Red Cafe In Meltdown Derby Special!

[mancityvstoke]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzBAwKRarzY&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

 

[Deleted member 14625]

Re: I know I shouldn't but....

I know a lot of people don't like going over to the dark side to have a sneaky look but under the circumstances I could not resist it. Most of the posters on there have at last come to the realisation that the squad they have is ageing and just not good enough to challenge next season without a major revamp, some are even hinting that ferguson may be losing the plot, I feel that with a couple more bad results from them then we may not be far from hearing them call for his head on a plate. Oh how ive waited so long for this to happen and I can sense its not so far off .


<a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/f6/i-randall-flagg-think-man-city-better-than-us-352615/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/f6/i-randall-fla ... us-352615/</a>

To be honest, if you ignore what idiots like Cuntanoid are saying about us buying success (I notice on my now rare forays over there that most people just seem to ignore him when he spouts that same old hackneyed line) plenty of them on there are quite magnanimous.

That's not easy to admit when you've been beaten by your rivals but having said that, as bitter as I can be towards United at times I'm man enough to admit if we've been outplayed by them (not that I'd necessarily shout it from the rooftops). And on Monday night, while not at our fluent best, we were clearly the better side so anyone disputing that fact is just deluding themselves.

As for Ferguson, I'm surprised that some normally level-headed United fans I know are getting so pissed off with him. When I was at Wolves the other week, I got a text off one who called him a "senile old ****". Ok, this was just after the 4-4 draw with Everton and emotions were running high but he's pretty much standing by what he said. Because I don't watch United every week, it's difficult to know whether the fans have a point here but if some of their more sensible fans are losing patience then you have to think that they're onto something. On the face of it, he does appear to be making errors - either tactically or with regards to team selection - on a more regular basis but on the flip side, the Glazer's debt has seriously restricted their spending over recent years and it's my firm belief that Ferguson is still holding it all together and continuing to make the sum greater than the parts. To that end, any United fans thinking it is now time for him to step aside should be careful what they wish for.

He's always made big mistakes. He insisted in playing 442 in Europe, even away from home, right up until about 2006. Every time they went out of the comp it was always because they only had four in midfield and were overrun, always. Had he been more aware about this United could have won more European trophies than they have done. He's done it in the Prem as well at times, like Monday night - out of nowhere he'll pick the wrong team in a big game. But he gets it right much more often than he gets it wrong and any Rags thinking about a change should, as you say, be careful what they wish for.

 

[tangaroa]

Re: Get on this...

Man City will never be better than us, until they win the title using home grown players, and buying players from money earned at the gate, not from what's been handed to them on a plate.

de Gea? Nope
Ferdinand? Nope
Smalling? Nope
Jones? Nope
Evra? Nope
Carrick? Nope
Scholes? Yes.
Nani? Nope.
Park? Nope.
Giggs? Yes.
Rooney? Nope.

So two home grown players out of eleven means they have challenged with, ahem, home grown players.

Nice one.

(I'm not taking any credit for coming out with this by any means because the article is sheer genius, but this is essential reading!)

