Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

niallo27

n32 wrote: »

Lads, money can't buy success. Look at Liverpool and the huge transfer fees they ve spent since kenny took over. Then look at the table and you ll see that little old everton who are on social welfare finished above you!!!!! Seanie Fitzpatrick would ve invested better

You could also look at the trophy cabinet and see that only them, city and chelsea won anything.

n32

niallo27 wrote: »

n32 wrote: »

Lads, money can't buy success. Look at Liverpool and the huge transfer fees they ve spent since kenny took over. Then look at the table and you ll see that little old everton who are on social welfare finished above you!!!!! Seanie Fitzpatrick would ve invested better

You could also look at the trophy cabinet and see that only them, city and chelsea won anything.

Enjoy the carling cup, great return on investment!

leggo

leggo wrote: »

.

Today, United lost. I accept that. No bitterness there. But so did football. .

Jeez, come off it.

Professional Griefer

n32 wrote: »

Enjoy the carling cup, great return on investment!

Ah please don't start this stuff. Not today.

Giggsy11

niallo27 wrote: »

You could also look at the trophy cabinet and see that only them, city and chelsea won anything.

I'm sure community shield will also be in trophy cabinet

J. Marston

niallo27 wrote: »

You could also look at the trophy cabinet and see that only them, city and chelsea won anything.

Bitch, please...

niallo27

Giggsy11 wrote: »

I'm sure community shield will also be in trophy cabinet

J. Marston wrote: »

Bitch, please...

I though we were desperate hanging onto our carling cup. Anyway i wont annoy you lot today, it was a horrible way to lose the title.

kippy

niallo27 wrote: »

I though we were desperate hanging onto our carling cup. Anyway i wont annoy you lot today, it was a horrible way to lose the title.

Was it fcuk, over the course of the season, City deserved it.

J. Marston

Anyway i wont annoy you lot today

Too late...

I joke, I joke.

shadowcomplex

People need to remember that the reason ourselfs and City amased such a high points total is because we were both knocked out of the C League and Fa Cup early, theres no way we would have gotten to these totals with the gruelling schedule that the champions league puts on the players, the 1999 team and the 2008 team are far superior to this current generation

Of the players we have now only Vidic and maybe Rooney would get in the 1999 team , big big investment is needed,people keep going on about our central midfieldand this indeed is the priority but the reality is Beckham and Giggs in his younger days along with Ronaldo were far superior players to Valencia, Nani and Young, Teves Yorke , Cole sheringham and solksjaer were better than Hernandez and Welbeck and Irwin was better than Evra, we need to go out and sign 4 world class players to compete for the league and champions league next season because this league win will make City stronger even if they dont buy any more players which of course they will do , however in saying all that I would be happy with 1 worldclass central midfield player because I know its unrealistic to expect major changes

niallo27

kippy wrote: »

Was it fcuk, over the course of the season, City deserved it.

I know but they had the title in their hands and it was snatched away, no one saw them two goals coming.

Chucky the tree

shadowcomplex wrote: »

People need to remember that the reason ourselfs and City amased such a high points total is because we were both knocked out of the C League and Fa Cup early, theres no way we would have gotten to these totals with the gruelling schedule that the champions league puts on the players, the 1999 team and the 2008 team are far superior to this current generation

Of the players we have now only Vidic and maybe Rooney would get in the 1999 team too, big big investment is needed

Very good point. I think Chelsea have had two games a week for a long time now, easy to see why their league form has dipped and I think it's one reason City and United have finished so high.

Your Airbag

Well guys thats it. The league football is over for the summer and that horrible last day melancholy is compounded by the title swinging our way and then dramatically snatched from us in stoppage time.

I for one will be checking in over the summer for the transfer circus and we have one last big european match and the Euros to look forward to.

As for the skitting some of us will recieve in our various workplaces and locals over the summer take a leaf out of one utd fans book whom when Sunderland fans started doing the Poznan at the end held up a banner saying "19-3 big deal".

