Yet more bile... this time from the Evening Standard

P P

philiph20

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Jun 2006
Messages
2,295
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/football/roberto-mancini-must-be-manchester-citys-next-sacrifice-if-they-let-the-title-slip-7618400.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/foo ... 18400.html</a>

Mark Ogden from the Telegraph has been in fine form this last few days and now we have this clown.
 
This is Manchester's title race, couldn't care less what the local London press are saying.
 
Well i think the N.W.P.P have nailed their colours quite clearly to the mast with Ogden being the main one.
 
Disgustingly bias and plainly an attack by someone who wants to undermine the progress we are making. I was a huge critic of RM when he first arrived ( and i stand by those criticisms even now) but RM has had a huge positive affect in this club and stability will allow further development growth and success.
Getting a new manager would only lead to slowing down our development.

And that is what the rag and London based media want...we have already surpassed the London clubs and the media down there know it. Look at cheski...they need a big rebuild of management and squad to replace their aging players. That will take q couple of yrs. Arsenal havent won q thing in 7 yrs....its only recently that the media have even suggested that wenger needs replacing.....

And the talk if money us irrelevant.

1. Any other team in our position would have done the same
2. We were playing catch up and spent in a couple of yrs what the likes of Utd and chelski spent over a longer period.

Ar the end of the day only one team can win the league. We will be there for the fireseable future challenging..there will be success and failures on the way but that does.not mean we have to go chopping and changing managers all the time
 
Here is his twitter <a class="postlink" href="https://twitter.com/#!/jamesolley" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://twitter.com/#!/jamesolley</a> if you want to tell him what you think.
 
dw7 said:
i dont want mancini sacked but its his fault that we wont win the league

questions will and should be aseked not why we didnt win the league why we lost it
Click to expand...
Because some of the players couldn't give a fuck,question answered
 
Firstly...what a complete and utter W@nker! Has anyone ever thought though this may not be rag spew but cockney spew. Inevitable whether united win or not this year, they can't keep up over the next few years. The only team outside London to stand in the way will be City. How they would love the capital of football to be London. So why not attack us directly to achieve this & hit 2 birds with one stone. So getting rid of RM would disrupt us enough to achieve this. Just a thought outside the box.
 
Inevitable whether united win or not this year, they can't keep up over the next few years.


Blackburn said this in 94, Arse after that, and Chelski under Abramovich after that. The fact is, different clubs come along and set new challenges and so far, it's only taken United a season or two to adjust, and then overtake the new pretenders. Even when United are in transition, as they are now, they seem to be too good for everyone else.

How much have City spent? I've seen £400 million, £500 million, £600 million. Whichever it is, how much more money will it take? Another £200 million? £400 million? Who will they buy that will want to come and would make the difference? Messi? Not a chance. Ronaldo? Doubt it. Ibrahimovic? Possibly. Benzema?

By definition, the kind of player attracted to City's billions are not necessarily the kind of player you need to mold into a team capable of winning titles year in, year out.

The manager is the key position, obviously. RM has shown he's not the man for the job. Not tactically, not in terms of man-management, media-management nor in the vital area of spotting a player who will help bring sustained success to a club.

If City can land Mourinho, invest the probable further £200 million he'd want to bring in half of Real Madrid, then City will almost certainly win the title within the next couple of years. Apart from Fergie, I doubt there's another man on planet who could make City the best team in England. And that would only be until Jose gets bored and seeks another challenge.

And it looks like he wants the United job anyway.

You can't buy sustained success. Blackburn and Chelsea are proof of that.
 
Will said:
You can't buy sustained success. Blackburn and Chelsea are proof of that.
Click to expand...

You could argue that United have proved that you can indeed buy sustained success.
 
dw7 said:
i dont want mancini sacked but its his fault that we wont win the league

questions will and should be aseked not why we didnt win the league why we lost it
Click to expand...
What if we get 92points (I think that's been achieved three times ever) and still don't win it?
 
Ric said:
Will said:
You can't buy sustained success. Blackburn and Chelsea are proof of that.
Click to expand...

You could argue that United have proved that you can indeed buy sustained success.
Click to expand...


Not really. United have largely depended on a mix of home grown players and fairly cheap buys, Schmeichel, Cantona, Solskjaer, Da Silva twins, etc, with the fairly infrequent injection (for such a big club) of big-money players. And of course the difference between United's spending, and City and Chelskis' is that United's money has been earned through sustained success on the pitch while the other two teams has come from the arrival out of the blue, of a rich sugar daddy.
 
Will said:
Ric said:
Will said:
You can't buy sustained success. Blackburn and Chelsea are proof of that.
Click to expand...

You could argue that United have proved that you can indeed buy sustained success.
Click to expand...


Not really. United have largely depended on a mix of home grown players and fairly cheap buys, Schmeichel, Cantona, Solskjaer, Da Silva twins, etc, with the fairly infrequent injection (for such a big club) of big-money players. And of course the difference between United's spending, and City and Chelskis' is that United's money has been earned through sustained success on the pitch while the other two teams has come from the arrival out of the blue, of a rich sugar daddy.
Click to expand...
Two things: As (presumably) a supporter since 1992, you won't have heard of James Gibson - rich sugar daddy who saved your club from bankruptcy between the wars and appointed Busby. Without him there would have been no "sustained success on the pitch".