From 1988-91, United spent £15.2m = 1.62x their 1989 revenue of £9.4m. That's the equivalent of United spending £533m today.
So United were allowed to spend first in order to grow, & continue spending freely for next 2 decades. But City will be banned from doing same. Also, Martin Edwards borrowed the money to fund that investment in players, just like Sheikh Mansour has with City.
The money was borrowed not self-financed. Utd were allowed to do something that City won't be allowed to do, i.e. carry on spending. Utd were allowed to spend first in order to become more successful, and they were allowed to continue spending without any limitations on how much they spent. And it also disproves the myth that Utd didn't spend in order to become successful under fergie.
Uniteds revenue was £9.4m in 1989. Uniteds revenue is now £330m. He invested first in order to grow. It only became self-financing AFTER Utd had grown. But these new FFP rules actually bans clubs from investing first in order to grow.
Utd spent 1.62x their revenue, which equates to a huge amount today and Utd would not have met FFP rules in 1989. Obviously there is inflation but that is almost equivalent to City-style spending
Utd basically bought an entire new first team (in fact the XI fielded v MCFC in the 5-1 defeat was the most expensively assembled team then), and they spent a huge amount doing so, and that new first team went on to win trophy after trophy from 1992 onwards. THAT was the team that started Utd's success.
FFP has been specifically designed to stop clubs like City and Chelsea from outspending rivals. FFP has been designed to stop smaller clubs from being able to compete with bigger clubs. And the people who negotiated it with UEFA were the ECA exec board, which consists of David Gill (Man United Chief Exec), Rummenigge, and CEOs/presidents from Real, Barca, AC, Inter etc.
City have spent first in order to grow, but we won't be allowed to continue spending, so our growth will be curtailed by FFP. MUFC didn't have that limitation that MCFC have.
The point being that why did the rules change to stop MCFC being able to spend money?
The answer: It's because of this bunch of biased club executives below:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ecaeurope.com/about-eca/eca-executive-board/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ecaeurope.com/about-eca/eca-executive-board/</a>
These were the ones who negotiated FFP with Platini, and surprise surprise they managed to get FFP designed in such a way that it stops clubs like City from being able to compete financially with Utd, Bayern, Real, Barca, AC and Inter - the exact teams who have representatives on the ECA exec board. Keep the big teams big and the poor teams poor. Changing the rules to stop certain teams being able to compete is called "cheating", I think you'll find.
FFP rules were originally going to regulate debt and then next you heard about FFP it was based on clubs' revenue and "break-even". Many journos such as Oliver Kay and Marcotti from The Times and Martin Samuel from the Daily Mail all think that FFP has been deliberately designed to protect clubs like Utd, Bayern, Real, Barca, AC, Inter at the top and to stop clubs like City and Chelsea from being able to compete with those clubs. It's not rocket science to see that it has been designed to do that. For example, if FFP came in tomorrow, and assuming wages = 58% of revenue, this shows what each of the top 6 clubs would be allowed to spend on wages:

1. United; 192m
2. Chelsea; 141m
3. Arsenal; 131m
4. Liverpool; 108m
5. Spurs; 95m
6. Manchester City; 89m

My point, which is that Utd were allowed to invest first in order to grow and then to continue spending on winning a title and then the introduction of Sky’s money gave them money to invest.
This demolishing the myth that Utd didn't spend before they became successful, and I'm showing that Utd were allowed to carry on spending after that initial huge investment, whereas City will be banned from doing the same due to FFP

You should post more often ... top stuff!

 

[scenecreamer]

http://www.redcafe.net/f7/niall-quinn-sky-351459/


Have they never saw Dwight Yorke or the elephant man on Sky Sports??

bill.s.preston
First Team Sub
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,316
I heard he's got some cracking disco pants.


Pmsl!

 

[samharris]

http://www.redcafe.net/f7/niall-quinn-sky-351459/


Have they never saw Dwight Yorke or the elephant man on Sky Sports??

That threads hilarious

How fookin good is that !!

Love in to death squads in 3 pages.. class.

 

[colourmeblue]

http://community.manutd.com/forums/t/187178.aspx?PageIndex=4

from a rag too:

You admit to which I agree that Fergie inherited a decent team, which he finished 2nd with in the 1987-88 season. He then totally replaced that team, apart from a few players, by spending big fee's over a period of 5 seasons, 1988-89, 1989-90 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 to win the league in 1993.

He won cups in the 3 seasons out of the 4 season leading up to the 1992-93, but had league place finishes of 11th, 13th, 6th & 2nd.

He spent the equivalent of £400 million in today's money at least, but his money was spent over 5 years, and he had no fifa financial fair play rules coming into force.

Now City, in 3 seasons this being the 4th season since the Abu Dabi takeover have spent around £230 million,

2008-09 season 10th, 2009-10 season 5th, 2010-11 season 3rd (level with points to second place) with an FA CUP.

Ok you could say City started to invest under thakskin so lets do it for that time till now so spending after june 2007.

City spent around £380 million.

2006/07 season 14th, 2007/08 9th, 2008-09, 10th, 2009-10 5th, 2010-11 3rd level with chelsea on points with an FA CUP

Really when you look at it like this, the difference is united won a league cup and a cup winners cup more than what city have in that period but like you said united had a better squad.

But is there really a difference between spending £200 million on a team in the top 4, or spending £400 million on a team in 10th? Both teams are spending to succeed and you can't argue that United did anything but this during the early fergie years.

The only things you can say are,

1 - united were spending money generated by the club, even this is arguable when you look at the edwards finances but I am not even getting into that.

2 - united never spent quadruple per season than the next biggest spenders.

These are good points but when you inherit a decent squad you dont need to spend as much as you would if you inherited a load of ***. The principle remains the same.

