man City might be waiting until then too, knowing that no-one else can afford his current price. 

[The Bear]

1 minute ago, don_danbury said:

where did this price tag come from anyway? man city's record fee is like 60 odd mill, so now they're gonna pay 160? can't even imagine man city doing that.

It's nonsense made up by The Sun. Even Romano has pooh poohed it. 

 

If Man City were chucking that sort of money about they can afford Haaland right now. 

[majaco]

1 hour ago, Guest said:

They don't, nor do we. Lots of Leicester fans grew up/live outside of Leicester and talk about football with people who don't support Leicester. I've never lived in Leicester and if I mentioned 'City' to my friends or someone I was meeting for the first time they would assume I meant Man City, in the same way that if I mentioned 'Rooney' they would assume I meant Wayne and not his brother John. 

 

It's not exactly great etiquette to jump on every post you see where someone uses 'City' to mean something other than what you use it to mean. I dread to think what your response is when the chants of "come on Leicester" go up at the King Power - "why are you singing about the rugby team, you fools?!"

You are missing the point.

 

Funny enough , rugby has rarely been played at the King Power.  It is unlikely that anyone on the King Power shouting, Come on Leicester !" at an Association Football match would be confused about what sport they are watching.

 

Man City were not even a big club until recently.  I have no problem with Man City fans referring to their team as 'City.'.

 

In the build up to Leicester City matches, pundits will refer to the upcoming City match.  No one team has the right to be 'City'.

 

On this forum, people referring to Man City as City is discombobulating.  We are City.  On this forum, we should be the only City.

 

Edited 23 July 2021 by majaco
Typo

[Hoopla10]

4 minutes ago, The Bear said:

It's nonsense made up by The Sun. Even Romano has pooh poohed it. 

 

If Man City were chucking that sort of money about they can afford Haaland right now. 

I have to presume it's also because of Levy, who we know will attempt to price out as many clubs from buying him as possible. So once you push it into the 120-150 range there's only one club that can straight out afford that and it's ManC. Not that they've ever spent that kind of money on one player. I'd be surprised if Kane plays for any other PL side tbh. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, majaco said:

You are missing the point.

 

Funny enough , rugby has rarely been played at the King Power.  It is unlikely that anyone on the King Power shouting, Come on Leicester !" at an Association Football match would be confused about what sport they are watching.

 

Man City were not even a big club until recently.  I have no problem with Man City fans referring to their team as 'City.'.

 

In the build up to Leicester City matches, pundits will refer to the upcoming City match.  No one team has the right to be 'City'.

 

On this forum, people referring to Man City as City is discombobulating.  We are Ciity.  On this forum, we should be the only City.

 

I also thought it would be unlikely there would be any confusion here given that the discussion was about Harry Kane going to Manchester City, but there we are. Maybe you'd have found it less discombobulating if you'd bothered to read the conversation you decided to throw yourself into.

 

On this forum, we should be able to call our team what we like without getting snotty responses from people who can't get their heads around the idea that not everyone does things the same way they do. You can even continue to call us "Ciity" if you really want, I don't mind.

[AllGoneTitsSchlupp]

16 minutes ago, majaco said:

You are missing the point.

 

Funny enough , rugby has rarely been played at the King Power.  It is unlikely that anyone on the King Power shouting, Come on Leicester !" at an Association Football match would be confused about what sport they are watching.

 

Man City were not even a big club until recently.  I have no problem with Man City fans referring to their team as 'City.'.

 

In the build up to Leicester City matches, pundits will refer to the upcoming City match.  No one team has the right to be 'City'.

 

On this forum, people referring to Man City as City is discombobulating.  We are Ciity.  On this forum, we should be the only City.

 

i’ve never heard a pundit call us city even just before a game 

 

i call us city occasionally but will always assume people mean man city if they call anyone city

[foxes_rule1978]

9 hours ago, NasPb said:

Not a winner or a leader though. He'll score boat loads for city no doubt but do i really think hell help them win the champions league? No. He shrinks in the biggest moments. He's class but a tier below benzema and lewa imo and halland

So what has haaland won again? He hasn’t won anything because he plays for Spurs, when at Man City he will win everything 

Edited 23 July 2021 by foxes_rule1978

[NasPb]

8 minutes ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

So what has haaland won again? He hasn’t won anything because he plays for Spurs, when at Man City he will win everything 

Haaland at least has won a German cup 😂

[majaco]

15 minutes ago, Guest said:

I also thought it would be unlikely there would be any confusion here given that the discussion was about Harry Kane going to Manchester City, but there we are. Maybe you'd have found it less discombobulating if you'd bothered to read the conversation you decided to throw yourself into.

