Can we close the thread now. Its settled. All this thread has been , is that someone posted stuff from the media and all of caf presenting arguments against it.
All the damn threads were created because Wellbeck was sold. One fecking player who wasn't in the managers plans it happens, but because he's English and been at United since the age of 7 it's United's "identity" down the drain.
De Boer definitely sounds like a good option who could carry on after van Gaal. I just hope that Woody and our board is able to understand that we need someone who can carry on van Gaals philosophy. Of course he doesn't need to copy him but like you share his core philosophy.
People have different opinions, get used to it my friend thats what life is all about.
And if they succeeded .Which all true united fans would hope for .What then?
You mean the Glazers? No they're not.
Of course im not referring to the glazers. I am aware that they are American.
who are you referring to then?
James Gibson and john henry davies. Like I said before, that is if what I have read is correct of course.
True about John Henry Davies who saved the club from bankruptcy but Gibson is a different example. Most of the players were produced from academies rather than buying. There have been a lot of example of rich owners putting money in earlier times as well so its not as bad as it is made out to be.
Well the thing is I find our whole policy this summer to be a bit Galactico because we now have a bunch of big name attacking players and it is going to be really difficult to play all of them. It is going to be near impossible to play our 5 best players (RVP, Rooney, Mata, Di Maria, Falcao) together at the same time.
Personally I do not mind other clubs spending big money (it would be hypocritical of me to do so, the same way I find it hypocritical of united fans complaining about Chelsea and city and other big spending clubs). Almost every club (especially the big ones) have relied on outside investment at some point in their history. United relied on outside investment to survive, Chelsea and city relied on outside investment to compete. I don't see how either can claim the moral high ground. Unless massive changes are made to the structure of football which allowed for more even competition, I do not see any other way Chelsea or City could compete. If they tried to do the "honourable" thing by signing and promoting youth then once these players begin to develop and show their potential and ability they will be signed up by the bigger clubs (like united) in order to compete for trophies, money and fame.
Manchester United (12) - Ben Amos, Michael Carrick, Jonny Evans, Darren Fletcher, Phil Jones, Jesse Lingard, Rafael da Silva, Davide Petrucci, Wayne Rooney, Chris Smalling, Marnick Vermijl, Ashley Young.
Shaw...Cos they are all under 21 and need not be registered...
We all need rich owners to survive. So its hypothetical about spending money even more so if it has been earned by the club itself.
true
They wouldn't have been able to have earned that money if they didn't exist anymore. Not all clubs can make their own money like united do because they cannot compete commercially with them. Uniteds success came when sky and the likes were beginning and therefore as the champions of England at the time were rewarded the most from it. There was no way others could keep up. Just because Chelsea and city didn't receive their outside help until now does not make it less moral. If they had received the help in the 90s instead then I am sure they would be making plenty of their own money now.
So you wouldn't class Rafael as home grown even though he's never played for another professional club?
I've never said that what Chelsea and City are doing is undeserving.
I know, I am just talking in general. A lot of united fans talk that way.
They could've kept up if they had produced the same quality players we did. Putting our success down to 'luck' is far from the truth. Arsenal were as good as us, Blackburn won the league in 95 remaining a top 3 side for years. We were/are better.
I never put uniteds success down to luck. I am saying that uniteds success came at the time of sky and the likes and they were able to capitalise on it and as a result other teams could not compete commercially. That is why united can make much more of their own money than other teams.
I wouldn't. He didn't learn how to play the game at United, or even in this country.
I know you didn't say luck specifically, but the term fits your description that's all. And like I said, other teams had the chance to do as we did, but they didn't produce/purchase players such as the class of 92, Cantona/Keane etc etc, success breeds success, and our success in creating an unstoppable team in the early 90's paved the way for our recent success.
I agree with a lot of your of your post but what I mean is that at other times teams were more successful than united but they could not capitalise on it the way united did when they were successful. If Sky and the likes started in the 80s when Liverpool were on top then things would be so different. It would have been them who capitalised on it and they would be the main commercial force in English football and the team that makes more of its own money than other teams the way united did then and do now and it would have been very difficult for others to have caught up in that regard.
Lots do though, their hypocrisy is deep.
Not quite true although the SKY money definitely helped.
That is quite interesting to hear and you make good points. However I feel there was a massive boom in regards to how commercial the game was in the 90s and I am sure you would agree with that. What I said in my earlier post is that if sky and the likes were around in the 80s then it would be Liverpool who most probably would have been the main commercial force in England and would be making a lot their own money the way united did then and do today.
Hypocrisy indeed. I have friends who support Chelsea, Arsenal and City. You know what? They are proper fans just like United fans. They know their football, like to have a moan when they lose, talk it up when they win, and enjoy a good bit of banter over a proper pint. I honestly think if someone feels the need to explain why their club is "special", they are a bit lost. Who are some of these people arguing the "specialness" of their club with? Certainly not your mates, in real life. Some imaginary argument, and acting all hard in an Internet forum? If you can't understand why your club is "special", that's a problem with you. Not your club.
He he, it's actually a play on Gaalacticos...
