United Thread 2014/15

[aguero93:20]

SCUMMY RATS

 

[Blue_Rossy]

Brilliant MK Dons have had a mobile advertising lorry outside the Swamp with the message 'you've been Don' on the side, arranged by kit company Sondico, Ha,Ha.
The reverse side shows a photo of Moyes with the message 'Bring back the Messiah' Brilliant by the Dons.

Apparently this will ''infuriate'' fans!
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mk-dons-taunt-manchester-united-7682672" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ed-7682672</a>

Ha ha. Bit cheesy but brill.

 

[Henkeman]

They broke British record after record after record after Ferguson took over. 500k for Irwin was British record for a full back, 3.5 million for Keane a record, 28 million Ferdinand etc.
For years they simply outspent everyone and they certainly did not have the sponsorship then.
What it did do was buy them titles, make them more attractive to sponsers.
So when they say its their own money, ask them how it all started. Nothing different to what we have done

They did not make annual losses of £200m or £100m as we did though.

On the other hand the transfer mkt was totally different. As you say wen they repeatedly broke the transfer record back then the fees were a fraction of what they are today.

The numbers are smaller because football inflation has been rampant for years. But spending twice their turnover on transfers in the late 80s would have meant massive losses - hence the share issues.

 

[mcmanus]

I was talking to Gary James (I'm name dropping again GDM!) a few seasons back and saying how great it was not only that we were at the top table now but battling it out with the rags. His reply was that it was, but there were actually very few times in history where we were both consistently at the top together, the late 1960's being the last time before this era. The pattern of history was that usually there was one club up and one down, rather than both being on top.

How perceptive that statement seems to have been now.

This is an interesting point. I remember in the mid '50s both clubs were powerful. City were doing well, especially with the Revie plan, and United had the Busby Babes; we won the cup in '56 and they retained the league title. We then imploded and they suffered the sequels of the Munich crash. The feeling that Manchester was simply not big enough for two "top" teams was encouraged by the press. Now, with City's wealth coming from so many different sources, while the rags have a sugar daddy buying players with kamikaze spending, this shouldn't apply, though the signs at the moment hold out hope.

This is one of my favourite areas of research because I do find it fascinating that Manchester struggles to have 2 teams winning trophies at the same time (PB - I remember the chat, one of those 'we've got ten minutes spare' that turns into 'bloody Hell is that the time?' after several hours debating City, Mancini, Cook, Fergie, Rooney, Glazers and Platini etc.). I've written about this a lot - in the immediate aftermatch of the Bribe Scandal City did challenge but didn't find success (while Utd won trophies with the best of City's banned players), in the 20s & 30s Utd hadn't a hope of competing and City helped preserve them (see my chapterson Manchester Central in Manchester a Football History), in the 50s City won the FA Cup & Utd the League in 1956 but City couldn't sustain it, then 1968 saw both sides win major trophies and Utd fell apart (a bit like now) in the aftermath and were relegated a mere 6 years after their greatest triumph (1st Euro Cup winners to suffer relegation in UK - maybe across Europe, I've never checked), and in 1976 we were both successful but only briefly really. In fact the mid to late 70s is the closest, until recent years, that we've both been perceived as giants who stood a chance of success year after year, but we all know how that fell apart for City.

My theory is that the success of one team directly impacts on the other, so that every City success hurts someone at Utd and they change direction, panic, or simply become focused on trying to upstage the Blues (and vice versa). This overwhelms the club and, with fan pressure, increases tension and issues within the club (whichever one is failing). This may be rubbish, but when I was talking with PB about this a couple of years ago the signs were that Utd would continue to be successful and not fall apart. I was also quoted in the Independent (and on radio) about it around that time, saying that we're either entering new territory or that one of the 2 teams won't be able to sustain the success. Now, that theory seems correct, although Utd have the resources (or at least the Glazers do) to buy players who can lift them out of this mess - whether the general pressure of City eases on them though is another issue. Fans and clubs may say that their rivals' success doesn't impact them, but it's clear it does.

