The Problem With Manchester City, Originally Published December 4, 2008

So you are a club who lose your last game of the season 8-1 against Middlesborough. Your manager has just been fired despite getting the club into Europe for the first time in five years. The club’s owner, who may be arrested for corruption, has expressed a desire to sell your club and your captain has voiced huge discontent at the whole situation.

This was Manchester City seven months ago. The club was in disarray and the future looked bleak for their fans.

When highly regarded young manager Mark Hughes was hired the mood was lifted slightly. But there were still rumblings from skeptical fans who thought Hughes would not encourage his players to play good football. Hughes is a manager who was focused on physical aggression and assertiveness from his players during his time at Blackburn.

There was some light at the end of the tunnel though when Abu Dhabi United Group Investment and Development Limited completed a takeover of Manchester City. This instantly made the club the richest in the world. Sadly, the deal was made on the transfer deadline day and the club only managed to sign one player Robinho who was previously on the verge of signing for Chelsea. This was a huge coup for the club and broke the British transfer record costing £32.5 million.

So, with a renewed confidence around the club the new season started but Man City have not set the league alight. They are currently hovering just two points above the relegation zone with nearly half the season gone.

With the transfer window opening again at the start of next month the press and the fans are already buzzing with transfer rumours. Sky Sports News reported yesterday that Man City had offered £128 million for Real Madrid’s goalkeeper Iker Casillas. A ludicrous amount perhaps but it is certainly money that the owners can afford to spend in abundance.

The problem is that Man City do not have the pulling power of the big four. They will struggle to attract the huge names they have been linked with such as Kaka and Messi because of the lower prestige of the club. Okay, they did sign Robinho from under Chelsea’s nose but the fact remains that money is not everything in football. Yes, it counts for a lot but Casillas has apparently rejected Man City and many of the big players will follow suit. The club is still considered to be a smaller club than the Premier League’s famous ‘big four’ of Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal. It is unlikely that players will reject the chance to play in the Champions League to play in the UEFA Cup for City.

It is hard to see how they can break into and establish themselves in the top four with such a high standard of football being set by the ‘big four’. The Man City revolution is not likely to have a big impact for a few seasons yet.

So maybe City should set their sights lower down. The huge European clubs will not sell their best players. Perhaps the likes of Lazio’s Pandev and Werder Bremen’s Diego should be main and realistic targets. It seems a waste of time chasing after players at the top clubs such as Barcelona and AC Milan. There are still great players with huge potential playing for smaller European Clubs.

Who knows if the owners are willing to be patient? Maybe they will get fed up without Champions League football and will sell the club on again. Only time will tell, but City fans should be a bit cautious in their glee. The future may not be as bright as the fans hope, they may not be challenging for the title even with the huge cash injection.

Champions League or English Premier League?

Kings of Europe or Kings of England?

It sounds like a straightforward question. Surely to be the champions of Europe is a greater achievement than being the best in England, just because of the sheer number of extra teams in the whole of Europe compared with England.

So basic statistics suggests that it is a far bigger honour to be the Kings of Europe. But as most people in sociology will tell you, statistics are not everything.

Is it really tougher to win the Champions League?

Perhaps, one of the best arguments for the Premier League being tougher to win is that in 2005 Liverpool won the Champions League, in the same season they finished a lowly fifth in the Premier League, even below their main rivals Everton. If the Champions League is so tough to win then how on earth did the fifth best side in England win it?

Maybe, another point to add to this one is that in two-legged cup competitions it is far more likely that a 'weaker' team can beat a 'better' club. The nature of cups is so that a fortunate goal here or there could end up winning you the competition. Something that is unlikely in a League where over the 38 games of a season luck pretty much evens itself out.

It is very rare to hear anybody say that a team who wins a league did not deserve it. Even the most biased of fans have to admit that when a team wins a league it is a great achievement which is unlikely to be 'lucky'.

