comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 7 seconds ago
Why would City not be on the list?
Maybe because a bit of domestic success in the last five or six years doesn't warrant it? There's other teams that have won so much more than them in the last 20 odd years. So what if they're run by an oil state?
Wolves are owned by one of the wealthiest people in the world, I ain't seeing them on this list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City are a European Powerhouse now. You seem just a little bit biased...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City have made one semi final in the CL since their takeover. Is that what we're defining as a powerhouse now?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 21 minutes ago
Why does JA always go down when Wahlly makes a sharticle?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
default setting I daresay...
He's a trier though...aint he
If we're discounting trophies from this debate then what the hell is football about?
City are a huge club now sad to say.
................
Yes they are, but like Chelsea before them, they will always struggle for respect considering how they got their.
....................
They can buy anyone they want
.................
Not really. Real and Barca will always be a bigger draw.
...................
and will dominate the game for a while.
........................
Maybe, maybe not.
............................
It’s madness to try and put Ajax on a list ahead of them
.........................
Probably. But I can see how some people might, and I wouldn't really argue with them for it.
comment by Robb Ferguson (U21234)
posted 2 minutes ago
City are a huge club now sad to say. They can buy anyone they want and will dominate the game for a while. It’s madness to try and put Ajax on a list ahead of them
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many years will it take city to get anywhere near Ajax in terms of achievement?
If we're discounting trophies from this debate then what the hell is football about?
................
No one is discounting trophies. There is other criteria you may consider as well as trophies..
comment by Robb Ferguson (U21234)
posted 1 minute ago
City are a huge club now sad to say. They can buy anyone they want and will dominate the game for a while. It’s madness to try and put Ajax on a list ahead of them
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richest club and best team doesnt necessarily mean biggest club though, does it? I would have thought the biggest clubs would be the ones most supported, and ones that transcend beyond football fans into the wider world. Teams like Real, Barca, Man Utd, Juve and Liverpool.
Things like recent form dont really define a big club imo.
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 7 seconds ago
Why would City not be on the list?
Maybe because a bit of domestic success in the last five or six years doesn't warrant it? There's other teams that have won so much more than them in the last 20 odd years. So what if they're run by an oil state?
Wolves are owned by one of the wealthiest people in the world, I ain't seeing them on this list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City are a European Powerhouse now. You seem just a little bit biased...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City have made one semi final in the CL since their takeover. Is that what we're defining as a powerhouse now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
good point...until they win it...and it might be this term....they can't be classed as a big club...barring money
comment by West London Express (U5874)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Robb Ferguson (U21234)
posted 2 minutes ago
City are a huge club now sad to say. They can buy anyone they want and will dominate the game for a while. It’s madness to try and put Ajax on a list ahead of them
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many years will it take city to get anywhere near Ajax in terms of achievement?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imo around 10-15 in terms of achievement. But it’s a 2019 list of big clubs and City are a powerhouse who are starting out on their road to dominance. Not just the side but the manager, the set up, the training ground, the youth system etc
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
Especially when both clubs, with the money they've spent combined, have failed to even make a dent on the European scene.
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 7 seconds ago
Why would City not be on the list?
Maybe because a bit of domestic success in the last five or six years doesn't warrant it? There's other teams that have won so much more than them in the last 20 odd years. So what if they're run by an oil state?
Wolves are owned by one of the wealthiest people in the world, I ain't seeing them on this list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City are a European Powerhouse now. You seem just a little bit biased...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City have made one semi final in the CL since their takeover. Is that what we're defining as a powerhouse now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I’d say currently City are a powerhouse. They’re the favourites to win the CL this year probably.
I would have thought the biggest clubs would be the ones most supported
a club that fails to fill out its ground regularly being defined as one of the biggest
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
Especially when both clubs, with the money they've spent combined, have failed to even make a dent on the European scene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because at this moment in time city and PSG are two of the most highly regarded teams in Europe.
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
Especially when both clubs, with the money they've spent combined, have failed to even make a dent on the European scene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because at this moment in time city and PSG are two of the most highly regarded teams in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought this was about the biggest club? 'Highly regarded' is a different definition. Monaco were very highly regarded about five years ago too, does that mean they're one of the biggest clubs?
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, teaching 19th century football. Klopp is the better manager, and Eva Caniero was right. #Hazard knows ✌ (U22090)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 16 seconds ago
I’d have Liverpool above Chelsea based on your criteria;
1) How good these teams are currently (Liverpool 1st, Chelsea 6th)
2) World class players at these clubs currently (I’d say Alisson, VVD, Salah, Mane and Firmino)
3) How rich these clubs are (yeah Chelsea are rich because of Roman, Liverpool turned over £100m profit this financial year)
4) The managers at these clubs (i.e. I think Guardiola being at City currently elevates their status as a bigger club) (Klopp is better than Sarri)
5) History (does this need a point making?)
