37 years without a trophy

[JoeMercer'sWay]

I amazed that despite your claims that United fans are arrogant, you can have the arrogance to think that being a blue is far superior to being a red. Truly bizarre.

and you're arrogant enough to even doubt it, now get to bed school in the morning.

 

[metalgear]

That is such a stupid bitter comment. What because certain teams were succesful when money poured into football that makes them responsible for what its become. It could have been any group of teams that won trophy after trophy,it could have been you, leeds, Norwich anyone. It happened to be us. Do you want me to feel bad because my team won trophies and didn't let other teams get a look in.

bullshit. united not only had all the prem money coming in at that time but also became a plc giving them untold riches, most of which was spent buying shed loads of top players & in the process breaking transfer records on a regular basis. until the start of the premier league united hadn't won the league since before city did. don't kid yourselves. united bought all their trophies for years after the formation of the prem.

Have a read through:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/manchester-city-transfers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier ... sfers.html</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/manchester-united-transfers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier ... sfers.html</a>

It only goes as far back as when the prem started (nothing to do with me, couldn't find any website that goes further back)

Bit odd that your spending more than us for the first 4 seasons is it?

 

[Bill]

I amazed that despite your claims that United fans are arrogant, you can have the arrogance to think that being a blue is far superior to being a red. Truly bizarre.

arrogant? nah, just extremely comfortable with our inner self.

oh and its better than being a rag twat.

 

[Balti]

I amazed that despite your claims that United fans are arrogant, you can have the arrogance to think that being a blue is far superior to being a red. Truly bizarre.

arrogant? nah, just extremely comfortable with our inner self.

oh and its better than being a rag twat.

 

[Metal Biker]

I amazed that despite your claims that United fans are arrogant, you can have the arrogance to think that being a blue is far superior to being a red. Truly bizarre.

I think you've missed the point.

The United fans are trying to suggest that supporting City is somehow detrimental or a waste of time due to the "lack of trophies".

The informed Blues are simply making it clear that OUR definition of supporting a football has an ethos which is VERY different to that of the United supporter.

Blues don't need to see the club lift trophies, but that doesn't mean to suggest we don't spur the team on in it's pursuit or success. Just that it isn't a prerequisite of what it means to be a Blue.

Not arrogant, just different.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Well you've convinced me lads, being a blue sounds ace.

red & skint sounds double fuckin ace.

 

[Bluemoon115]

Well you've convinced me lads, being a blue sounds ace.

Nah. Wouldn't be your thing. We don't sell jigsaw puzzles of our directors.

 

[friend]

I don't doubt that you believe it's better to be a blue than a red. I believe it's better to be a red than a blue. That's the way it works.

 

[friend]

I amazed that despite your claims that United fans are arrogant, you can have the arrogance to think that being a blue is far superior to being a red. Truly bizarre.

I think you've missed the point.

The United fans are trying to suggest that supporting City is somehow detrimental or a waste of time due to the "lack of trophies".

The informed Blues are simply making it clear that OUR definition of supporting a football has an ethos which is VERY different to that of the United supporter.

Blues don't need to see the club lift trophies, but that doesn't mean to suggest we don't spur the team on in it's pursuit or success. Just that it isn't a prerequisite of what it means to be a Blue.

Not arrogant, just different.

I also don't get that your ethos is different to mine. Because you sing 'we're still here'. We were still there when we got relegated in 74/75.

 

[metalgear]

I amazed that despite your claims that United fans are arrogant, you can have the arrogance to think that being a blue is far superior to being a red. Truly bizarre.

I think you've missed the point.

The United fans are trying to suggest that supporting City is somehow detrimental or a waste of time due to the "lack of trophies".

The informed Blues are simply making it clear that OUR definition of supporting a football has an ethos which is VERY different to that of the United supporter.

Blues don't need to see the club lift trophies, but that doesn't mean to suggest we don't spur the team on in it's pursuit or success. Just that it isn't a prerequisite of what it means to be a Blue.

Not arrogant, just different.

You're argument is a joke, its such an easy thing to say 'you don't know what supporting a team is about because you've only ever known success' its true i'm 26 so I can remember 1990 onwards, nothing but winning or challenging. What am I supposed to do about that though, should I cut my allegiances with the team i've followed since I was a kid and follow a lesser team for a few years. Should I boo the team for winning because I want to know what it feels like to lose. One day our run will end as i've said. If you think that when that happens though OT will suddenly empty and there'll be an average attendance of 500 every match you're very deluded. Believe it or not the hardcore base of United fans is no different to any other clubs.