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

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

Let me educate you on your club's history, which (possibly to your surprise) goes back before 1992.

My point is that they were skint and bouncing between the 1st and 2nd divisions in the 1930's, much as we were in the late 1990's. Gibson, who wasn't particularly a football fan but understood the impact that the club going under would have on the local community, put £40,000 in and saved them from bankruptcy.

Also we helped save you as well as there was a third club, Manchester Central, who were going to be elected to the league (the old 3rd division North). United (who were then in the 2nd division) saw them as a big threat to their future viability as they were quite popular and they feared the few fans they still had would desert them. They persuaded City to help them organise a vote against Central being elected. This succeeded but at the cost of some very bad publicity after Central were forced to disband. There's no doubt that if either Central had been elected or Gibson hadn't taken United over, then it would have been them who went out of business. There was no going into administration in those days. United would have become extinct.

Gibson put in enough money to keep them afloat and paid to rebuild the ground after it was damaged by bombs in 1941. He also appointed Busby as manager, who won his first title a few years later (just after Gibson died). So no Gibson, no money, no United, no Busby, no titles, no European Cup, no global brand and no huge revenue stream. Everything you are now you owe to Gibson. Without him you'd be a footnote in history. He did for you in 1931 what Sheikh Mansour did for us in 2008 and in 3 or 4 years time we should also be financially self-sufficient because a rich man gave us the lifeline we needed, 75 years after one did exactly the same for you.

 

[M18CTID]

"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??

You mean you don't know who made that rule up? It's in that best-selling book entitled "Doing it the right way - how to take the moral high ground while being a hypocritical **** and blatantly ignoring the history of your own club". The foreword is written by the late Louis Edwards and it has contributions from United, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal, and Spurs fans. It contains some useful tips on things like selling rancid meat to schools, how to get your club to bribe it's way into the top flight despite only finishing 5th in the second division, and how to get your club bankrolled by rich benefactors who have no previous interest in the club you support. It then goes on to explain that all the above is fine as long as the club isn't Manchester City FC.

 

[lloydie]

Sounds like he's talking common sense to me.

That's because you're stupid.

Albert Einstien-Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/football/roberto-mancini-must-be-manchester-citys-next-sacrifice-if-they-let-the-title-slip-7618400.html

Mark Ogden from the Telegraph has been in fine form this last few days and now we have this clown.

and if we do these **** will be the first to jump on our backs for being impatient

 

[coleridge]

Don't they have any revision to do in Surrey? Maybe they have a different school system down there, based on 'Daddy will get me a brokerage job regardless of my grades'.

Anyway, I noted the magic lamp reference. As I said in September 2008, the pro-zionist media are apoplectic at the very idea of 'Arabs' owning one of the most successful clubs in the world. They've had to tone it down since the likes of Barca and Malaga got into bed with the Qataris, as has the whole of FIFA [allegedly, according to some, can't believe it myself, like].

However, it adds to the lazy and/or corrupt journo's vision of the world that Fergie is crowned every May. At the same time, no-one is allowed to comment on the religion of the Glaziers, or Roman for that matter [although I've heard the odd murmur in the press recently], or otherwise discuss where their money comes from.

Anyone who thinks that sport, and especially big money and high kudos sport like our beloved footy, is immune from geopolitical, commercial and religious considerations lives, with the greatest of respect, in a fantasy world so lovely and fluffy that even my seven year old 'Hello Kitty' type of daughter would vomit at the very sickly thought of it. Not a conspiracy theory, just reality.

Sad Rag Wills from Surrey is the product of all this 'Fergieganda' [credit to someone else but can't remember who]. Same the lies enough times, and insecure retards will believe them.

 

[Dirty Harry]

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.

Let me educate you on your club's history, which (possibly to your surprise) goes back before 1992.

My point is that they were skint and bouncing between the 1st and 2nd divisions in the 1930's, much as we were in the late 1990's. Gibson, who wasn't particularly a football fan but understood the impact that the club going under would have on the local community, put £40,000 in and saved them from bankruptcy.

Also we helped save you as well as there was a third club, Manchester Central, who were going to be elected to the league (the old 3rd division North). United (who were then in the 2nd division) saw them as a big threat to their future viability as they were quite popular and they feared the few fans they still had would desert them. They persuaded City to help them organise a vote against Central being elected. This succeeded but at the cost of some very bad publicity after Central were forced to disband. There's no doubt that if either Central had been elected or Gibson hadn't taken United over, then it would have been them who went out of business. There was no going into administration in those days. United would have become extinct.