6) Recent trophies (Chelsea beat us in this one)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not an exact science but recent history (Liverpool were poor before honestly the last two seasons maybe) and the fact that in this decade Chelsea have won 3 league titles and a Champions League means they're slightly above Liverpool currently, although the current trajectories of the two clubs means that that may not last much longer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously not an exact science when you change ‘history’ to ‘recent history’ to suit.
I said in my first comment ‘recent trophies’ I concede Chelsea beat us. However if you count history we’ve won 4 more CL’s/EC’s than Chelsea and how many league titles more?
Why did Neymar join PSG? Why did Guardiola choose Man City?
It’s not just money, it’s more than that.
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
.................
This is because you are not seeing past the fact they have been given their success on a plate.
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 3 minutes ago
I would have thought the biggest clubs would be the ones most supported
.............
That plus wealth, plus trophies won, plus top players at club, plus history.
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
Especially when both clubs, with the money they've spent combined, have failed to even make a dent on the European scene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because at this moment in time city and PSG are two of the most highly regarded teams in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought this was about the biggest club? 'Highly regarded' is a different definition. Monaco were very highly regarded about five years ago too, does that mean they're one of the biggest clubs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Monaco were never highly regarded. Not in the way city and PSG are.
City and PSG compete at the highest level, have some of the best players in the world collectively and city have one of the best managers in the world. They have financial power to compete with anyone. They’re powerhouses by any definition other than history which can Be made up for when you have everything else they have.
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
Especially when both clubs, with the money they've spent combined, have failed to even make a dent on the European scene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because at this moment in time city and PSG are two of the most highly regarded teams in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
only when they land the big prize
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, teaching 19th century football. Klopp is the better manager, and Eva Caniero was right. #Hazard knows ✌ (U22090)
posted 34 seconds ago
Why did Neymar join PSG? Why did Guardiola choose Man City?
It’s not just money, it’s more than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It helps though.
Great article Wahl by the way
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 1 minute ago
Why did Neymar join PSG? Why did Guardiola choose Man City?
It’s not just money, it’s more than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty sure it's a massive factor in their decision. Why would Neymar choose to leave a side that's regularly winning European and domestic trophies for a club that cannot go past the QF of the champions league?
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, teaching 19th century football. Klopp is the better manager, and Eva Caniero was right. #Hazard knows ✌ (U22090)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 16 seconds ago
I’d have Liverpool above Chelsea based on your criteria;
1) How good these teams are currently (Liverpool 1st, Chelsea 6th)
2) World class players at these clubs currently (I’d say Alisson, VVD, Salah, Mane and Firmino)
3) How rich these clubs are (yeah Chelsea are rich because of Roman, Liverpool turned over £100m profit this financial year)
4) The managers at these clubs (i.e. I think Guardiola being at City currently elevates their status as a bigger club) (Klopp is better than Sarri)
5) History (does this need a point making?)
6) Recent trophies (Chelsea beat us in this one)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not an exact science but recent history (Liverpool were poor before honestly the last two seasons maybe) and the fact that in this decade Chelsea have won 3 league titles and a Champions League means they're slightly above Liverpool currently, although the current trajectories of the two clubs means that that may not last much longer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously not an exact science when you change ‘history’ to ‘recent history’ to suit.
I said in my first comment ‘recent trophies’ I concede Chelsea beat us. However if you count history we’ve won 4 more CL’s/EC’s than Chelsea and how many league titles more?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t change history to recent history, I was taking more about how good the teams are currently/trophies.
Liverpool were a fallen giant for almost a decade id way. They’re coming back up but they haven’t gotten there just like that after a couple of good seasons.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
.................
This is because you are not seeing past the fact they have been given their success on a plate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not denying that VC, however the success they've been served up has only come within the last decade. And it's not really paid off when its come to European competitions either, nor is it enough to consider them as the biggest in the world.
They are currently seen as the teams to beat in order to win the CL...not necessarily the same thing
Sign in if you want to comment
Top 10 biggest clubs in the World
Page 4 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 7 seconds ago
Why would City not be on the list?
Maybe because a bit of domestic success in the last five or six years doesn't warrant it? There's other teams that have won so much more than them in the last 20 odd years. So what if they're run by an oil state?