Is the Champions League competition tougher in terms of teams than in the Premier League?

In some ways 'yes' and in some ways 'no'. Yes, it is tougher in the way that all of Europe's elite are competing to win the trophy. The likes of Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Inter Milan are far better than the average Premier League side. But on the flip side of this teams such as Anorthosis, CFR Cluj, Bate Borisov and Aalborg are arguably far weaker than the average Premier League opposition.

Would fans prefer to win the English Premier League or the Champions League?

This is a difficult question to answer, one that was perhaps far easier to answer four or five years ago. Back then, English Premier League teams did not dominate Europe's top club competition in the way that they do now. It seems that if the league is weaker then it is more of an achievement to win in Europe.

However, this has all changed over the past few seasons and was proven by last season when English teams were only knocked out of the Champions League by other English teams. After an all English final and another season where so far all four English clubs have made the quarter-finals it is hard to deny that the EPL is Europe's toughest to win league. As a result because it is played over 38 games it seems a much fairer way of assessing which English team is the best. If your team wins the EPL there are more reasons to brag than if your team wins the Champions League.

All in all it is very hard to assess which competition is the greater to win in terms of achievement and prestige. People such as Roman Abramovich and Massimo Moratti would far sooner see their teams Chelsea and Inter Milan win the Champions League than their own Leagues. However, the die hard fans of such clubs especially in England probably would rather see their side lift the league trophy, knowing what a great achievement this really is. Yes, the Champions League is very tough to win but there is a greater luck factor involved, would Porto really have won the EPL the league they won the Champions League? Of course it is nice to beat teams such as Barcelona and Real Madrid rather than hammering Wigan or Fulham but until a season long league is created between Europe's elite it is difficult to conclude that the Champions League is harder to win than the EPL.

Hiddink Hope

Chelsea Football Club has been on a seemingly downward spiral ever since the sacking of Mourinho. The less than inspiring replacement Avram Grant did little to impress fans and as expected achieved some solid results but nothing particularly special. Soon he was out of the door ready to be replaced by the one who may be the 'real special one' Luis Felipe Scolari. Again the hype turned out to be rubbish as Scolari's inexperience of top class club management was his downfall and after a string of poor results he was also shown the exit. All of this coming in the space of not even two full seasons.

This is to not even mention the reported dressing room bust ups and the ageing squad which seemed to have been past its footballing prime. Also forgetting the owner, Roman Abramovic, who was less than interested in a club which he had built up from top 4 finishers to back to back title winners. Transfer funds were drying up and there was little reason for Chelsea fans to be optimistic.

Then suddenly, from nowhere along came a hero. A manager who could save this dwindling club and rekindle the owner's interest. His name Gus Hiddink. A former European Cup winner, a man known for his ability to turn average sides into potential world beaters. A man tough enough to eradicate the dressing room disruptions. It seemed as if Chelsea fans prayers had been answered.

A few weeks on from his temporary appointment Chelsea already look a renewed team, a force to be reckoned with. Undefeated since the ruthless Dutchman took over the reigns and again hopeful of salvaging something from another bleak season. Hiddink's tactical noose cannot be questioned and he had even got temperamental star Didier Drogba playing at the top of his game. Hiddink has brought a real unity to the previously disillusioned Chelsea squad something that only a ruthless manager can acheive.

But just as it looks as though Hiddink has restored hope to Stamford Bridge, the feeling may not last long. Hiddink has only been given a contract until the end of the season. By which time he may not even take the job, assuming he is offered it, as he is still the coach of the Russian national team. It is hard to be too optimistic when the instability that has blighted Chelsea for the best part of two seasons is still aparent. Chelsea would be far better off if they make sure they hang on to Hiddink. Another new manager by the start of next season will just add to the uncertainty of the club's future and names like Carlo Ancelotti and Frank Rijkaard are hardly going to enthuse the Chelsea fans in the same way that Hiddink has.