Need some ammo

They didn't help them become the dominant force, but they have kept them there.

United became the dominant force through two pieces of either good luck or good judgment.

In the early 90s they were a strong team, but not really that much better than us. We went into derbies expecting to win if we were at home and expecting to draw but fearing defeat at their place. Leeds were stronger than the rags, as were Arsenal and Liverpool. Had Howard Kendall not fucked off back to Everton, I often wonder how things might have panned out differently for us.

Then the rags signed Cantona and he was the missing link - he made a good team into a championship winning team. That is why they treat him like God still. Ferguson had signed some good players before but he had also signed some dross. Don't forget the 5-1 which was so astounding because we had just been promoted and they had broken the bank in the transfer market. From memory, they spent £20m in one summer only a year or two before Blackburn 'bought' the league by spending £50m.

Then as that team faded as Blackburn and then Arsenal became dominant, the next thing that happened was that a bunch of astonishingly good kids came through the ranks at the same time - the bender, the ginger minger, chuckle 1 & 2, butthead etc and Alan Hansen uttered his famous prohphesy.

Arguably both these events were good judgment from Taggart, arguably they were the chances that paid off amongst hundreds of forgotten chances that didn't. What is indisputable is that they had the good fortune to be part of English football's elite when (a) the Premier League came into being, and (b) the Champions league came into being. Financially, those two things turned English football on its head. It is no surprise that the teams who have regularly been champions league players are now the established 'big 4'.

Had those two things happened in the late 70s rather than the early 90s, England's 'big 4' would be us, Liverpool, Forest and Ipswich Town. As it was, in those days the league was capable of being won realistically by any of about 8 teams. Likewise, in the mid 80s the big 4 would have been Liverpool, Everton, Spurs and Arsenal. What happened then however was not an influx of new money but Heysel: and European football was off the agenda until the 1990s.

So if you want a simple answer to your question, it is 'pay them lots and lots of money for being in the premier league and the champions league'. Sky did not make the rags a dominant force; what they have done is keep them there. The constant crawling and arselicking came later.
 
Chris in London said:
They didn't help them become the dominant force, but they have kept them there.

United became the dominant force through two pieces of either good luck or good judgment.

In the early 90s they were a strong team, but not really that much better than us. We went into derbies expecting to win if we were at home and expecting to draw but fearing defeat at their place. Leeds were stronger than the rags, as were Arsenal and Liverpool. Had Howard Kendall not fucked off back to Everton, I often wonder how things might have panned out differently for us.

Then the rags signed Cantona and he was the missing link - he made a good team into a championship winning team. That is why they treat him like God still. Ferguson had signed some good players before but he had also signed some dross. Don't forget the 5-1 which was so astounding because we had just been promoted and they had broken the bank in the transfer market. From memory, they spent £20m in one summer only a year or two before Blackburn 'bought' the league by spending £50m.

Then as that team faded as Blackburn and then Arsenal became dominant, the next thing that happened was that a bunch of astonishingly good kids came through the ranks at the same time - the bender, the ginger minger, chuckle 1 & 2, butthead etc and Alan Hansen uttered his famous prohphesy.

Arguably both these events were good judgment from Taggart, arguably they were the chances that paid off amongst hundreds of forgotten chances that didn't. What is indisputable is that they had the good fortune to be part of English football's elite when (a) the Premier League came into being, and (b) the Champions league came into being. Financially, those two things turned English football on its head. It is no surprise that the teams who have regularly been champions league players are now the established 'big 4'.

Had those two things happened in the late 70s rather than the early 90s, England's 'big 4' would be us, Liverpool, Forest and Ipswich Town. As it was, in those days the league was capable of being won realistically by any of about 8 teams. Likewise, in the mid 80s the big 4 would have been Liverpool, Everton, Spurs and Arsenal. What happened then however was not an influx of new money but Heysel: and European football was off the agenda until the 1990s.

So if you want a simple answer to your question, it is 'pay them lots and lots of money for being in the premier league and the champions league'. Sky did not make the rags a dominant force; what they have done is keep them there. The constant crawling and arselicking came later.
Click to expand...

Good post.

Also the Sky and CL money has kept Liverpool artificially high in the ratings for years IMO, remembering that they haven't won the title for 21 years.
 
Whenever I see Sky Box Office I think of their approach to football as much as I do of Hollywood, and that seems to underpin their whole approach to the EPL - what is box office? Well, MANUre, Dippers, oh, and we'd better include the Arse 'cos Arsene seems an intellectual, oh yes, we had better get Chelsea onside 'cos they have money and they are foreign and you never know when we might be buying Russian gas from Roman. There you go, we have a set of four, probably in that order for pedestal installation.
 
This is a very disapointing thread.
I opened it expecting to find out about a blue that had acquired a 9mm Browning and was looking for a few rounds to take to the cliff tomorrow morning. :-(
 
want some ammo, one word {skycards} thats what it was all about, sky and the fa would do whatever it took to keep united at the top, the richer sky got the richer united and the fa became?
 
Chris in London said:
They didn't help them become the dominant force, but they have kept them there.

United became the dominant force through two pieces of either good luck or good judgment.

In the early 90s they were a strong team, but not really that much better than us. We went into derbies expecting to win if we were at home and expecting to draw but fearing defeat at their place. Leeds were stronger than the rags, as were Arsenal and Liverpool. Had Howard Kendall not fucked off back to Everton, I often wonder how things might have panned out differently for us.

Then the rags signed Cantona and he was the missing link - he made a good team into a championship winning team. That is why they treat him like God still. Ferguson had signed some good players before but he had also signed some dross. Don't forget the 5-1 which was so astounding because we had just been promoted and they had broken the bank in the transfer market. From memory, they spent £20m in one summer only a year or two before Blackburn 'bought' the league by spending £50m.

Then as that team faded as Blackburn and then Arsenal became dominant, the next thing that happened was that a bunch of astonishingly good kids came through the ranks at the same time - the bender, the ginger minger, chuckle 1 & 2, butthead etc and Alan Hansen uttered his famous prohphesy.

Arguably both these events were good judgment from Taggart, arguably they were the chances that paid off amongst hundreds of forgotten chances that didn't. What is indisputable is that they had the good fortune to be part of English football's elite when (a) the Premier League came into being, and (b) the Champions league came into being. Financially, those two things turned English football on its head. It is no surprise that the teams who have regularly been champions league players are now the established 'big 4'.

Had those two things happened in the late 70s rather than the early 90s, England's 'big 4' would be us, Liverpool, Forest and Ipswich Town. As it was, in those days the league was capable of being won realistically by any of about 8 teams. Likewise, in the mid 80s the big 4 would have been Liverpool, Everton, Spurs and Arsenal. What happened then however was not an influx of new money but Heysel: and European football was off the agenda until the 1990s.

So if you want a simple answer to your question, it is 'pay them lots and lots of money for being in the premier league and the champions league'. Sky did not make the rags a dominant force; what they have done is keep them there. The constant crawling and arselicking came later.
Click to expand...


great post mate....i've not read a post and really enjoyed it for a long time on here until this tbf, thumbs up ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top