Wolves are owned by one of the wealthiest people in the world, I ain't seeing them on this list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City are a European Powerhouse now. You seem just a little bit biased...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City have made one semi final in the CL since their takeover. Is that what we're defining as a powerhouse now?
posted on 2/4/19
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 21 minutes ago
Why does JA always go down when Wahlly makes a sharticle?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
default setting I daresay...
He's a trier though...aint he
posted on 2/4/19
If we're discounting trophies from this debate then what the hell is football about?
posted on 2/4/19
City are a huge club now sad to say.
................
Yes they are, but like Chelsea before them, they will always struggle for respect considering how they got their.
....................
They can buy anyone they want
.................
Not really. Real and Barca will always be a bigger draw.
...................
and will dominate the game for a while.
........................
Maybe, maybe not.
............................
It’s madness to try and put Ajax on a list ahead of them
.........................
Probably. But I can see how some people might, and I wouldn't really argue with them for it.
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Robb Ferguson (U21234)
posted 2 minutes ago
City are a huge club now sad to say. They can buy anyone they want and will dominate the game for a while. It’s madness to try and put Ajax on a list ahead of them
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many years will it take city to get anywhere near Ajax in terms of achievement?
posted on 2/4/19
If we're discounting trophies from this debate then what the hell is football about?
................
No one is discounting trophies. There is other criteria you may consider as well as trophies..
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Robb Ferguson (U21234)
posted 1 minute ago
City are a huge club now sad to say. They can buy anyone they want and will dominate the game for a while. It’s madness to try and put Ajax on a list ahead of them
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richest club and best team doesnt necessarily mean biggest club though, does it? I would have thought the biggest clubs would be the ones most supported, and ones that transcend beyond football fans into the wider world. Teams like Real, Barca, Man Utd, Juve and Liverpool.
Things like recent form dont really define a big club imo.
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 7 seconds ago
Why would City not be on the list?
Maybe because a bit of domestic success in the last five or six years doesn't warrant it? There's other teams that have won so much more than them in the last 20 odd years. So what if they're run by an oil state?
Wolves are owned by one of the wealthiest people in the world, I ain't seeing them on this list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City are a European Powerhouse now. You seem just a little bit biased...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City have made one semi final in the CL since their takeover. Is that what we're defining as a powerhouse now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
good point...until they win it...and it might be this term....they can't be classed as a big club...barring money
posted on 2/4/19
comment by West London Express (U5874)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Robb Ferguson (U21234)
posted 2 minutes ago
City are a huge club now sad to say. They can buy anyone they want and will dominate the game for a while. It’s madness to try and put Ajax on a list ahead of them
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many years will it take city to get anywhere near Ajax in terms of achievement?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imo around 10-15 in terms of achievement. But it’s a 2019 list of big clubs and City are a powerhouse who are starting out on their road to dominance. Not just the side but the manager, the set up, the training ground, the youth system etc
posted on 2/4/19
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
Especially when both clubs, with the money they've spent combined, have failed to even make a dent on the European scene.
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 7 seconds ago
Why would City not be on the list?
Maybe because a bit of domestic success in the last five or six years doesn't warrant it? There's other teams that have won so much more than them in the last 20 odd years. So what if they're run by an oil state?
Wolves are owned by one of the wealthiest people in the world, I ain't seeing them on this list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City are a European Powerhouse now. You seem just a little bit biased...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City have made one semi final in the CL since their takeover. Is that what we're defining as a powerhouse now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I’d say currently City are a powerhouse. They’re the favourites to win the CL this year probably.
posted on 2/4/19
I would have thought the biggest clubs would be the ones most supported
a club that fails to fill out its ground regularly being defined as one of the biggest
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
Especially when both clubs, with the money they've spent combined, have failed to even make a dent on the European scene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because at this moment in time city and PSG are two of the most highly regarded teams in Europe.
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
Especially when both clubs, with the money they've spent combined, have failed to even make a dent on the European scene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because at this moment in time city and PSG are two of the most highly regarded teams in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought this was about the biggest club? 'Highly regarded' is a different definition. Monaco were very highly regarded about five years ago too, does that mean they're one of the biggest clubs?
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, teaching 19th century football. Klopp is the better manager, and Eva Caniero was right. #Hazard knows ✌ (U22090)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 16 seconds ago
I’d have Liverpool above Chelsea based on your criteria;
1) How good these teams are currently (Liverpool 1st, Chelsea 6th)
2) World class players at these clubs currently (I’d say Alisson, VVD, Salah, Mane and Firmino)
3) How rich these clubs are (yeah Chelsea are rich because of Roman, Liverpool turned over £100m profit this financial year)
4) The managers at these clubs (i.e. I think Guardiola being at City currently elevates their status as a bigger club) (Klopp is better than Sarri)
5) History (does this need a point making?)