Gibson put in enough money to keep them afloat and paid to rebuild the ground after it was damaged by bombs in 1941. He also appointed Busby as manager, who won his first title a few years later (just after Gibson died). So no Gibson, no money, no United, no Busby, no titles, no European Cup, no global brand and no huge revenue stream. Everything you are now you owe to Gibson. Without him you'd be a footnote in history. He did for you in 1931 what Sheikh Mansour did for us in 2008 and in 3 or 4 years time we should also be financially self-sufficient because a rich man gave us the lifeline we needed, 75 years after one did exactly the same for you.

Excellent post, no doubt these points conveniently forgotten by many a rag.

Ogden ? Yet another one who's breath stinks of shit with a hint of whiskey.

 

[lazerblue]

will, u tit, just do me a favour, if u read this google the name louis edwards, educate ur self then come back u fuckin rag nob.

 

[bono]

every man and his dog is lining up to stick the boot in ,cattermorle,and bardsley waided in today,just hope the players have the pride to ram it back!

 

[Newman Noggs]

Why do I always get home after these rags have been sorted out ? Next time can you keep them on here until after 7.00 so I can have a play ?

 

[flapjack]

Don't they have any revision to do in Surrey? Maybe they have a different school system down there, based on 'Daddy will get me a brokerage job regardless of my grades'.

Anyway, I noted the magic lamp reference. As I said in September 2008, the pro-zionist media are apoplectic at the very idea of 'Arabs' owning one of the most successful clubs in the world. They've had to tone it down since the likes of Barca and Malaga got into bed with the Qataris, as has the whole of FIFA [allegedly, according to some, can't believe it myself, like].

However, it adds to the lazy and/or corrupt journo's vision of the world that Fergie is crowned every May. At the same time, no-one is allowed to comment on the religion of the Glaziers, or Roman for that matter [although I've heard the odd murmur in the press recently], or otherwise discuss where their money comes from.

Anyone who thinks that sport, and especially big money and high kudos sport like our beloved footy, is immune from geopolitical, commercial and religious considerations lives, with the greatest of respect, in a fantasy world so lovely and fluffy that even my seven year old 'Hello Kitty' type of daughter would vomit at the very sickly thought of it. Not a conspiracy theory, just reality.

Sad Rag Wills from Surrey is the product of all this 'Fergieganda' [credit to someone else but can't remember who]. Same the lies enough times, and insecure retards will believe them.

Brilliant, thought provoking post mate, I don't often post much but that raised points I'd not considered before

 

[Will]

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.

Let me educate you on your club's history,


Snip.

Many thanks for that.

which (possibly to your surprise) goes back before 1992.

I'm sure you can come up with something more original than this.


My point is that they were skint and bouncing between the 1st and 2nd divisions in the 1930's, much as we were in the late 1990's. Gibson, who wasn't particularly a football fan but understood the impact that the club going under would have on the local community, put £40,000 in and saved them from bankruptcy.


So, a Manchester based businessman invested some money in the 1930s in his local club to help his community. This has exactly what to do with the richest arab in the world buying a club he has no connections to?

 

[BlueAnorak]

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.

You mean like the Sheikh?

 

[mcfcphil]

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.

Let me educate you on your club's history,


Snip.

Many thanks for that.

which (possibly to your surprise) goes back before 1992.

I'm sure you can come up with something more original than this.


My point is that they were skint and bouncing between the 1st and 2nd divisions in the 1930's, much as we were in the late 1990's. Gibson, who wasn't particularly a football fan but understood the impact that the club going under would have on the local community, put £40,000 in and saved them from bankruptcy.


So, a Manchester based businessman invested some money in the 1930s in his local club to help his community. This has exactly what to do with the richest arab in the world buying a club he has no connections to?

So you're allowed to buy success as long as the person buying it is local?
Please tell me how united afforded to invest millions in players, including breaking the transfer record for pallister, having not won the league for over 20 years and been relegated to division two? Please explain to me where that money came from because it didn't come from success.

You're talking absolute shit and trying to convince yourself that your success is somehow superior to any success we have in the future. Your club is fucking pathetic

 

[M18CTID]

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.

Let me educate you on your club's history,


Snip.

Many thanks for that.

which (possibly to your surprise) goes back before 1992.

