OccupiedPalestineBlues
Well-Known Member
This has been well documented in books and documentaries. In 1958, there was no money in football. Players were capped at £20 per week.
Furthermore at the time of the crash, nothing resembling a compensation culture existed in Britain. After two world wars, the British public wanted to see resilience from victims, and not perhaps entitlements (no matter how deserved the survivor’s claims were). United’s treatment of the survivors of Munich was not unique and it is unfair to apply modern day standards to the past.
This was echoed across many football clubs in the past. West Ham's treatment of Bobby Moore when he left the club and was diagnosed with cancer, or the FA's treatment of the 1966 world cup winning squad. Many of them ended up taking on normal jobs after leaving football. Only Jack Charlton and Alan Ball managed at the top level. Gordon Banks and Roger Hunt worked on the pools panel; Ray Wilson became an undertaker; George Cohen, struggling with cancer, didn't watch a football match for years. Even their manager, Sir Alf Ramsey, sacked at the age of just 53 - at least as much because of internal FA politics as because of the results on the pitch - never found a new role, despite being the only England manager to successfully win a World Cup.
That's bollox mate.
My grandad fought in 2 world wars, and him and other exsoldiers did lots to support the families of those who suffered because their husbands and fathers were killed and injured in the conflicts.
My own mother spent 2 years looking after the child of a bloke who worked on the railways with my dad and who's wife had died of cancer.
Even the mill owners found other lines of work for those injured in work rather than make families destitute.
People fully expected to look after those that should be helped and you quoting other bad examples of employers being absolute twats does not in the least excuse the bloody appalling way that united behaved towards their employees who were crippled while on duty for them.
And if it was ok then why, when they bring the subject up to milk it over and over again, do they repeatedly hide it away?
Why can't they at least be honest, maybe say that they're now sorry for how bloody awful they were in the manner that they deliberately and cruelly left their crippled staff destitute?