6) Recent trophies (Chelsea beat us in this one)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not an exact science but recent history (Liverpool were poor before honestly the last two seasons maybe) and the fact that in this decade Chelsea have won 3 league titles and a Champions League means they're slightly above Liverpool currently, although the current trajectories of the two clubs means that that may not last much longer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously not an exact science when you change ‘history’ to ‘recent history’ to suit.
I said in my first comment ‘recent trophies’ I concede Chelsea beat us. However if you count history we’ve won 4 more CL’s/EC’s than Chelsea and how many league titles more?
posted on 2/4/19
Why did Neymar join PSG? Why did Guardiola choose Man City?
It’s not just money, it’s more than that.
posted on 2/4/19
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
.................
This is because you are not seeing past the fact they have been given their success on a plate.
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 3 minutes ago
I would have thought the biggest clubs would be the ones most supported
.............
That plus wealth, plus trophies won, plus top players at club, plus history.
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
Especially when both clubs, with the money they've spent combined, have failed to even make a dent on the European scene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because at this moment in time city and PSG are two of the most highly regarded teams in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought this was about the biggest club? 'Highly regarded' is a different definition. Monaco were very highly regarded about five years ago too, does that mean they're one of the biggest clubs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Monaco were never highly regarded. Not in the way city and PSG are.
City and PSG compete at the highest level, have some of the best players in the world collectively and city have one of the best managers in the world. They have financial power to compete with anyone. They’re powerhouses by any definition other than history which can Be made up for when you have everything else they have.
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Martial FC (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
Especially when both clubs, with the money they've spent combined, have failed to even make a dent on the European scene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because at this moment in time city and PSG are two of the most highly regarded teams in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
only when they land the big prize
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, teaching 19th century football. Klopp is the better manager, and Eva Caniero was right. #Hazard knows ✌ (U22090)
posted 34 seconds ago
Why did Neymar join PSG? Why did Guardiola choose Man City?
It’s not just money, it’s more than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It helps though.
Great article Wahl by the way
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, te... (U22090)
posted 1 minute ago
Why did Neymar join PSG? Why did Guardiola choose Man City?
It’s not just money, it’s more than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty sure it's a massive factor in their decision. Why would Neymar choose to leave a side that's regularly winning European and domestic trophies for a club that cannot go past the QF of the champions league?
posted on 2/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Jose Mourinho, just the Portuguese Fat Sam, teaching 19th century football. Klopp is the better manager, and Eva Caniero was right. #Hazard knows ✌ (U22090)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 16 seconds ago
I’d have Liverpool above Chelsea based on your criteria;
1) How good these teams are currently (Liverpool 1st, Chelsea 6th)
2) World class players at these clubs currently (I’d say Alisson, VVD, Salah, Mane and Firmino)
3) How rich these clubs are (yeah Chelsea are rich because of Roman, Liverpool turned over £100m profit this financial year)
4) The managers at these clubs (i.e. I think Guardiola being at City currently elevates their status as a bigger club) (Klopp is better than Sarri)
5) History (does this need a point making?)
6) Recent trophies (Chelsea beat us in this one)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not an exact science but recent history (Liverpool were poor before honestly the last two seasons maybe) and the fact that in this decade Chelsea have won 3 league titles and a Champions League means they're slightly above Liverpool currently, although the current trajectories of the two clubs means that that may not last much longer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously not an exact science when you change ‘history’ to ‘recent history’ to suit.
I said in my first comment ‘recent trophies’ I concede Chelsea beat us. However if you count history we’ve won 4 more CL’s/EC’s than Chelsea and how many league titles more?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t change history to recent history, I was taking more about how good the teams are currently/trophies.
Liverpool were a fallen giant for almost a decade id way. They’re coming back up but they haven’t gotten there just like that after a couple of good seasons.
posted on 2/4/19
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
I'm just struggling with the fact two oil run clubs that were in the wilderness for most of their history up till 10 years ago are considered the biggest clubs going.
.................
This is because you are not seeing past the fact they have been given their success on a plate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not denying that VC, however the success they've been served up has only come within the last decade. And it's not really paid off when its come to European competitions either, nor is it enough to consider them as the biggest in the world.
posted on 2/4/19
They are currently seen as the teams to beat in order to win the CL...not necessarily the same thing
Page 4 of 8
6 | 7 | 8