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

[Manc in London]

I'd wager he is a Spurs fan. It sounds like most of the tripe that is posted on Spurs messageboards.

 

[Will]

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.[/quote]

Yes, the money United have spent in the last fifteen or so years has been earned since we started winning the league again in 92/93.

And even when we weren 't winning titles United's gate receipts were bigger than anyone else's as United's brand of football was attractive enough to draw the crowds during the time when we had to settle for the odd cup succeess.

So, United's money comes from success on the pitch, not a lottery win.

 

[carlos tevez is a blue]

You can't buy sustained success. Blackburn and Chelsea are proof of that.

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

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.

Is he banned yet?

 

[Will]

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[/quote]


And, as I said, what team in the football league has not had money invested in it?

You can hardly compare a fan saving his club from going bust during the great depression, to one of the richest men in the world investing endless cash into a club he has no connection with.

Longlasting success has to be earned, not bought.

 

[carlos tevez is a blue]

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

And, as I said, what team in the football league has not had money invested in it?

You can hardly compare a fan saving his club from going bust during the great depression, to one of the richest men in the world investing endless cash into a club he has no connection with.

Longlasting success has to be earned, not bought.[/quote]


Zzzzzzzzzzzz

Was Glazier born in Machester?


I have nothing against rag fans posting on here, Viva Ronaldo, Red_Fan, camelcoat... but you my son are a complete and utter cockwomble.

 

[M18CTID]

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

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]

Bollocks. If that's the case how do you explain this? Ferguson's first major spending spree at United in the summer of 1989 was unprecedented in the English game at the time and formed the basis of his first trophy winning team (not that most of you United fans should take any of the glory for that because the vast majority of you wanted him out). It involved breaking the British transfer record for Gary Pallister along with million pound-plus signings Neil Webb, Danny Wallace, and Paul Ince. But guess what? Not only did you not earn the money to buy those players through success on the pitch because you weren't even successful at the time (you'd just finished 10th the season before), you went dangerously into debt to acquire those players in a seemingly desperate attempt to appease Ferguson's view that you needed to spend big to have any chance of bridging the gaping chasm between United and Liverpool.

Ultimately the gamble paid off of course, but the point is that United outspent everyone at a time when they weren't successful and the success followed later. Not only that, you spent well above what the club was bringing in at the time so if you want to spout the self-sufficient myth, forget it because I've got it covered.

Now read the above back slowly and tell me how it is any different to what Manchester City are now doing.

As for James Gibson being a United fan, that may well be true but he was a sugar daddy owner all the same. What about John Henry Davies? He wasn't even a football fan, let alone a United fan, yet over 100 years ago he saved your club from extinction and funded the move to Old Trafford along with bankrolling your first successful team. Seeing as though so many United fans are quick to point out that City haven't done anything on the pitch of note to deserve the cash rich owner we have now, perhaps you can explain to us all what Newton Heath LYR had done to deserve such good fortune when the club had been run into the ground.

 

[LongsightM13]

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

And, as I said, what team in the football league has not had money invested in it?

You can hardly compare a fan saving his club from going bust during the great depression, to one of the richest men in the world investing endless cash into a club he has no connection with.

Longlasting success has to be earned, not bought.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

Was Glazier born in Machester?


I have nothing against rag fans posting on here, Viva Ronaldo, Red_Fan, camelcoat... but you my son are a complete and utter cockwomble.[/quote]
Camelcoat has already been banned for spouting even more bullshit than usual.
I think this clown is on the thinnest of thin ice.
The fact is, United probably wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for City's charity on more than one occasion

 

[Will]

Was Glazier born in Machester?


I wish Glazer was a rich sugar daddy looking to invest in the club. Unfortunately he's just a rich speculator, looking to bleed as much as he can get away with. If we just had a normal manager under the Glazers we'd be mid-table at best.



I have nothing against rag fans posting on here, Viva Ronaldo, Red_Fan, camelcoat... but you my son are a complete and utter cockwomble.[/quote]


Cockwomble. Classic. I'll grow on you.

 

[M18CTID]

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

And, as I said, what team in the football league has not had money invested in it?

You can hardly compare a fan saving his club from going bust during the great depression, to one of the richest men in the world investing endless cash into a club he has no connection with.

Longlasting success has to be earned, not bought.[/quote]

As I've stated above, what connection did John Henry Davies have with Newton Heath/Manchester United? Oh, that's right - he found the dog that was owned by Newton Heath's captain. Huge connection that.<br /><br />-- Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:39 pm --<br /><br />

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

And, as I said, what team in the football league has not had money invested in it?

You can hardly compare a fan saving his club from going bust during the great depression, to one of the richest men in the world investing endless cash into a club he has no connection with.