Giggsy11

Villareal are on the verge of relegation. They are as good as gone. If Rossi was fit he would have been available for cut price.

killwill

niallo27 wrote: »

I though we were desperate hanging onto our carling cup. Anyway i wont annoy you lot today, it was a horrible way to lose the title.

In a way it was actually easier losing the title like that.
QPR showed what few people believed today, City are not nearly as good as some people are making out.
Roll on next season, I reckon Arsenal, Utd and City will be up there fighting for the title.

kippy

niallo27 wrote: »

I know but they had the title in their hands and it was snatched away, no one saw them two goals coming.

United have done the same or similar to plenty of teams in the past. That;s sport.

curry-muff

kippy wrote: »

United have done the same or similar to plenty of teams in the past. That;s sport.

Oh yeah, all those other times we won the league on the final day in injury time on goal difference. Can't believe we all forgot about them.

kippy

curry-muff wrote: »

Oh yeah, all those other times we won the league on the final day in injury time on goal difference. Can't believe we all forgot about them.

How many times have united scored late or in injury time in matches to either win a match (which may or not have meant three points extra that would have won a league) or progress to the next round of a major cup competition?
In fact,if you're old enough You'd remember 1999 and the year of late late drama.

Had United not imploded against Wigan or Everton today would have been an irrelevance. Thats just how the cookie crumbles.

curry-muff

kippy wrote: »

How many times have united scored late or in injury time in matches to either win a match (which may or not have meant three points extra that would have won a league) or progress to the next round of a major cup competition?
In fact,if you're old enough You'd remember 1999 and the year of late late drama.

Had United not imploded against Wigan or Everton today would have been an irrelevance. Thats just how the cookie crumbles.

You can't compare what happened today to anything that we did, it was unique, never mind claiming we have done it many times.

leggo

United had a crop of talented youth players which came through in one or two seasons and they were good. But they're mostly gone. And what's left has been bought in, with the exception of Jonny Evans. They have also had more than a 'few' marquee signings. Robson, Keane, Cantona, Cole, Yorke, Stam, Keane, Robson, Rooney, Veron, Van Nistelrooy, Berbatov, Phil Jones, Ferdinand, De Gea, Carrick, Valencia the list goes on and on and on. Each one contributing (or not in the case of Veron) to their success. Each one costing a fortune.

There's a massive difference between buying young and intelligently and being bankrolled to buy stars, though. Rooney and Ronaldo, for example, were unproven at top level when bought but nurtured in the United mould to achieve success. You can add plenty to that list: Keane, Yorke, Jones, Ferdinand, De Gea, Carrick, Valencia...like you said, the list goes on.

The squad has evolved, it's a team, not a fantasy football team. United are Barcelona and City are Real Madrid. Had Arsenal, Spurs, Newcastle, or anyone else (even Liverpool) done it I'd hold my hands up and say: "Yep, fair play. I wish you well and look forward to doing battle in the future."

City's approach has been like a kid playing FIFA. Just buy every star who's willing because you can.

They have their share of youth players aswell. Richards and Hart being two.

Richard and Hart and...who? Who else wasn't an established talent elsewhere before City bought them?

Oh they have a whole two out of 25 players brought up through the ranks? That's incredible. Here, call up the FA and tell them that England's footballing future is going to be a-okay with the domestic champions churning out a whole TWO home-made players per generation. Clap agus clap.

Liverpool spent an absolute fortune also, where are they? Chelsea spent £58 million on Torres. Did they get much value from that up until a month ago? So it's not just money, it's spending it wisely. It's what needed to compete. Even Barca spend fortunes on players and they have the best youth system in the world.

There's a considerable difference between spending £58 million and £500 million, though. For one, £58m is only 10% of City's haul. Not to defend Chelsea, they're of the same 'Football Manager' mould (though they've been around long enough that I wouldn't begrudge them success...) but nobody has spent even close to City.

To say it's on merit is ridiculous. Without billions being injected into the club, they're probably facing relegation. Mid-table at best. Simple as. How can you possibly claim that tactics are responsible for this?! FFS are you mental?!?

