Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by bazalini, May 1, 2012.
feck off you blue cnuts.
I couldn't have put it better myself. fecking wankers
When arsenal won it, they deserved it. City are a plastic club, no respect. I like Kompany, about it.
Arsenal are the only club who've deserved any PL titles apart from us.
Blackburn, Chelsea and City all won it due to money being pumped into them.
Well done City, overall the best team this season.
Plastic, Chelski of the North, cnuts!
Well done City, you bought a trophy. How impressive
That is basically what they did, true.
For years and years United have bought some of the best players in the world at extraordinary prices. Were you all complaining then?
I think it's established that we've never spent money on the level of City, and not in such a short space of time as City has.
Also we still stick to our guns of producing youth, something they don't do.
We have spent huge money, just not in the same short period. If we had it, we would have spent more, and nobody on here would have battered an eyelid.
They have a fairly good youth system as far as I know and spent a lot of money on in before and after they became mega rich.
Where are these young players then? Look at the young lads we've brought through, most recently this season in Welbeck and Cleverley.
Based on what? SAF has always looked to bring academy players through and where there have been gaps he has filled them with (mostly young) acquisitions at decent prices. We are very similar to Barcelona in that respect, City have played a completely different game to us.
Micah Richards is one. They have a good youth system and are well known for it. fecking hell. The bitterness is Rawkish. So what if they have more money than us? Other teams have had more money than us and we've still managed to come through and win trophies again. If we go and spend 50m on 2 or 3 players in the summer and win the league, does that mean we bought the league? Will the same posters here be calling that a plastic win? No they fecking won't.
That says it all, Micah is the only one and he's been pushed out of the side recently.
Based on the fact that Ferguson has spend hundreds of millions on players as it is.
City just have more money than we ever did. In years gone by, we had so much more money than other teams and used that to our advantage. It swings in roundabouts.
In our usual first XI, Scholes, Evans and Welbeck came through the ranks. Every other player was bought for big money. Yet we are some kind of paupers who have never had two pennies to rub together.
When did Micah Richards come through? Several years ago. Who's come through since then? They may have a good system, I'm not denying that but when do we see these lads? They're more concerned with spending £30-35 million on god knows how many players.
You're giving your opinion, I'm giving my opinion.
Have a look at SAF's net outlay since the start of the Premiership, we are practically mid table spenders. Granted he's bought a few big players but never anything like a whole team. I expect this kind of propaganda from ill informed ABU's but not from utd fans.
Are you really comparing our academy with theirs, really?
No. I never did. I said they had a good academy. It's well known. I never said they had one as good as us, did I?
I said this in the other thread.
I read an article today in one of the papers. Taking it as being correct (I didn't bother doing the sums), City's team that started against us was bought for 191m. Ours was bought for 50m less apparently (approx 141m). Most fans wanted Valencia and or Young to have started over Giggs and Park. That would have made the gap significantly less. The gap isn't as big as we try to make out.
What propaganda is there exactly?
As I said already, I don't give a feck what City spent. I'm not going to use it as an excuse, nor will I moan and bitch about it in 20 different threads that have been created since yesterday.
I don't need to reel a list off of all the great and good players that we have produced ourselves, hell even the ones that didn't make it at utd populate the Premiership and upper echelons of the Championship. As a club we are the polar opposite of City; they have bought success and we have built our success.
Of course they are going to spend the money on top quality players. They have the money to spend. It was to be expected. If a player comes through their academy who is as good as one of these top quality players that they buy in their prime, then I'm sure that this player will save them 35m or whatever. If they hadn't got the quality of player at the club to win trophies as it was, they were going to buy. If we were languishing in mid table obscurity or lower for years and the money came available to us, we would do the same thing (whilst continually trying to bring though players)!
Our first PL success was based mostly on players who we bought for relatively huge money at the time. We had an influx on great youth players a couple of years later that saved us a fortune and guaranteed us success for years. But spending what we did contributed hugely to what we have achieved. Don't kid yourself.
Obviously City have more money than us and it took them a lot less time to do it. That's just the way it is.
We produce more players, but we still spend a fortune on bringing players in.
Pat Nevin said tonight that every club that wins the league has "bought" it as such, just some teams to a lesser degree. City have spent more than anyone else before and won it. Spending the money doesn't guarantee success though. You still have to do it on the field of play.
I don't have a problem with Blackburn, Jack Walker wanted to do something for his town. Fair enough. Chelsea and City are just billionaire's playthings.
I am not complaining now either.
We've nevr operated the way City are though, no comparison.
There have always been teams spending just as much as us.
That is such tripe. You completely ignored my point about our net spending since the beginning of the Prem era. Plus, a distinction must be drawn between funds one raises oneself through football operations and winning the bloody lottery. If you can't see the massive difference between the way City have won the league and the philosophy of Busby and SAF then I despair.
Even if you buy every player on all the shortlists on FM it doesn't guarantee that you will win the league.
Ok shit example but I'll give credit to Mancini because I genuinely thought they had bottled the title (based on the way they had control of the league and then plummeted) - even if there was a lot of luck along the way.
These days, a mid-table club with little "pedigree" in terms of previous success has absolutely no chance of ever breaking into the elite unless it spends massive amounts of money to quickly put a team together.
It's either that or accepting mediocrity forever as the real elite sides will cherrypick your best players while you attempt to build something gradually. Do we want football to be dominated by the same few clubs all the time?
If it were Everton or Villa or Newcastle or Sunderland or Norwich, whatever, I'd actually be happy that they freshen up the competition. It's extremely unfortunate and gutting that it had to be City who won the lottery.
United have always combined recruiting youth players with transfers. Comparing it to City's way of doing things is a huge disservice to the way United operate!
And the team of 1992/1993 was not filled with huge-money transfer players. Bruce, McClair, Irwin, Schmeichel, Ince, Sharpe, Cantona and Kanchelskis were all relative bargains.
The model is very bad for the sport.
If you can't see that there's really nothing to talk about.
You realize City just buying a bunch of players doesn't change that. It's just one more club. So what? Still football dominated by the same few clubs.
City in, Liverpool out.
Football is saved.
the argument that 'We too had bought players' does not hold water. We have earned our money..not given us by a sugar daddy.
Citya and Chelsea are therefore in a totally different situation to other clubs in the Premiership.
Never said we did. I simply said that we have spent millions which has contributed heavily to our success.
The model of the best teams buying the best players has been there for years. It's just now one of those teams can take it even further.
A one million pound transfer in those days was big money!
And I didn't compare it to City's.
It is unfortunate but that's the way it is. No team will break into the big time unless they spend hundreds of millions.
The advent of the PL era now means that this will be the way for good, in my opinion. Long gone are the days when relatively small clubs like Forest or Derby will go and win the league. Those days are well gone.
It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. We can cry about it because it wasn't our year, or we can get on with it.
Separate names with a comma.