Finally and please don't ignore this again because I am going to spend 5 mins or so looking up this information for you.

If you have such a problem with city spending beyond what the club generates and spending quadruple what others have spent.

Look at this Newton Heath league history.

1902/03 - 5th division 2, 1903/04 - 3rd division 2, 1904/05 - 3rd, 1905-06 2nd, 1906-07 - 8th division one, 1907-08 - Champions.

Davies investment was in stages, first was to rescue us from bankruptcy, then a £3000 transfer chest to get us out of division 2........management failed to deliver expectation and sacked............Ernest Mangell brought in given further funds, he kept some brought in his own like paying £600 for Charlie Roberts and we were champions within 4 seasons.

Remind you of anything?

At that time City were the dominant force in Manchester, 1904 FA Cup winners and title challengers in the first division while united were in the lower leagues, but thanks to a large extent davies's money shifted the balance of power.

So if you have a problem with what city are doing now Shooby_doo, do you have a problem with what Newton Heath then United did between 1902-08?????

 

[jrb]

here's another cracker to go with the numerous others.

Thread.

Have Abromovich and Sheikh Mansour had a positive influence on the Premier League?

Sarni. Krakow. ( ;-) )

No, if anything Premier League with United competing against Arsenal and occasionally Newcastle or Liverpool was more exciting. They've had no positive effect at all - they've inflated transfer fees and wages so that the likes of United and Arsenal can no longer compete for all the top talent, they've basically created a closed circle at the top. Without them you could see the likes of Everton, Aston Villa or Newcastle in Champions League, earning a lot of money and progressing.

We'd probably be battling it out with Arsenal, Liverpool and maybe Chelsea (who weren't actually half that bad when Abramovich came) for titles. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/f7/have-abromovich-sheikh-mansour-had-positive-influence-premier-league-352156/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/f7/have-abromovi ... ue-352156/</a>

 

[samharris]

here's another cracker to go with the numerous others.

Thread.

Have Abromovich and Sheikh Mansour had a positive influence on the Premier League?

Sarni. Krakow. ( ;-) )

No, if anything Premier League with United competing against Arsenal and occasionally Newcastle or Liverpool was more exciting. They've had no positive effect at all - they've inflated transfer fees and wages so that the likes of United and Arsenal can no longer compete for all the top talent, they've basically created a closed circle at the top. Without them you could see the likes of Everton, Aston Villa or Newcastle in Champions League, earning a lot of money and progressing.

We'd probably be battling it out with Arsenal, Liverpool and maybe Chelsea (who weren't actually half that bad when Abramovich came) for titles. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/f7/have-abromovich-sheikh-mansour-had-positive-influence-premier-league-352156/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/f7/have-abromovi ... ue-352156/</a>

Erm, didnt united sell tranny for 80 million??...thats over twice the highest ever fee paid by City for one player..

city havent set the fees,,united and chelsea have by getting 50 mill for torres and 80 mill for tranny...

Here endeth my mini rant.

 

[StrangewaysHereWeCome]

here's another cracker to go with the numerous others.

Thread.

Have Abromovich and Sheikh Mansour had a positive influence on the Premier League?

Sarni. Krakow. ( ;-) )

No, if anything Premier League with United competing against Arsenal and occasionally Newcastle or Liverpool was more exciting. They've had no positive effect at all - they've inflated transfer fees and wages so that the likes of United and Arsenal can no longer compete for all the top talent, they've basically created a closed circle at the top. Without them you could see the likes of Everton, Aston Villa or Newcastle in Champions League, earning a lot of money and progressing.

We'd probably be battling it out with Arsenal, Liverpool and maybe Chelsea (who weren't actually half that bad when Abramovich came) for titles. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/f7/have-abromovich-sheikh-mansour-had-positive-influence-premier-league-352156/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/f7/have-abromovi ... ue-352156/</a>

Fuck me. Do these pricks actually believe the shit they are comitting to type? Are they really that thick?

 

[nicko]

Fucking hell!!!!

This is the funniest thing I have ever read in my life...the indignation (after all the positive things said in the original page) is hilarious. After the shameful bais we have had in derbies over the years.

For example When Tyler puts on his "poor city, aren't they shit" voice on that we have had to endure for 20+ yrs.

This is one of the best things about our success and seeing those twats realising we are passing them by is delicious to watch...

Going over the wall to stand amongst them and listen is great fun!!!