The team fell apart three times this year (today included)...it just so happened that they had leftover stars waiting in the wings to fill in the gaps! A luxury no other team can boast! It doesn't take a great tactician to realise "Hmm, maybe this mega-talented player of ours who's playing golf most of the year might score goals..." That's not a level playing field, therefore they don't win on merit. They win on financial might.

Any shred of credibility evaporated at that. How did football lose? The most dramatic moment in Premier League history; unbelievable entertainment, which is exactly what football is.

It was entertaining, I'll give you that. But it also signalled that financial might above all now possibly dictates success in football. The Premiership has just been successfully 'bought'.

People will claim it makes it 'more competitive' to have someone new win...em, nope, sorry. The NFL and NBA are competitive sports, as they have draft and salary cap systems in place that ensure teams can't just out-muscle each other and franchises have a fighting chance each year. Aside from the top two, barring a financial windfall, nobody has a chance to win next year, or the year after, or the next year.

That's how football loses. The Premiership will become like La Liga/Scotland: a two-horse race. If even. If United can't keep up, we're just going to see City winning time-and-time again with no prospect of change unless a billionaire decides that he now rather likes Norwich. So now Norwich will buy the league. Until the next top bidder comes along. And so on. I don't know if you just have a raging erection for auctions, but I prefer my sports competitive tbh...

Mars Bar

The boss is a City fan.
I'll have to take the scarf tomorrow.

kippy

curry-muff wrote: »

You can't compare what happened today to anything that we did, it was unique, never mind claiming we have done it many times.

United have won MANY MANY games in injury time. That essentially was what happened today.

ician

kippy wrote: »

United have won MANY MANY games in injury time. That essentially was what happened today.

games...championships... there is a difference DUCY?

kippy

ician wrote: »

games...championships... there is a difference DUCY?

Champions League finals, games that have won leagues, except not on the final day of the season, all just as big as each other.
United fans, more than any other, must be able to accept this happens in sport, and they have done it to many other teams over the years.

ician

kippy wrote: »

Champions League finals, games that have won leagues, except not on the final day of the season, all just as big as each other.
United fans, more than any other, must be able to accept this happens in sport, and they have done it to many other teams over the years.

Not really saying your wrong just pointing that out. '99 final is a fair comparison though. Congrats to city blah blah blah.

DM_7

Leggo 11 years ago United were spending 28 million on Veron, 19 million on Ruud and the next summer another 28 on Rio.

Teams having more money than their rivals is not new in English football.

leggo

DM-ICE wrote: »

Leggo 11 years ago United were spending 28 million on Veron, 19 million on Ruud and the next summer another 28 on Rio.

Teams having more money than their rivals is not new in English football.

Okay. But all of that adds up to £75 million.

Your best example is still just a little over 10% of what City have spent.

So no, it's not a good comparison.

kippy

leggo wrote: »

Okay. But all of that adds up to £75 million.

Your best example is still just a little over 10% of what City have spent.

So no, it's not a good comparison.

It's pretty much another irrelevance tbh......
United are consistently among the top three richest teams in the world and up until recently were financially more powerful than any team in England.


Look, at the end of the day, United have overcome Chelsea in the past, who had similiar big bucks to spend. There's no reason United won't overcome this City team in the years ahead provided they get their own debt ridden house in order.

DM_7

leggo wrote: »

Okay. But all of that adds up to £75 million.

Your best example is still just a little over 10% of what City have spent.

So no, it's not a good comparison.

Its adds up to one team having bigger resources than the rest. Same as United had back then.

Ordinary man

The challenge is on to get the trophy back. Considering the united squad ran city to within a goal for this title without their best defender and leader, having to bring a man out of retirement and with a physio room over crowded for most of the season- i'm optimistic that with a new midfielder(or 2) that the team can rip that trophy back next year.

It was a cruel way to lose today but winning it might have lessened the urgency to get that 1 midfielder that will grab the game and fire the team on.

IvySlayer

Mars Bar wrote: »

The boss is a City manager.