And which category (home-grown or cheap buy) do the following fall into?
Phil Jones
Ashley Young
David De Gea
Chris Smalling
Antonio Valencia
Dimitar Berbatov
Michael Carrick
Nani
Anderson
Wayne Rooney
Rio Ferdinand
 
Two things: As (presumably) a supporter since 1992, you won't have heard of James Gibson -


Does not being a United supporter in the 1930s make me a day-tripper?


rich sugar daddy who saved your club from bankruptcy between the wars and appointed Busby. Without him there would have been no "sustained success on the pitch".


He was a United supporter who happened to be a successful businessman. He injected money into the club during the depression. There are very few football clubs that don't have a similar figure in their history.



And which category (home-grown or cheap buy) do the following fall into?
Phil Jones
Ashley Young
David De Gea
Chris Smalling
Antonio Valencia
Dimitar Berbatov
Michael Carrick
Nani
Anderson
Wayne Rooney
Rio Ferdinand[/quote]


The point being that United have earned the money to buy these players through their years success on the pitch, not from rubbing a magic lamp.
 
Will said:
Ric said:
Will said:
You can't buy sustained success. Blackburn and Chelsea are proof of that.
Click to expand...

You could argue that United have proved that you can indeed buy sustained success.
Click to expand...


Not really. United have largely depended on a mix of home grown players and fairly cheap buys, Schmeichel, Cantona, Solskjaer, Da Silva twins, etc, with the fairly infrequent injection (for such a big club) of big-money players. And of course the difference between United's spending, and City and Chelskis' is that United's money has been earned through sustained success on the pitch while the other two teams has come from the arrival out of the blue, of a rich sugar daddy.
Click to expand...

That's a convenient rewriting of history. I must've imagined the numerous times you've broken the British transfer record, and the paucity of success in the 70s and 80s.
 
Will said:
Two things: As (presumably) a supporter since 1992, you won't have heard of James Gibson -


Does not being a United supporter in the 1930s make me a day-tripper?


rich sugar daddy who saved your club from bankruptcy between the wars and appointed Busby. Without him there would have been no "sustained success on the pitch".


He was a United supporter who happened to be a successful businessman. He injected money into the club during the depression. There are very few football clubs that don't have a similar figure in their history.



And which category (home-grown or cheap buy) do the following fall into?
Phil Jones
Ashley Young
David De Gea
Chris Smalling
Antonio Valencia
Dimitar Berbatov
Michael Carrick
Nani
Anderson
Wayne Rooney
Rio Ferdinand
Click to expand...


The point being that United have earned the money to buy these players through their years success on the pitch, not from rubbing a magic lamp.[/quote]

Can you not read he just pointed out you were saved by a sugar daddy you no nothing plastic fuck nut, supporter or not you were saved by outside money
 
They love to talk about us don't they ? I remember when no fucker wanted to talk about us. Whatever happens next I will remember why I love this club and where we came from and we'll be back bigger and stronger next season. It might be that we fell just short this time around but I hope we end this season on a high and be proud we put up a great fight. They can't keep us down and they wont.
 
Will said:
Ric said:
Will said:
You can't buy sustained success. Blackburn and Chelsea are proof of that.
Click to expand...

You could argue that United have proved that you can indeed buy sustained success.
Click to expand...


Not really. United have largely depended on a mix of home grown players and fairly cheap buys, Schmeichel, Cantona, Solskjaer, Da Silva twins, etc, with the fairly infrequent injection (for such a big club) of big-money players. And of course the difference between United's spending, and City and Chelskis' is that United's money has been earned through sustained success on the pitch while the other two teams has come from the arrival out of the blue, of a rich sugar daddy.
Click to expand...

The only 'sustained' success that saw off all of those challengers over the years was the manager at the helm. Yes, he brought some lads through the academy, but he also has 3 players in his current squad that cost over 30 million pounds and 6-7 over 15 million pounds. Moaning about the money City have spent is pityful. It's an open market and all the players are available to whoever wants to buy them. How we got by the funds is none of anyones business.

If City can get that winning momentum with Mancini, I think old rednose will be calling it a day. I don't think he has the fight left in him for another squad re-build.
 
Will said:
Inevitable whether united win or not this year, they can't keep up over the next few years.


Blackburn said this in 94, Arse after that, and Chelski under Abramovich after that. The fact is, different clubs come along and set new challenges and so far, it's only taken United a season or two to adjust, and then overtake the new pretenders. Even when United are in transition, as they are now, they seem to be too good for everyone else.

How much have City spent? I've seen £400 million, £500 million, £600 million. Whichever it is, how much more money will it take? Another £200 million? £400 million? Who will they buy that will want to come and would make the difference? Messi? Not a chance. Ronaldo? Doubt it. Ibrahimovic? Possibly. Benzema?

By definition, the kind of player attracted to City's billions are not necessarily the kind of player you need to mold into a team capable of winning titles year in, year out.

The manager is the key position, obviously. RM has shown he's not the man for the job. Not tactically, not in terms of man-management, media-management nor in the vital area of spotting a player who will help bring sustained success to a club.

If City can land Mourinho, invest the probable further £200 million he'd want to bring in half of Real Madrid, then City will almost certainly win the title within the next couple of years. Apart from Fergie, I doubt there's another man on planet who could make City the best team in England. And that would only be until Jose gets bored and seeks another challenge.

And it looks like he wants the United job anyway.

You can't buy sustained success. Blackburn and Chelsea are proof of that.
Click to expand...
Your lot 'bought sustained success'.
Now jog on, Rag rat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top