United thread 2018/19

[jimharri]

I realise it may not be absolutely genuine (!), but I'd imagine if woodwoodwood thought he could get away with it, he'd consider it.

 

[squirtyflower]

1- As he should have.



Ferguson spent money but he didn't buy their success. That's what they're trying to do now and the difference is palpable. That approach doesn't guarantee success and they're learning it the hard way now.

You ‘avin a larf?
That’s exactly what he tried to do, buy success, he was just shit at it at first.

 

[paulsimpson]

The rags have airbrushed history to make out Ferguson built Utd on the cheap & on the strength of their academy players when in reality he was the biggest chequebook manager this country has ever seen. It's just he was operating in different markets

Now they are trying to warp history just the same by lying that it's City who push up transfer fees when it's them who have been doing it for decades & are still doing it now & the same with wages.

Yeah ,accuse your enemy of doing exactly what you are doing

 

[inchy14]

You might well be right, but the English league back then wasn't as rich as it is now. The money hadn't come in and wouldn't for another 3 or 4 years. No English teams could compete with continental teams, especially the Italians.

You couldn't break the European transfer record and bring truly world class players. Most teams had local lads, or from the Isles. Even if you could convince Juventus to sell you Platini, he wouldn't come because all English teams were suffering from a European ban after Heysel.

We can argue that they spent a lot relative to completion and that might be true, especially when they were tryijg to rebuild the team after Atkinson. But their success in the 90s was predicated on Cantona, Schmeichel and the twats of 92. That's 1.5 million in full.

All I'm saying is that there's a difference between the United of 1993 and the United of 2018.

There's no difference whatsoever.

During the 80's and 90's they outspent everyone else because they had the most cash. They spent hugely on mediocre players to stop other sides even getting near to competing with them, they were the first team to have £20 million pound plus players on their bench, they've always thrown their financial muscle about, even when they weren't earning it.

They've done it to ensure they are part of a small pool of clubs who'll have the pick of the best players available as they did back then.

This is exactly my point. This is as bad as them saying we bought the title last season. I think they're bitter for doing it and j think some of our fans on here are carbon copies of theirs and just as bitter.


I'm a man who was alive and following football in the 90s, And yes that includes United. There s nothing weird about pointing our hypocrisy and bitterness. And especially when it's someone too childish to have a proper discussion and resorts to labelling everyone who isn't a fanboy like him, a closet United fan.

If you don't like my posts, I've got an easy solution. Don't respond.

You do realise that the Sanchez signing last season was another way of inflating the market? Team were beginning to match what they could spend on transfer fees, now with FFP being changed to what wages can be increased by, which team will benefit by paying even higher ones? Even if Everton for example could spend £70 million on a player they couldn't match £500,000 a week in wages, few clubs can, so once again the rags have inflated the market.

 

[inchy14]

They were but we never broke world transfer records for our guys. De bryune was a lot for 55m but it was nowhere near the amounts the big guns were spending (Madrid and Barca,) back then.

Similarly, United spent a lot (compared to the domestic market) back then, but it wasn't much compared to the European heavyweights.

They didn't buy their titles back then and we have t bought our titles recently.

Now we all know you're taking the piss. All clubs to some degree have bought the title, none of them did it with 11 academy players, and to be honest i couldn't care, it only started getting thrown about once we'd won it. It's the hypocrisy that pisses me off.

As for spending compared to European heavyweights, nobody could because we were banned from Europe at the time and no one wanted to come! They also didn't care initially about Europe because they needed to win the Prem first, as they couldn't win the old first division, so they hoovered up all the best domestic talent and stopped anyone competing with them eventually.

Please stop with the bullshit that they didn't buy the title because they did. That first prem team was built on the back of Schmiecal, Pallister. Bruce, Parker, Irwin, Robson, McLair, Phelan, Kanchelskis, and obviously the biggest **** at the time Cantona.

 

[Mr.Feeny]

Now we all know you're taking the piss. All clubs to some degree have bought the title, none of them did it with 11 academy players, and to be honest i couldn't care, it only started getting thrown about once we'd won it. It's the hypocrisy that pisses me off.

As for spending compared to European heavyweights, nobody could because we were banned from Europe at the time and no one wanted to come! They also didn't care initially about Europe because they needed to win the Prem first, as they couldn't win the old first division, so they hoovered up all the best domestic talent and stopped anyone competing with them eventually.

Please stop with the bullshit that they didn't buy the title because they did. That first prem team was built on the back of Schmiecal, Pallister. Bruce, Parker, Irwin, Robson, McLair, Phelan, Kanchelskis, and obviously the biggest **** at the time Cantona.

-Exactly my point. Thanks for understanding something that was very simple.

