It’s their utter delusion that goes along with the entitlement, n’all.
United fans (a lot of whom only support United because they had a very successful couple of decades in the 90s and 00s) and ex-players/pundits and the media in general seem to have no idea in the real notion that “nothing lasts forever”. They don’t seem to know much at all about the history of football. They fall for all the media and their own club and fanbases’ collective hype about how big a club they are. They fall for the false notion that being the most successful club means you’re the best club.
You hear it in the wording Gary Neville used when the Super League stuff was going on in the Summer. He called United (and Liverpool) “the Grandfathers of English football”… he was wrong (about both clubs)!
United were nothing before Matt Busby! Busby went to United in 1945, 76 years ago; but the league had been going for 57 years and the FA Cup for 74 years before that, and some clubs were formed 80+ years before that. For the first half of football history - plus the 1970s, and a fair bit of the 1980s - United were a non-entity of a club.
As Newton Heath they were getting crowds of 400 at Bank Street and went bust. As Manchester United they won their first ever trophies with City’s players, then went 37 years without winning anything. They were getting average attendances of 11,000, individual attendances of 4,000, couldn’t afford to buy their own kits so used old City kits (Rags), and nearly went bust in the 1930s.
The grandfathers of English football are:
Aston Villa - 6 league titles and 6 FA Cups by 1920.
Sunderland - 6 league titles and an FA Cup by 1936.
Everton - 5 league titles and 2 FA Cups by 1939.
Newcastle - 4 league titles and 3 FA Cups by 1932.
Sheffield Wednesday - 4 league titles and 3 FA Cups by 1935.
Blackburn Rovers - 2 league titles and 6 FA Cups by 1928.
Preston North End - 2 league titles and 2 FA Cups by 1938, first ever Double Winners (1888-89) in a season they went unbeaten in the league (first ever Invincibles) and didn’t concede a goal in the FA Cup.
In the decade (1930s) United were almost going bust, other clubs were huge in comparison:
Arsenal were winning 5 league titles and 2 FA cups.
Everton were winning 3 league titles and an FA Cup.
City were winning the league title, the FA Cup, playing the first ever “European” fixtures (against German league XIs in Germany), were getting regular 60-70,000 attendances as well as the record breaking 84,569 attendance in 1934.
West Brom were getting 64,000+ crowds.
Birmingham were getting 66,000+ crowds.
Huddersfield (after winning 3 consecutive league titles the previous decade) were getting 67,000+ crowds.
Sheffield United were getting 68,000+ crowds.
Newcastle were getting 68,000+ crowds.
Bolton were getting 69,000+ crowds.
Sheffield Wednesday were getting 72,000+ crowds and winning trophies.
Sunderland were getting 72,000+ crowds and winning trophies.
Charlton were challenging [City] for the league title and getting 75,000+ crowds.
Chelsea were getting 82,000+ crowds.
I’ve named 16 clubs there, and not exhausted the list, who have more legitimacy of calling themselves bigger clubs than United in the first half of football history.
Even when they did become a big club, it was all very much to do with coincidence… as well as money. Firstly, they were very fortunate that James Gibson came along to keep them in business, and that City agreed to vote against Manchester Central getting a place in the FL (who United were desperate not to get a place because they were a bigger Manchester club than United despite being an amateur club!). But they were also fortunate with the coincidence that City got relegated as Champions in 1938, and that Old Trafford got bombed during the war and they had to play at Maine Road. This meant that the post-War boom of football coming back saw United as the only First Division Manchester club playing at a stadium that was getting 60-80,000+ watching City a decade earlier. Busby built a great side with Gibson’s investment and they attracted many fans who had been watching City a decade earlier.
Granted, United did become a proper big club under Busby. No denying that. But after Busby left they were just an average club for a good two decades. The odd cup run, as well as many mid table finishes and a relegation. They were nothing more than Aston Villa have been over the last few decades, albeit keeping hold of that fanbase they originally coincidentally landed in the 1940s (and grew from to be fair to them).
Then Ferguson went there and they became the biggest and best supported club in the world as well as the most successful club in England. They built this media hype and worldwide fan hype but don’t seem to understand that they aren’t that club they were under Ferguson anymore.
As I said at the top, nothing lasts forever; ask the real Grandfathers of English football about that! United are going through what all those original Grandfathers did when they fell from their perches. But does anyone ever talk about things not being good enough for “the standards of Preston” or “the stature of a club like West Brom”? No?! So why do they for United?
United aren’t the club they were under Ferguson. The standards and stature of that football club aren’t at that level anymore and it’s the delusion that it is from their fans, their ex-players/pundits and the media in general that they think they are that makes me laugh. They all need to get real. There are much better run clubs, there are clubs with better stadiums and other facilities, there are clubs with better playing staff, there are clubs with better management staff, there are clubs with better boardrooms, there are clubs with better potential futures than United. Add to that the debunked myth of the history of United, and you’re left with nothing particularly special at all. They’re just a club who’ve had two fantastic managers in their history and a load of lemmings who only support them because of those two managers.
They’d be better off as a club and a set of fans if they got their heads out of the clouds like they’re this mythical beast of a club that “should be” up at the top of the league just because they were at periods of time in the past. There’s no “should be” about it. Just like City, the two Sheffield clubs, Sunderland and Leeds weren’t/aren’t too big to be in the third tier, just like those clubs shouldn’t have been in the Premier League because they had/have huge supports when they were down the divisions… they were/are there on merit and deserve(d) to be there because there are periods of time in the history of football where other clubs are simply better than you.
Brentford, Brighton and Palace are in the Prem but they don’t have the history or support of clubs like Sunderland and Sheffield Wednesday who are in the third tier. S’land and SheffWed’s history and support don’t have any bearing on them being where they are and there’s nothing to suggest it will have any impact on their futures. Likewise there’s nothing to suggest United’s previous success or fanbase will mean they will have a better next fifty years than the likes of WestHam Leicester Everton and Newcastle will with their new stadiums and ownership compared to United’s tired old ground and ownership just like United didn’t have a big era in the first half of football. Never mind City and Chelsea!
www.spotrac.com