Longlasting success has to be earned, not bought.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

Was Glazier born in Machester?


I have nothing against rag fans posting on here, Viva Ronaldo, Red_Fan, camelcoat... but you my son are a complete and utter cockwomble.

Camelcoat has already been banned for spouting even more bullshit than usual.
I think this clown is on the thinnest of thin ice.
The fact is, United probably wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for City's charity on more than one occasion[/quote]

Bingo. The money shot.

 

[Jono76]

Was Glazier born in Machester?


I wish Glazer was a rich sugar daddy looking to invest in the club. Unfortunately he's just a rich speculator, looking to bleed as much as he can get away with. If we just had a normal manager under the Glazers we'd be mid-table at best.

Is that why 50% of your die-hard loyal fans suddenly started supporting Norwich when he arrived?!? As well as a certain 'hardcore' element running off crying to start a new 'proper Manchester United'?!?

 

[carlos tevez is a blue]

I wish Glazer was a rich sugar daddy looking to invest in the club. Unfortunately he's just a rich speculator, looking to bleed as much as he can get away with. If we just had a normal manager under the Glazers we'd be mid-table at best.

Did Glazier not sanction money for De Gea, Ashley Young and Phil Jones in the summer?


Oh and Longsight I thought camelcoat was a decent poster.

 

[LongsightM13]

I wish Glazer was a rich sugar daddy looking to invest in the club. Unfortunately he's just a rich speculator, looking to bleed as much as he can get away with. If we just had a normal manager under the Glazers we'd be mid-table at best.

Did Glazier not sanction money for De Gea, Ashley Young and Phil Jones in the summer?


Oh and Longsight I thought camelcoat was a decent poster.

Showed his true colours and overstepped the mark big style in the general forum, so the mods banned him

 

[M18CTID]

Was Glazier born in Machester?


I wish Glazer was a rich sugar daddy looking to invest in the club. Unfortunately he's just a rich speculator, looking to bleed as much as he can get away with. If we just had a normal manager under the Glazers we'd be mid-table at best.

So why the fuck are you moaning about City's owner when you wish you had a simlar owner at your own fucking club?

Fuck me, where's the ban hammer lol?

 

[fallacy]

"Longlasting success has to be earned, not bought."

who made that rule ???

Milking the 50 year anniv of munich with aig on that poster said it all for me .... to be fair you lot have been milking that disaster since it happened and i find it far more disturbing that the moral high ground comes to play when your club is threatened by another competitor for the league ,be it this year or next it will happen and i cant wait to hear all the crying bout how we bought it ...


Who was the guy with the dodgy meat dealing that used to have summet to do with the rags??

 

[Adeh20]

Sounds like he's talking common sense to me.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

WOAH lads can we sort the quoting out in here its like reading a tourettes message board

 

[argyle]

Sounds like he's talking common sense to me.

They aren't even being subtle anymore.

 

[stonerblue]

You can't buy sustained success. Blackburn and Chelsea are proof of that.

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

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.

hahahahaha. I do hope someone's done this one a list.

 

[stonerblue]

Sounds like he's talking common sense to me.

Ah the shool holidays.....

 

[mcfcphil]

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

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.

Bollocks. If that's the case how do you explain this? Ferguson's first major spending spree at United in the summer of 1989 was unprecedented in the English game at the time and formed the basis of his first trophy winning team (not that most of you United fans should take any of the glory for that because the vast majority of you wanted him out). It involved breaking the British transfer record for Gary Pallister along with million pound-plus signings Neil Webb, Danny Wallace, and Paul Ince. But guess what? Not only did you not earn the money to buy those players through success on the pitch because you weren't even successful at the time (you'd just finished 10th the season before), you went dangerously into debt to acquire those players in a seemingly desperate attempt to appease Ferguson's view that you needed to spend big to have any chance of bridging the gaping chasm between United and Liverpool.

Ultimately the gamble paid off of course, but the point is that United outspent everyone at a time when they weren't successful and the success followed later. Not only that, you spent well above what the club was bringing in at the time so if you want to spout the self-sufficient myth, forget it because I've got it covered.

Now read the above back slowly and tell me how it is any different to what Manchester City are now doing.

As for James Gibson being a United fan, that may well be true but he was a sugar daddy owner all the same. What about John Henry Davies? He wasn't even a football fan, let alone a United fan, yet over 100 years ago he saved your club from extinction and funded the move to Old Trafford along with bankrolling your first successful team. Seeing as though so many United fans are quick to point out that City haven't done anything on the pitch of note to deserve the cash rich owner we have now, perhaps you can explain to us all what Newton Heath LYR had done to deserve such good fortune when the club had been run into the ground.[/quote]

This post is a thing of beauty.
Will, please respond to this as you seem to have conveniently ignored it....