Your boss is Mancini :eek:

Mars Bar

IvySlayer wrote: »

Your boss is Mancini :eek:

Thanks for spotting that! I was thinking would I write boss or manager and that's what happened...

n32

DM-ICE wrote: »

Leggo 11 years ago United were spending 28 million on Veron, 19 million on Ruud and the next summer another 28 on Rio.

Teams having more money than their rivals is not new in English football.

FAir enough we spent big on Veron, Rio and RVN but they were bought as nailed on starters, City can spend that on Dzeko, Balotelli etc who can sit on the bench. We never spent ridiculous money on a player who wasnt going to be a guaranteed first XI player. Just go through the City bench of a given matchday and look at the price tags. Even today; Barry 12m replaced by Dzeko 27m and Tevez 25m replaced by Balotelli 25m. Thats mind blowing. We never had that much of a gulf between us and the rest when it came to spending power and anyone who say we did is deluded. Citys money was a contributing factor not a deciding factor. you can buy who like but you still have to mould them into a team and mancini deserves credt for that. Its not what you spend its how you spend it and how you maximise the talent you buy. That said it turns my stomach to see that type of fantasy football spending whereby very good players are prepared to take the big wages to be a squad player instead of being on less money but being a main player at a different club.

Dont get me wrong I m not bitching about their money, I think they thoroughly deserved the league. What bugs me is that before the cash injection City were a joke, flirting with relegation and generally mediocre. To see City get a stadium for practically nothing and a ferocious war chest must have been hard to take for clubs like Everton, Spurs, Newcastle who were well ahead of City but who never had the resources to kick on to the next level. The accusation that United bought their success is nonsense. SAF bought players like Irwin, Schmeichel and Roy to complement what he had already and the youth system in the early 90's was fantastic. City cant say they won the league because of a long term youth development programme and team building like teams did in the past. They ve become successful because they were the right club in the right place at the right time. I suppose thats the way its going now with CIty, PSG, Chelsea etc... It pains me to say it but the old fashioned way that football was run is over and the era of middle eastern Sugar Daddy benefactors using clubs as toys is the way its going.
I m still hoping the CIA find a link between Sheikh Mansour and some Islamic Jihadist and bring it all crashing down!:D

If only our Yankee Sugar Daddys werent broke!

syngindub

Like to see utd sign David Villa next season. Is it possible you think?

carlop

Given Villareal have gone down, Borja Valero could be a decent option if we want a relatively cheap (hopefully), very good centre-mid.

Jax Teller

syngindub wrote: »

Like to see utd sign David Villa next season. Is it possible you think?

No chance

Kylo Ren

syngindub wrote: »

Like to see utd sign David Villa next season. Is it possible you think?

Coletrickle88 wrote: »

No chance

Agreed.

Rossi on the cheap now that Villarreal are relegated?

Drumpot

n32 wrote: »

FAir enough we spent big on Veron, Rio and RVN but they were bought as nailed on starters, City can spend that on Dzeko, Balotelli etc who can sit on the bench. We never spent ridiculous money on a player who wasnt going to be a guaranteed first XI player. Just go through the City bench of a given matchday and look at the price tags. Even today; Barry 12m replaced by Dzeko 27m and Tevez 25m replaced by Balotelli 25m. Thats mind blowing. We never had that much of a gulf between us and the rest when it came to spending power and anyone who say we did is deluded. Citys money was a contributing factor not a deciding factor. you can buy who like but you still have to mould them into a team and mancini deserves credt for that. Its not what you spend its how you spend it and how you maximise the talent you buy. That said it turns my stomach to see that type of fantasy football spending whereby very good players are prepared to take the big wages to be a squad player instead of being on less money but being a main player at a different club.