I'm sure you can come up with something more original than this.


My point is that they were skint and bouncing between the 1st and 2nd divisions in the 1930's, much as we were in the late 1990's. Gibson, who wasn't particularly a football fan but understood the impact that the club going under would have on the local community, put £40,000 in and saved them from bankruptcy.


So, a Manchester based businessman invested some money in the 1930s in his local club to help his community. This has exactly what to do with the richest arab in the world buying a club he has no connections to?

99.9999% of the people that support your club have absolutely no connection with Manchester and the surrounding area. So your point is?

 

[west didsblue]

Anyway, I noted the magic lamp reference. As I said in September 2008, the pro-zionist media are apoplectic at the very idea of 'Arabs' owning one of the most successful clubs in the world. They've had to tone it down since the likes of Barca and Malaga got into bed with the Qataris, as has the whole of FIFA [allegedly, according to some, can't believe it myself, like].

However, it adds to the lazy and/or corrupt journo's vision of the world that Fergie is crowned every May. At the same time, no-one is allowed to comment on the religion of the Glaziers, or Roman for that matter [although I've heard the odd murmur in the press recently], or otherwise discuss where their money comes from.

Pro-zionist media???? Have you read the Guardian, watched the BBC or Sky recently. Who said no-ones allowed to comment on the religion of the Glazers or Roman - it's just not relevant. I don't want want to get into politics but you're talking shite.

 

[stonerblue]

I can picture that 'Will' out every day in her old replica shirt and slippers combo wandering the streets of Cheshire spouting lie after lie about her 'beloved reds' before getting chucked out of Wilkinsons for making a puddle in the toffee aisle.

 

[baggy]

Longlasting success has to be earned, not bought.

Pray tell. How does one 'earn' success?

By capitalising on tragic events by any chance?

 

[salfordpaul]

where are you willy??

i'm still waiting for your answer to "post of the day!"

clean the red tinted goggles and give us an answer!

or have you too much homework to do??

 

[Will]

Please tell me how united afforded to invest millions in players, including breaking the transfer record for pallister, having not won the league for over 20 years and been relegated to division two? Please explain to me where that money came from because it didn't come from success.


I would have thought that was obvious. Throughout the 70s and 80s, even in Div 2, United had the largest attendances in the league and were perceived worldwide, thanks to the Busby Babes and Best, Law and Charlton to be a glamorous and exciting club.

In the days before Sky, gate receipts were the main revenue stream for a club. United's eclipsed all others. Our success then was built on the style of play. Two skillful wingers and attacking players throughout the team. This was what the fans wanted to see. And it brought in loads of money.


You're talking absolute shit and trying to convince yourself that your success is somehow superior to any success we have in the future. Your club is fucking pathetic[/quote]


It's not a question of whether United's success is superior or inferior to any City 'might' have in the future. Partly it's down to respect. Personally, I have more for the self-made man who's worked his way to the top, than the one who's had everything handed to him on a plate.

And more importantly for City, recent history shows that United's style of success, grown steadily over the years, lasts far longer than the Blackburn, Chelsea and City kind which tends to be more of a flash in the pan built on shifting sands and vanishing rapidly back from whence it came. If you'll allow me to mix my metaphors.<br /><br />-- Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:12 pm --<br /><br />99.9999% of the people that support your club have absolutely no connection with Manchester and the surrounding area. So your point is?[/quote]


But many more Mancs support United than City so not really sure what your point is.

 

[Blue Mist]

Not wishing to be awkward but I agre with Will. It is wrong for 'Johnny Foreigner' to come into your club with an open cheque book, it is far better to have a Chairman like Louis Edwards. He was a local lad, so local he sold out of date meat to local schools and that meant he could make lots and lots of money. Then he had another brain wave, discreetly, without telling your own fans (or the tax man for that matter) you allow your manager, Mr Busby, to own the souvenir shop and take all the profits. Back then it was called good business, nowadays I think it is called illegal or something similar... but at least he was local, and then finally you allow your local team captain to sell cup final tickets on the black market. But of course that is history in fact that was before the Premier league was set up so it didn't actually happen did it.
Yes Will you are quite right, yoonitid made there money by being succcesfull, not by launching themselves on the stock market which of course is what allowed Uncle Malcolm to buy you out and load you up with debt. But of course it is better to be in debt to a Johnny Foreigner than being given money by one isn't it.