A Rags comment to me today......

[hoot]

At the end of the day a fan wants trophies, Fergie did that, on some sites they are saying over the premiership years only an average £11m net spend.

Then he did get an 68m profit on Ronaldo and 25m on Beckham a tad less profit on others, but all in all not bad compared to other non winning top teams who spent more net, I think Aresnal spent less but wages are higher.

 

[cucumberman]

At the end of the day a fan wants trophies, Fergie did that, on some sites they are saying over the premiership years only an average £11m net spend.

Then he did get an 68m profit on Ronaldo and 25m on Beckham a tad less profit on others, but all in all not bad compared to other non winning top teams who spent more net, I think Aresnal spent less but wages are higher.

Oh dear.

 

[MCFC Fort Worth]

At the end of the day a fan wants trophies, Fergie did that, on some sites they are saying over the premiership years only an average £11m net spend.

Then he did get an 68m profit on Ronaldo and 25m on Beckham a tad less profit on others, but all in all not bad compared to other non winning top teams who spent more net, I think Aresnal spent less but wages are higher.

I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

 

[hoot]

At the end of the day a fan wants trophies, Fergie did that, on some sites they are saying over the premiership years only an average £11m net spend.

Then he did get an 68m profit on Ronaldo and 25m on Beckham a tad less profit on others, but all in all not bad compared to other non winning top teams who spent more net, I think Aresnal spent less but wages are higher.

Oh dear.

Why?<br /><br />-- Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:55 am --<br /><br />

At the end of the day a fan wants trophies, Fergie did that, on some sites they are saying over the premiership years only an average £11m net spend.

Then he did get an 68m profit on Ronaldo and 25m on Beckham a tad less profit on others, but all in all not bad compared to other non winning top teams who spent more net, I think Aresnal spent less but wages are higher.

I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

Facts can hurt the non football fans.

 

[MCFC Fort Worth]

Oh dear.

Why?

-- Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:55 am --

I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

Facts can hurt the non football fans.

No just rag scum make me sick to my stomach. Plastic supporters who if the Scum were shit would switch alliances in a heartbeat...oh wait...they already are....and so are their gutless excuses for fans.

 

[cucumberman]

Oh dear.

Why?

-- Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:55 am --

I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

Facts can hurt the non football fans.

oh, that explains why you're here in the first place then.

 

[CBlue]

but at least the money came form the fans...no sugar daddy...so the succes was " bought" by the fans...I can live with that ...it feels better

It looks like you are suggesting that the fans built your club up for the benefit of a small section of fans who took the first opportunity to fuck them over & sell out to the yanks - making a very tidy profit. What exactly are the GAYS complaining about? Shouldn't they be targetting their anger at the fans who sold them out?

 

[johnny on the spot]

At the end of the day a fan wants trophies, Fergie did that, on some sites they are saying over the premiership years only an average £11m net spend.

Then he did get an 68m profit on Ronaldo and 25m on Beckham a tad less profit on others, but all in all not bad compared to other non winning top teams who spent more net, I think Aresnal spent less but wages are higher.

Where's that Thunderbirds gif? This one's a genius.

 

[1_barry_conlon]

* Ned Kelly the 'security man'/tout/plastic gangster wannabe getting tickets directly from the club.
* Bobby Charlton touting FA Cup final tickets but, unlike other players from the 66 World Cup team involved in the enterprise, not getting a life ban because he worked for the FA
* The convenient death of Louis Edwards, the man who peddled toxic meat to the schools of Manchester, which saved the Rags from being relegated as punishment for years of tapping up young players, as exposed by a Granada TV investigation
* The repeated sex scandals and frequenting of prostitutes by Rooney, Ronaldo, Anderson etc
* Ferguson's son's undoubtedly corrupt role as an agent representing several players at the club, as exposed by the Irish investors who the greedy, money-grabbing Glaswegian bully was foolish enough to take on

Yes, we really need to be lectured on football ethics by a bumbling rag wum who considers himself some sort of intellectual, but whose blindness to fact, reason and logical argument shows him up as a pretentious but insignificant mental midget

You omitted to also point out having his brother as 'south american scouting ambassador'

Obviously a role vacated by Martin 'toilet limbo dancer' Edwards. He must have run out of 'shemales' when he vacated that.


You can't knock baconface for his nepotism though. Then again it must be genetic thing at OT as Sir Matt had his son Sandy boxing off the souvenir shop as well.

 

[laserblue]

At the end of the day a fan wants trophies, Fergie did that, on some sites they are saying over the premiership years only an average £11m net spend.

Then he did get an 68m profit on Ronaldo and 25m on Beckham a tad less profit on others, but all in all not bad compared to other non winning top teams who spent more net, I think Aresnal spent less but wages are higher.

anyone who calls bacon face 'fergie' has got to be a rag.