Dont get me wrong I m not bitching about their money, I think they thoroughly deserved the league. What bugs me is that before the cash injection City were a joke, flirting with relegation and generally mediocre. To see City get a stadium for practically nothing and a ferocious war chest must have been hard to take for clubs like Everton, Spurs, Newcastle who were well ahead of City but who never had the resources to kick on to the next level. The accusation that United bought their success is nonsense. SAF bought players like Irwin, Schmeichel and Roy to complement what he had already and the youth system in the early 90's was fantastic. City cant say they won the league because of a long term youth development programme and team building like teams did in the past. They ve become successful because they were the right club in the right place at the right time. I suppose thats the way its going now with CIty, PSG, Chelsea etc... It pains me to say it but the old fashioned way that football was run is over and the era of middle eastern Sugar Daddy benefactors using clubs as toys is the way its going.
I m still hoping the CIA find a link between Sheikh Mansour and some Islamic Jihadist and bring it all crashing down!:D

If only our Yankee Sugar Daddys werent broke!

Great post . .

Most United fans can congradulate the best team on winning the league, but its not unreasonable to point out that it was mostly down to the vast financial beef injection akin to giving yourself endless funds in football manager. Its not as satisfying as trying to be successful by building a club up properly.

This reminds me of Chelsea for many reasons. Idiot ABU's delighted with United losing out to a new financial super power and then the next season they are fed up with the superpower ruining the game by even buying players they just dont want other teams having.

For United, this can go either way . . The team is very young and perhaps losing in this manner will build character better than winning a league in their first season. I read somebody comparing it to 98 season when United lost out to Arsenal and we know how they responded the next season. While the argument could be made that we dont have the same calibre of players, I wouldnt be as pessimistic.

I think we have a better squad of players (but an inferior starting 11) to that of the one in 99. We will start next season with a settled defence, with our keeper now well established and Vidic back. Evans has had a good season and while Jones has had a mixed bag of a season, I think he will go from strength to strength. Hes only 20 and some people are already judging him!! FFS , how many 20 year olds even start for United in the last few seasons ?

Midfield is the obvious problem. Not sure what the craic is with Anderson, but I would be happy to see Cleverley get another shot. How he can go a full season at wigan without an injury and then be plagued at United (in a season when Uniteds injurys are ridiculous) is upsetting.

We definitley need a top quality CM , if nothing else I would take blowing the entire budget on a world class CM and getting no other player.

Could go on, but still very dissapointed from earlier . .

syngindub

Keno 92 wrote: »

Agreed.

Rossi on the cheap now that Villarreal are relegated?

Rossi is injured at the moment. don't need another sick note candidate

gosplan

Drumpot wrote: »

Great post . .

Most United fans can congradulate the best team on winning the league, but its not unreasonable to point out that it was mostly down to the vast financial beef injection akin to giving yourself endless funds in football manager. Its not as satisfying as trying to be successful by building a club up properly.

Rational points and all but City were catching up. What else would they do but fill their squad with players as good as utd's in as short a space of time as possible?

Anywau united would have won the league regardless with either fletcher or vidic available.

Kylo Ren

syngindub wrote: »

Rossi is injured at the moment. don't need another sick note candidate

Was a joke!

token101

leggo wrote: »

There's a massive difference between buying young and intelligently and being bankrolled to buy stars, though. Rooney and Ronaldo, for example, were unproven at top level when bought but nurtured in the United mould to achieve success. You can add plenty to that list: Keane, Yorke, Jones, Ferdinand, De Gea, Carrick, Valencia...like you said, the list goes on.

Ferdinand was unproven? He cost Leeds 18 million FFS :pac: They still spent fortunes on 'unproven' players. They still spent the money! Add up all the money they've spent since Ferguson took over. They've broken the British transfer record three or four times.

leggo wrote: »

The squad has evolved, it's a team, not a fantasy football team. United are Barcelona and City are Real Madrid. Had Arsenal, Spurs, Newcastle, or anyone else (even Liverpool) done it I'd hold my hands up and say: "Yep, fair play. I wish you well and look forward to doing battle in the future."

United are no f***ing Barcelona :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

But that was never going to happen though was it? Why? Because they could never afford to keep up with United's spending power. When Leeds and Newcastle tried they almost went bankrupt. So Chelsea and City needed to have some financial clout.

leggo wrote: »

City's approach has been like a kid playing FIFA. Just buy every star who's willing because you can.