 

On this forum, we should be able to call our team what we like without getting snotty responses from people who can't get their heads around the idea that not everyone does things the same way they do. You can even continue to call us "Ciity" if you really want, I don't mind.

Thank you for your permission.

 

You seem to be missing nuances.  I was not confused but thank you for your concern.  I am objecting to City fans calling another team City on a City forum.

 

We should be able to call our team what we like?  There aren't that many choices;  City is one of them.  

 

I assume your 'Clity' thing was a typo and not banterously funny.

[Guest ttfn]

2 minutes ago, NasPb said:

Haaland at least has won a German cup 😂

Haaland is also only just 21.

 

There is a legitimate question to be asked about whether Kane is either so good as to really demand winning trophies or if his pursuit of personal goals (both literally and metaphorically) is a hindrance to his team’s chance of success.

 

We can all laugh at Spurs but from 2015-2019 they were a much better side than we were from 2016-2021 and yet we have an FA Cup in that time and they don’t. They reached a champions league final without Kane. 
 

He’s a much better striker than 2021 Sergio Aguero or (at any point) Gabriel Jesus but I think any discussion of him as an all time (or at least PL era) great centre forward has to be tempered by the fact that he has never been a winner. You might look at Matt le Tissier and say “it’s not all about winning” but Kane is purely a numbers man, he’s probably the least aesthetically pleasing centre forward there is but he scores/creates bucketloads of goals.

 

He’s not in the top 5 English-based centre forwards of the PL era for me. I’d have Shearer and Henry way ahead of him with Suarez, Aguero and Drogba the next level down. Kane belongs in the next bracket with Cole, van Nistelrooy, Sheringham and Vardy.

He goes to Man City and scores 50 goals over the next 2 seasons, wins a couple of league titles and the CL and he jumps into that top tier. I don’t see it happening.

 

[Unabomber]

If I was Man City I would deffo sign Haaland over Kane 

[MrsJohnMurphy]

22 hours ago, KingsX said:

 

Not hard to see where the inspiration came from.

 

 

Who says Daniel Levy is out of touch with the fanbase?

 

Inspiration from the team bus more like..

 

[Raw Dykes]

34 minutes ago, AllGoneTitsSchlupp said:

i’ve never heard a pundit call us city even just before a game 

 

i call us city occasionally but will always assume people mean man city if they call anyone city

On top of that, you can't call Manchester City just 'Manchester' for obvious reasons. You can call us just 'Leicester,' though, as we're a one club city. And no, no-one's going to think you mean the Tigers.

[Guest]

Just now, majaco said:

Thank you for your permission.

 

You seem to be missing nuances.  I was not confused but thank you for your concern.  I am objecting to City fans calling another team City on a City forum.

 

We should be able to call our team what we like?  There aren't that many choices;  City is one of them.  

 

I assume your 'Clity' thing was a typo and not banterously funny.

No problem chief. You said you found it discombobulating which is why I thought you might find it discombobulating but apologies if that isn't the case and I've misinterpreted that one.

 

I can see you're objecting to it but what I'm trying to say is some people don't ever refer to Leicester as City and therefore I can't agree with your insistence that City should only ever be used to mean Leicester. There's not really much nuance here, just the very straightforward and uncomplicated idea that different people use different words. I wouldn't call us City and don't think I've ever done so but it doesn't have any impact on me whatsoever when other people do, just as it doesn't when people call other teams City, United, Wanderers, Athletic, whatever. It is almost always perfectly clear which team they're referring to from the context and if not you can just ask who they mean rather than lecturing them about how your way is right and theirs is wrong.

 

As for your last point it was actually a bit of both because it was a typo you made, and now you've managed to produce a typo of your original typo which is an achievement in itself. 

 

I sense that everyone else is probably as tired of this utterly pointless discussion as I am so I'll leave you to it.