- Which is exactly what I said

-Schmeichel (500k). Cantona 1 m. The two most important players cost 1.5 million. The rest of the 90s squad were academy players. Incidently, Bruce and Kanchelskeis cost relatively little, Even back then.

If they bought their success, then so did we. It's fine to look at it this way. You just have to be consistent. I'd look at it the other way and say that more than money played a role in us dominating now and them dominating 20 years ago. But there's nothing wrong with looking at it the way you do. We aren't arguing here. The only thing that matters is consistency because - as you said yourself - it's the hypocrisy that's pisses people off.

 

[inchy14]

-Exactly my point. Thanks for understanding something that was very simple.

- Which is exactly what I said

-Schmeichel (500k). Cantona 1 m. The two most important players cost 1.5 million. The rest of the 90s squad were academy players. Incidently, Bruce and Kanchelskeis cost relatively little, Even back then.

If they bought their success, then so did we. It's fine to look at it this way. You just have to be consistent. I'd look at it the other way and say that more than money played a role in us dominating now and them dominating 20 years ago. But there's nothing wrong with looking at it the way you do. We aren't arguing here. The only thing that matters is consistency because - as you said yourself - it's the hypocrisy that's pisses people off.

The rest weren't academy players though, Irwin, Pallister, Bruce, Parker, Robson, McLair. they were all cherry picked from the rest of Britain at prices no others could afford at the time. You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about here mate.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Now we all know you're taking the piss. All clubs to some degree have bought the title, none of them did it with 11 academy players, and to be honest i couldn't care, it only started getting thrown about once we'd won it. It's the hypocrisy that pisses me off.

As for spending compared to European heavyweights, nobody could because we were banned from Europe at the time and no one wanted to come! They also didn't care initially about Europe because they needed to win the Prem first, as they couldn't win the old first division, so they hoovered up all the best domestic talent and stopped anyone competing with them eventually.

Please stop with the bullshit that they didn't buy the title because they did. That first prem team was built on the back of Schmiecal, Pallister. Bruce, Parker, Irwin, Robson, McLair, Phelan, Kanchelskis, and obviously the biggest **** at the time Cantona.

The ban was between 1985 and 1990 and an extra year for Liverpool.
I agree with your conclusion above. I think the main gripe of any City fan is the hypocrisy. Whether you argue that leagues are bought or investment pays off, it's the branding of similar courses of action differently and the media spin of the two, that really grates.
I think the article that mancityvstoke posted illustrated very well that United were very well placed as a brand back in the 80's, even after a lean spell football-wise.
They had a management that were already thinking of the monetising of football, when the likes of us( supporters) were probably still thinking all was fair in the sport.
Whether it was the right place at the right time or careful management or some mixture of skullduggery in the higher circles, Ferguson spent huge for the time with very little return and was just kept in a job by winning the FA Cup.
Now whether that's any different to us heavily investing and paying over the odds for us to win the League Cup in 2011 or not, I don't care.
My main issue with what Mr.Feeney seems to be arguing is that The Ferguson era was somehow different. It is different to what is going on at United now, but I would say not a whole lot different to the early days of our current project. Ferguson however didn't have to fight an elite cartel at the same time, trying to curtail his investment once he made the breakthrough.
Ferguson has a brilliant history at that club, there is no denying, but I would argue what Mancini did for us and also Pellegrini who really was hamstrung financially in comparison to Ferguson, is more remarkable. We are only at the start of our journey but we are fighting financial restraints coming from an elite group who didn't have them at the time of their rise to their lofty positions.

If I have a criticism of Mr.Feeney's arguments it is not that he is saying anything particularly untrue, but he is selectively or genuinely (whatever) presenting a slant that seems more bent on preserving Ferguson's legacy than purely telling it as it is and was.
In my view part of that legacy is the desperation we are seeing now at United. I put a lot of that down to Ferguson's ego coming above the club in his last two years.

If I've got you wrong Mr.Feeney, then I'm sorry, but this is how you are coming across to me.

 

[inchy14]

@Mr.Feeny

Story from the game mentioned, moneybags this and that. I'd even forgotten about Ince and Wallace.

This was 3 years before they fucking won it for christ sake.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2009/sep/23/manchester-city-united-derby-1989

They bought the first and every subsequent one.

 

[Mr.Feeny]

The rest weren't academy players though, Irwin, Pallister, Bruce, Parker, Robson, McLair. they were all cherry picked from the rest of Britain at prices no others could afford at the time. You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about here mate.

@Mr.Feeny

Story from the game mentioned, moneybags this and that.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2009/sep/23/manchester-city-united-derby-1989

They bought the first and every subsequent one.

Have we bought our titles?