Or because they are needed and improve the team? They bought certain players, they weren't good enough, so they left/were loaned out and they bought others to replace them.

leggo wrote: »

Richard and Hart and...who? Who else wasn't an established talent elsewhere before City bought them?

Well going by your earlier logic by mentioning Yorke as being 'moulded' by United, Milner wasn't a top, top level player. Nor was Lescott. Or Kompany. Or Zabaleta. Or de Jong. Or Hart. They've all improved immensely under City.

leggo wrote: »

Oh they have a whole two out of 25 players brought up through the ranks? That's incredible. Here, call up the FA and tell them that England's footballing future is going to be a-okay with the domestic champions churning out a whole TWO home-made players per generation. Clap agus clap.

There have been others, but they were sold because they weren't good enough/didn't want to be there. United haven't had many more. Smalling, bought in, and Wellbeck. How many others have there been? The rest were bought for big prices like Rooney, Carrick and Young.

leggo wrote: »

There's a considerable difference between spending £58 million and £500 million, though. For one, £58m is only 10% of City's haul. Not to defend Chelsea, they're of the same 'Football Manager' mould (though they've been around long enough that I wouldn't begrudge them success...) but nobody has spent even close to City.

So because you spend it over longer, that makes it OK? Chelsea did the EXACT same thing :pac: They wasted a sh*t load of money on rubbish first before Mourinho took over. Like Hughes did with City. At least though City play great football. Chelsea were sh*t to watch even when they were buying stars. Liverpool tried to do it aswell, buying Torres, Alonso, etc, etc. But it didn't work. City just made it work. Simple as.

leggo wrote: »

To say it's on merit is ridiculous. Without billions being injected into the club, they're probably facing relegation. Mid-table at best. Simple as. How can you possibly claim that tactics are responsible for this?! FFS are you mental?!?

What are you talking about? They bought the best players to fit a tactical system, went out and played and hammered most teams in the league, including United. The team still won on merit. They didn't walk on and hand the other teams money FFS. They were the best team in the league. Just accept it and stop talking f*cking rubbish.

leggo wrote: »

The team fell apart three times this year (today included)...it just so happened that they had leftover stars waiting in the wings to fill in the gaps! A luxury no other team can boast! It doesn't take a great tactician to realise "Hmm, maybe this mega-talented player of ours who's playing golf most of the year might score goals..." That's not a level playing field, therefore they don't win on merit. They win on financial might.

It's not City's fault that other teams have sub standard squads.

leggo wrote: »

It was entertaining, I'll give you that. But it also signalled that financial might above all now possibly dictates success in football. The Premiership has just been successfully 'bought'.

Financial might has ALWAYS dictated success! Do you think Shearer went to Blackburn for the love of the club? Or Asprilla to Newcastle for the tradition of the club?

leggo wrote: »

People will claim it makes it 'more competitive' to have someone new win...em, nope, sorry. The NFL and NBA are competitive sports, as they have draft and salary cap systems in place that ensure teams can't just out-muscle each other and franchises have a fighting chance each year. Aside from the top two, barring a financial windfall, nobody has a chance to win next year, or the year after, or the next year.

That's how football loses. The Premiership will become like La Liga/Scotland: a two-horse race. If even. If United can't keep up, we're just going to see City winning time-and-time again with no prospect of change unless a billionaire decides that he now rather likes Norwich. So now Norwich will buy the league. Until the next top bidder comes along. And so on. I don't know if you just have a raging erection for auctions, but I prefer my sports competitive tbh...

So, United winning for all those years had nothing to do with financial might? They just groomed the best stars and won eh? You keep living in fantasy land if you like, but most people know it's bullsh*t. I've no problem saying that without the billions, City would be nowhere. But that's what's needed to compete. Players came to City for the exact same reasons they have been going to United for years: to win trophies and get a sh*tload of money.

The Premiership is still as open or as closed as it's ever been, whichever way you see it. It's hardly as if 10 years that anyone other than United/Arsenal were going to win it was it? Until Abramovich came along it was a two horse race and then it became another two horse race until City came along.