Interesting days and also a warning for us all I guess to focus on our successes/failures and never worry about someone else's glory - if we can be successful then that's all that matters.

Cheers. Good read.

 

[stony]

No more Mr Nice Guy for all those lovable rags.

When we win the league in the next 2 years I can't wait to talk unprecedented levels of shit. Seriously regret being so level headed for all these years when we boss.

I wish i'd been more inflammatory when we were winning everything. We have one season where we're a tad awful and i can't do anything without someone taking the piss. We'd better get back on top soon, it's going to be even sweeter this time round.

Yep! I was fairly modest, insofar that one can actually be modest or arrogant about a team you support. But hell no, that's all about to change when we're back on top.

The most annoying thing today was seeing professional footballers joining in on Twitter, people like Dkeko and Cahill. I hope they got plenty of replies!

I've never been one to gloat for the past 20 years but loads of people are giving me snide remarks and celebrating in my face. feck them all.

I feel terrible for them now.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I was talking to Gary James (I'm name dropping again GDM!) a few seasons back and saying how great it was not only that we were at the top table now but battling it out with the rags. His reply was that it was, but there were actually very few times in history where we were both consistently at the top together, the late 1960's being the last time before this era. The pattern of history was that usually there was one club up and one down, rather than both being on top.

How perceptive that statement seems to have been now.

This is an interesting point. I remember in the mid '50s both clubs were powerful. City were doing well, especially with the Revie plan, and United had the Busby Babes; we won the cup in '56 and they retained the league title. We then imploded and they suffered the sequels of the Munich crash. The feeling that Manchester was simply not big enough for two "top" teams was encouraged by the press. Now, with City's wealth coming from so many different sources, while the rags have a sugar daddy buying players with kamikaze spending, this shouldn't apply, though the signs at the moment hold out hope.

This is one of my favourite areas of research because I do find it fascinating that Manchester struggles to have 2 teams winning trophies at the same time (PB - I remember the chat, one of those 'we've got ten minutes spare' that turns into 'bloody Hell is that the time?' after several hours debating City, Mancini, Cook, Fergie, Rooney, Glazers and Platini etc.). I've written about this a lot - in the immediate aftermatch of the Bribe Scandal City did challenge but didn't find success (while Utd won trophies with the best of City's banned players), in the 20s & 30s Utd hadn't a hope of competing and City helped preserve them (see my chapterson Manchester Central in Manchester a Football History), in the 50s City won the FA Cup & Utd the League in 1956 but City couldn't sustain it, then 1968 saw both sides win major trophies and Utd fell apart (a bit like now) in the aftermath and were relegated a mere 6 years after their greatest triumph (1st Euro Cup winners to suffer relegation in UK - maybe across Europe, I've never checked), and in 1976 we were both successful but only briefly really. In fact the mid to late 70s is the closest, until recent years, that we've both been perceived as giants who stood a chance of success year after year, but we all know how that fell apart for City.

My theory is that the success of one team directly impacts on the other, so that every City success hurts someone at Utd and they change direction, panic, or simply become focused on trying to upstage the Blues (and vice versa). This overwhelms the club and, with fan pressure, increases tension and issues within the club (whichever one is failing). This may be rubbish, but when I was talking with PB about this a couple of years ago the signs were that Utd would continue to be successful and not fall apart. I was also quoted in the Independent (and on radio) about it around that time, saying that we're either entering new territory or that one of the 2 teams won't be able to sustain the success. Now, that theory seems correct, although Utd have the resources (or at least the Glazers do) to buy players who can lift them out of this mess - whether the general pressure of City eases on them though is another issue. Fans and clubs may say that their rivals' success doesn't impact them, but it's clear it does.

Interesting days and also a warning for us all I guess to focus on our successes/failures and never worry about someone else's glory - if we can be successful then that's all that matters.

