danburge82 said:
United didn't get their money through being successful, I'm sick of hearing that made up bullshit!
In the 70's and 80's they pretty much won fuck all apart from a few domestic cups, like Boro in the 90's. Yet through illegally selling inedible meat to school kids and running up huge debts with that company to enable the Edwards' to buy players for the club (something that made Louis Edwards top himself because he couldn't afford to pay back the debt as United weren't winning enough to balance the outlay), United still spent more money than everyone else and in the late 80's and early 90's assembled the most expensive team ever seen - that only had ONE player who was homegrown/free (Giggs) - and low and behold they went on to dominate the Premier League when money really started pouring into football.
I've still got the newspaper from the 5-1 Maine Road massacre, and the headlines in it read "PRIDE AND PASSION MADE UNITED'S MILLIONAIRES LOOK LIKE MISFITS" (something not dissimilar to what you'd read now if newly promoted Blackpool beat the richest club in the country who hadn't been a dominant force for a good while 5-1 eh?!)
The article by Peter Gardner starts; "It was sheer Blue murder as Manchester City eclipsed their expensive neighbours in a no contest derby." This was over two decades since United were the countries dominant force, and before their Cup Winners Cup and numerous Prem title wins, but they were still referred to as "expensive"!
And remember United had very little in the way of a challenge. In the first 5 or 6 years the Prem was very poor and only had United plus either none or one other good team to challenge United for the title. In 92-93 Villa Norwich and Blackburn finished 2nd 3rd and 4th, if you look at their teams they wouldn't get into the Prem top half now! So a lot of success with no real challenges with all the money that was pumping into the Prem at the time - it was all Uniteds, all down to spending more money than anyone else after two decades of not being successful!
Now City have to overturn decent sides in Everton, Villa, Liverpool, Arsenal, and two very good sides in United and Chelsea. So we've got to do a hell of a lot to catch and overtake them lot. Back in the early 90's Liverpools decline had started and they've only been a challenging side twice in the last 20years. So United only had Leeds, who weren't even that good themselves, to topple - yet still spent more than anyone had before to do it!
How is what we're doing now any different to what the Rags did then?
Bryan Robson was a record transfer fee, Hughes was the highest paid player in England when he resigned, Viv Anderson was the most expensive defender ever when signed, an average Brain McClair who wouldn't get in Stokes team now was well over the average for the time - so nobody can use our obscene transfer fees or wages as the excuse because it's all relative to the time!
There's no argument! If we're ruining football, then so did United from the mid-late 80's! If we're buying success, then so did United (and so did Everton Liverpool Forest Leeds and so on and so on....) .
This time the colours Sky Blue and the bitter Rags don't like it!
The argument about Un*ted spending money they've "earned," isn't just a bit wrong, it's total cloud cuckoo:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.insidermedia.com/productsandservices/archive/nwbi/2005-06/cover/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.insidermedia.com/productsand ... -06/cover/</a>
" ... it was 1902, and Newton Heath was set on its financial feet not by the collective efforts of the club's supporters, but by a brewer, John Henry Davies, who paid off the club's debts, and renamed it Manchester United. Eight years later, Davies made a serious investment: £360,000 to create for United a purpose-built stadium at Old Trafford.”
To put that figure in context - In 1911, the record transfer fee in 1911 was £1,200. (Sunderland for Charlie Buchan.) So in 1902 Davies gave United enough of his own money to buy more than
300 players at a then record transfer fee.
We're just going to have to get used to pundits, fans, ex-players and everyone else, trying to hide their sadness that 'their' club didn't get the Sheikh's money, with these nonsense arguments and ridiculous versions of history.
Wonder what they'll all say if Blackburn get £200m to spend on new players?