[thursday_next]

There's a blindingly obvious reason why Manchester City are called City, and clubs like Leicester and Norwich and Stoke aren't. That's because Leicester and Norwich and Stoke are all one-club cities. You can try all you like to get other supporters to recognise this but by and large other supporters would consider this a outrageous waste of two syllables. Who refers to West Ham United? Wolverhampton Wanderers? Charlton Athletic? The only teams I can think of with City in their name and who have two-club cities are Bristol City and Cambridge City who play in the Isthmian North. Nobody refers to Bristol City as Bristol, and virtually no-one refers to Cambridge City at all.

 

This doesn't have to do with Man City having a rich owner. It dates back a long way before that. Whether you like it or not, the Manchester clubs will always be known as City and United. I am happy with that.  

[Hoopla10]

5 hours ago, Fox92 said:

He plays up front on his own with two holding men behind him. Southgate refusing to play Foden/Grealish doesn't help Kane. As I said, in the European Championships Kane was coming so deep to get the ball and doing to job of an attacking midfielder because all our creativity sits on the bench.

 

As for "says it all really"? My comparison to Owen is a good one, Owen was lethal on his day and genuinelly World Class.

 

He's "average" for England? Despite the fact he's now scored more goals at major competitions than any other English player except Gary Lineker. Also, regarding Vardy, it's not Kane's fault that the managers play one up front. I agree two should play up front, and those two would be Kane and Vardy, but with having one up front Kane is always gonna get the nod because he is consistent in his league.

Southgate played Sterling and Saka, they're not creative, dynamic, can't provide? I agree Foden and Grealish should have played more, but it's not like Kane didn't have players around him, it wasn't all defensive mids.

 

Here's another question Southgate plays Kane every game, supposedly trusts him, gives him the Captains arm-band (even though most people would think there are better players to wear it), so if what you're saying is true why after the first game when Kane was clearly absent didn't he go up to the gaffer and ask for Grealish or Foden to play? Presumably as a striker he wants to score, if they're his best chances, why didn't they play? You sound a bit like the commentators talking during the Euros about why Kane went missing during matches. It's Sterling and Saka's fault, it's Southgate for not playing Grealish or Foden (even though Foden did play and Kane didn't score when he did). It's all excuses. Kane barely ran channels, didn't run in behind, wasn't mobile enough, didn't take up the right positions, wasn't even strong enough to hold the ball up when launched into him... 

 

I don't really care about the numbers. I'll judge what Kane ACTUALLY does, not the numbers. He can get a hundred penalty goals, fine but that doesn't mean an awful lot imo. He can get goals against teams like Malta in qualifiers and you want to use that as evidence to how good he is, okay, but I'm going to just shrug. Our best tournament runs for a VERY long time have been in the last two and if he'd dragged us through both (especially against big teams) I would say a different thing, but he VERY much didn't. In fact his absence in the Croatia game (the FIRST okay side we faced) is one of the reasons we didn't make that final. Ronaldo did more from the sidelines (in Portugal's final) than Kane could do on the pitch in both that Semi and the final (and I hate Ronaldo).

 

It's kind of academic about Vardy playing because he's (rightly imo) retired, but Vardy scored ONE goal less in our winning season than Kane, hardly gets played by Hodgson, in 2017/18 season scores 20 goals, 2018/19 scores 18... Vardy barely gets a look in, even during a must win game where Kane went missing AGAIN. He had consistent numbers during that whole period, but doesn't get played. If I was a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist I might even say it's snobbery or some blind hardon for Kane. Vardy saw it in Russia, knew it wasn't going to change and thought, fk-this I can spend my holidays in Spain on a jolly rather running around as Kane's ball-boy. And he was right, how much pitch time did Calvert-Lewin have... zero. Didn't even make the bench for a game against Germany! This isn't Kane's fault but people's misplaced hero worship of him 100% is. 

[fuchsntf]

2 hours ago, Fox92 said:

Who genuinelly cares  They're the biggest "City" in the Country which is why people call it them.

 

Same as "United". Or do I mean Peterborough United?

You crafty posh-supporter you...

[KingsX]

50 minutes ago, MrsJohnMurphy said:

Inspiration from the team bus more like..

 

 

   I can just about see the Audi Cup rattling down the center aisle of that thing on the trip home.

 

    And I guarantee Mourinho always made Dele sit in one of the middle seats.