And wasn’t the FA Cup a wayyyy bigger deal back then?
Don’t point out obvious gigantic flaws in internet narratives. You’re supposed to go along with it like all the other braindead morons until it’s seen as fact.
City wins fa cup then has a long bad spell = no history
I ask if United would have no history if they continue to lose for 50 years: 10 downvotes
You mean like over a 100 years ago?
“City has no history”
Same people when you look at history:
Sorry I looked at too much history to all the losers downvoting me
“No history” has never meant “no trophies” in a literal sense. Virtually every top division club will have a few honours in their 100+ year history. But, if you’re discussing a club that has won 80-90% of its honours in the last decade, it’s “history” was clearly pretty irrelevant when you then compare it to clubs that have won things consistently across the last 100 years.
The “your club has no history” jibe is a nonsensical concept in general. Nearly every club has quite a lot of history, with or without silverware and nearly every club “bought success” at one point or another (through cash injections that often set them up to then become sustainable businesses later). Arsenal did, City did, Liverpool did, United did, Chelsea did, Tottenham did, Everton did, and so on. It’s just enough time passing since the initial injection that apparently makes it acceptable.
Most comments you see on here, in the stands, or at the pub are a product of juvenile ignorance, often by people that prefer to reject reality in favour of comforting narratives.
And I can’t blame them, the world is a sad, scary place, and it’s easier to deal with if you can create arbitrary groups of “others” to focus your disappointment and anger toward.
they were in the third division as recently as 1998
City has a history, it’s just that we weren’t as successful as we are now for most of it. We won the league twice ('37 and '68) before the 7 wins we’ve had since 2012.
Manchester United, while more successful, isn’t totally different by the way. Up until 1992 they had won the league 7 times; from 92 to 2013 they won it 13 times. So most of their success is in the PL era and specifically under SAF.
One way of viewing history is looking at a club’s impact on the top division. Have they affected the title races in addition to cup challenges.
City haven’t had much influence before 2000 on the top league. They don’t have to win trophies, just be a part of the chase for them.
It’s not history in the traditional sense, but it’s closer to what people are referring to when they say that.
Literally every club has history. Every word has a definition.
History only matters to people with what they can remember that’s why when most people talk about English football they only focus on the 90s onwards. That’s why arsenal fans see themselves as a big team because they remember being on top in the 90s and early 2000s despite the fact they’ve not won the league in 20 years. In another 20 years Man City will be seen as a big club.
Arsenal have 10 first division titles and 5 FA cups before the prem era
Chelsea have 1 first division title and 1 FA cup before the prem era
Chelsea are definition of lacking history. Actually, you lot invented the concept of an oil club before city came along and showed you up
I don’t think Arsenal are seen as a big club today purely because of 1997-2004 though. Arsenal were a genuine powerhouse in English football 100 years ago. They’ve won a title in every decade bar like 2? since the 1930s. They were one of the main reasons why London football developed from district level leagues to being an attractive proposition for the established football league to adopt. They were the most successful team in England until 1970. Arsenals former chairman David Dein was the leading figure for “the Big 5” when the FA was initially approached for development of the PL format.
It isn’t ego that makes Arsenal a big club, it’s genuine history.
Nobody gives a shit when Citeh wins anything.
Sometimes I wonder if this sub is real