United thread 2018/19

[kaz7]

Boring,if i wanted a lesson in rag history i would goggle it,what blue wants to hear all this shit

 

[Henkeman]

Boring,if i wanted a lesson in rag history i would goggle it,what blue wants to hear all this shit

Have to say, I find it quite interesting. I'm always fascinated by the difference between the myth according to adherents and the reality - and that applies to both City and United. Doesn't mean I agree with any one poster, but as a general subject, absolutely I find it interesting.

Sorry Kaz!

 

[mancityvstoke]

In my opinion, neither we nor he did. That's my entire argument. Consistency is what matters here. It's hypocritical for either fanbase to accuse the other team of buying success while not applying the same level to their own.

Great players play a big role in success and as a general rule, big players require big money. But that's not always the case. Nor does looking at things that way take coaching into account. Team moral. Team spirit. It's simplistic.

you're on a City fan forum...don't expect much in the way of sympathy for your arguing that we should say we are buying the league etc. The fact is that money does buy success....usually. Unless you borrow on the gamble of winning or entering the champions league and then don't.

I will slag them fuckers off at every opportunity....whether it's bitter, hypocritical, realistic, deluded, biased or what.

 

[davek1808]

The rags dominated when there was a totally uneven playing field,they invested money they didn't have and unfortunately it paid off.any talk that Ferguson didn't spend and spend big is a myth only rag fans,ex rag player's and sycophantic media hacks try to peddle.

 

[CharliesRightPeg]

I like this guys stuff. Not that it's 100% accurate but it gives a good indication. The only teams to have not been in the top % of adjusted transfer spend were the Leicester team and the utd 97 team. I'd probably argue that the 97 team were on massive wages which would have bumped up the cost but he ho.
https://tomkinstimes.com/2018/04/sp...uardiola-no-better-than-wenger-and-much-more/

 

[inchy14]

Have we bought our titles?

Yes, as has every side in the history of the premier league. I’d argue Notts Forest were the last team to win the top flight without buying huge swathes of players but they may have bought them to get out of division 2 at the time. Until someone wins it with 11 kids from their academy then they’ll have ‘bought’ it in one way or another.
Difference is I couldn’t fucking care, it’s fine to me as every club buys. It’s the hypocrisy of us and to an extent Chelsea being criticised for it while the rag ****s plus Liverpool never got called out on it.
As for your original post the fact remains Ferguson bought the title, simple as that, the only difference now is the size of the fees but they were always only going to go up.

 

[CharliesRightPeg]

Didn't forest have the first million £ player and had just bought Shilton for a fortune ?

 

[Henkeman]

Didn't forest have the first million £ player and had just bought Shilton for a fortune ?

After they'd won the league.

The difference between then and now is that although money was a big factor (viz. Liverpool in the 60s), a club that was exceptionally well run could reach the heights of the game. By the time the mid eighties came around with the various changes to governance, that became impossible.

 

[kaz7]

Have to say, I find it quite interesting. I'm always fascinated by the difference between the myth according to adherents and the reality - and that applies to both City and United. Doesn't mean I agree with any one poster, but as a general subject, absolutely I find it interesting.

Sorry Kaz!

We would have to close down the place if we all felt the same lol

 

[Blue Til Death]

We need the person at City who keeps leaking our transfer targets to the rags to drop the hint that we are getting rid of Pep and looking to sign Fat Sam...!