Raging erection for auctions eh? I leave you at that daft f***ing comment, I'm going to go watch MOTD and relive the greatest moment in Premiership history :cool:

Drumpot

gosplan wrote: »

Rational points and all but City were catching up. What else would they do but fill their squad with players as good as utd's in as short a space of time as possible?

Anywau united would have won the league regardless with either fletcher or vidic available.

Building success takes time, buying success takes money . .

Jax Teller

syngindub wrote: »

Rossi is injured at the moment. don't need another sick note candidate

Isn't Villa still injured Aswell ? Don't think he's played since December/January

Lord TSC

I don't begrudge City fans. I'm sure it's amazing to go from "Nowhere near the top" to "PL Champions" in such a short time. I'd love to have the financial backing they do so we too could buy whoever we wanted whenever we wanted, a few more players for the fun of it as well.

What irks me a bit is the people who say United used to be the financial superpower of England back years ago, and now we know how they feel. I can appreciate it must have been tough at times to see United spend the cash so freely....but (and correct me if I'm wrong), United had that cash cause they built their empire over the years and worked their way to financial success. It wasn't a case of "We have nothing, now we have everything." We bought smartly and sold smartly. We invested and had a mix of young, medium and old players. We were winning everything so consequentially were getting bigger shares of revenues from competitions. We bought players like Park and co who drew money on a global scale instead of an international one.

I don't like to say we made our money the "right" way. That's a tad arrogant and dismissive. But I do think there's a difference with how United made its cash and built it's empire.

Again, fair play to the fans of any clubs which get the financial injections the likes of City and Chelsea got. It must be great to be in such a position. I just hate the arguement of trying to compare the apples of United in previous decades and the oranges of multi-billion, over-night investments of other clubs.

Drumpot

token101 wrote: »

The Premiership is still as open or as closed as it's ever been, whichever way you see it. It's hardly as if 10 years that anyone other than United/Arsenal were going to win it was it? Until Abramovich came along it was a two horse race and then it became another two horse race until City came along.

Raging erection for auctions eh? I leave you at that daft f***ing comment, I'm going to go watch MOTD and relive the greatest moment in Premiership history :cool:

United built success, City skipped the building and just bought it, they are like chalk and chees. . Ferguson didnt have a billionaire backing him in the 80s and it has taken clubs with unfound wealth (blackburn, chelsea, city) to dethrone united.

Says alot about ferguson and its a backhanded compliment if people excuse spending hundreds of millions as the ONLY way teams can catch up with such a legend.

If people really think (as opposed to just simply want to believe) City and Uniteds success are similar, then theres not really much chance of explaining the differance.

kippy

Drumpot wrote: »

Building success takes time, buying success takes money . .

Any type of success takes money.

n32

gosplan wrote: »

Rational points and all but City were catching up. What else would they do but fill their squad with players as good as utd's in as short a space of time as possible?

Anywau united would have won the league regardless with either fletcher or vidic available.

And thats the most galling aspect of it. We really did leave it after us. Today wasnt the day we lost it, today was just cruel and unusual punishment. WIgan and Everton were costly slips but between the first week of january and the wigan game our results were freakishly good. We were due a slip if we re honest with ourselves. Whats really bugging me is that we took 6 from arsenal, 6 from spurs,4 from liverpool and chelsea, won in goodison, reebok, stadium of light, ewood park and still lost the league. The away results deserved more than we ve finished up with . But hey thats football and thats why we ll be back again next august ready to go through it all again, God help us:P

Kylo Ren

Coletrickle88 wrote: »

Isn't Villa still injured Aswell ? Don't think he's played since December/January

Was out for about 5 months. Doubt for the Euros.

Drumpot

kippy wrote: »

Any type of success takes money.

Fergie and United Building a club from a shadow of itself to a powerhouse in world football, with the same kind of finances as those around them at the time

is far more difficult and commendable and a bigger achievement then

City and Mancini buying an entire squad in the space of three seasons with unlimited finances

The net result is the same , but the manner in which success was cultivated is completely differant.