It is a fascinating area of discussion. In the '50s and in the '60s English clubs were hemmed in by the FA/FL through the maximum wage, directors' fees and a whole raft of financial regulations which meant that football clubs couldn't develop as businesses and big city clubs would have no advantage over Burnley, Wolves etc. It was the Spanish and Italian clubs which had the financial advantages, the big, luxurious stadia and so on. They also carried the debt too - I remember Kenneth Wolstenhome's commentary on the European cup final of 1961, as Barcelona had just pulled back a goal to trail Benfica by 3-2: "Barcelona have to get another. Their best player (Suarez!!!) is being sold to Inter, they owe £1m on their stadium. They need this trophy virtually to stay in business." City and United were both in the proverbial in 1961, reliant as they were on the butcher (literally in United's case!), the local baker and the candlestick maker. This remained the case until the late 80s, when financial regulations weren't relaxed, but vanished almost completely. City certainly didn't belong to the European elite at any time between 1971 and ...., but United never really joinet it until 1999, I'd say, certainly not in 1990 . Their early forays in the European cup were hardly glorious and in 1997, when they reached the semis they actually lost more games than they won! Interestingly, Liverpool and Everton exercised a domination of the English game between 1984 and 1989 which had eluded Manchester, the bigger and more prosperous area (though the '80s were grim for both). What interests me are the psychological and personal effects of the rivalry between City and United, which have meant that periods of genuine competition, right from the earliest days, have been very intense but relatively short lived.

The outlook for Manchester does look a lot brighter now. City are, of course, unrecognisable from the mess they were for almost 30 years. As Khaldoon said in the summer, the owner has a high investment business model, which will prove vastly superior to the model espoused in FFPR. The game has chosen to fixate on the spending that this has involved and has missed completely the expertise brought into the club. City are probably the smoothest, best run club in world football, and look ideally placed to consign the psychological and personal factors, which have so weakened City for 40 odd years through their neurotic obsession with United, to the dustbin. United appear doomed to pay a heavy price for what appears to be the "value in the market" reaction to City's emergence - but they are investing again, on a massive scale! Do they have the expertise to compete with City in the long term?

 

[M18CTID]

No more Mr Nice Guy for all those lovable rags.

When we win the league in the next 2 years I can't wait to talk unprecedented levels of shit. Seriously regret being so level headed for all these years when we boss.

I wish i'd been more inflammatory when we were winning everything. We have one season where we're a tad awful and i can't do anything without someone taking the piss. We'd better get back on top soon, it's going to be even sweeter this time round.

Yep! I was fairly modest, insofar that one can actually be modest or arrogant about a team you support. But hell no, that's all about to change when we're back on top.

The most annoying thing today was seeing professional footballers joining in on Twitter, people like Dkeko and Cahill. I hope they got plenty of replies!

I've never been one to gloat for the past 20 years but loads of people are giving me snide remarks and celebrating in my face. feck them all.

I feel terrible for them now.

Fuck me, I'm quaking in my boots after reading those comments. Perhaps someone should explain to the fucking mard cunts above that one of the main aspects of being a football fan is to engage in banter with rival fans and let's face it, most United fans haven't exactly been behind the door in ramming their taunts down our throats over the years. Seems some of them have conveniently forgotten that little fact.

 

[abu13]

I see the rags give debuts to Tyler Becket, Wilson and Keane and now they get cslled up for england under 21. At least people are still staying on script.

 

[NeilYoungIsBack]

"Kim Jong-Un wants to watch Manchester United matches on North Korean state television".

Presumably, he's keen to study how it is that a despotic, totalitarian regime can crumble in the space of a few short years (in order to avoid the same mistakes himself).

 

[Well Wisher]

When pisscan pissed off, and the referees deserted them, and the media spat out the red pill, it was obviously gonna make things tougher. I just didn't imagine they'd find it this tough, this soon. Never thought I'd get any entertainment value from utd but it's happening.