Those Man Ure Swines.....

[Withdean Wanderer]

Same old yawnfest about Man United.

At the end of the day, they're the best team not because of money (the bulk of which they've earned by being successful) but because of Alex Ferguson.

Tell me honestly that any other manager could get a team with average players like Park, Fletcher, O'Shea, Nani and Anderson to win the league 3 years running and make the Champions League final 2 years running.

Add to that the fact that the main areas of success have been Vidic and Ronaldo, two "unknowns" outside of their domestic leagues that Ferguson is reaping the awards for.

Oh, and the youth system - the versatile O'Shea has been part of a mean defence this season, and when Ferdinand/Vidic haven't been available, Johnny Evans has come in and been amazing.

All this tedious utter drivel about them "epitomising everything wrong with English football" is just total bollocks. The Glazer issue is the only real black mark against the clubs name, but they has become the successful side they are today long before he appeared. They have shown how to apply a good business model with an outstanding manager who they've stuck with through hard times, have combined this with a fantastic youth set-up and are the best club in the world as a result. They should be admired for it. They are the sort of club everyone else should aspire to be.

 

[Safe.]

Ronaldo wasnt unkown because Arsenal were going to put a bid in for him the week before United played Lisboan.

 

[HP Seagull]

Same old yawnfest about Man United.

At the end of the day, they're the best team not because of money (the bulk of which they've earned by being successful) but because of Alex Ferguson.

Tell me honestly that any other manager could get a team with average players like Park, Fletcher, O'Shea, Nani and Anderson to win the league 3 years running and make the Champions League final 2 years running.

Add to that the fact that the main areas of success have been Vidic and Ronaldo, two "unknowns" outside of their domestic leagues that Ferguson is reaping the awards for.

Oh, and the youth system - the versatile O'Shea has been part of a mean defence this season, and when Ferdinand/Vidic haven't been available, Johnny Evans has come in and been amazing.

All this tedious utter drivel about them "epitomising everything wrong with English football" is just total bollocks. The Glazer issue is the only real black mark against the clubs name, but they has become the successful side they are today long before he appeared. They have shown how to apply a good business model with an outstanding manager who they've stuck with through hard times, have combined this with a fantastic youth set-up and are the best club in the world as a result. They should be admired for it. They are the sort of club everyone else should aspire to be.

Spot on.

 

[Tomo1794]

shit:

 

[Safe.]

shit:

Who's shit?

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

All this tedious utter drivel about them "epitomising everything wrong with English football" is just total bollocks. The Glazer issue is the only real black mark against the clubs name, but they has become the successful side they are today long before he appeared. They have shown how to apply a good business model with an outstanding manager who they've stuck with through hard times, have combined this with a fantastic youth set-up and are the best club in the world as a result. They should be admired for it. They are the sort of club everyone else should aspire to be.

That's because you're conveniently ignoring all the other black marks.

No one's denying they have a good manager or quality players. Far from it. They epitmose what's wrong with English football because of other reasons which I've adressed in this thread and many other people have on onsc that you've ignored. Put up an argument against them before you claim it's tedious drivel.

 

[clapham_gull]

Same old yawnfest about Man United.

At the end of the day, they're the best team not because of money (the bulk of which they've earned by being successful) but because of Alex Ferguson.

Tell me honestly that any other manager could get a team with average players like Park, Fletcher, O'Shea, Nani and Anderson to win the league 3 years running and make the Champions League final 2 years running.

Add to that the fact that the main areas of success have been Vidic and Ronaldo, two "unknowns" outside of their domestic leagues that Ferguson is reaping the awards for.

Oh, and the youth system - the versatile O'Shea has been part of a mean defence this season, and when Ferdinand/Vidic haven't been available, Johnny Evans has come in and been amazing.

All this tedious utter drivel about them "epitomising everything wrong with English football" is just total bollocks. The Glazer issue is the only real black mark against the clubs name, but they has become the successful side they are today long before he appeared. They have shown how to apply a good business model with an outstanding manager who they've stuck with through hard times, have combined this with a fantastic youth set-up and are the best club in the world as a result. They should be admired for it. They are the sort of club everyone else should aspire to be.

Quite naive to think there are any "unknowns" in any world league with the extensive scouting networks that all clubs now employ.

As mentioned above, Arsenal tried to sign Ronaldo first.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

That's because you're conveniently ignoring all the other black marks.

No one's denying they have a good manager or quality players. Far from it. They epitmose what's wrong with English football because of other reasons which I've adressed in this thread and many other people have on onsc that you've ignored. Put up an argument against them before you claim it's tedious drivel.

Apologies - I haven't actually read your posts on this thread, i've just assumed it's the same shit that you've been writing on every thread about the big four for the last couple of years, so can't be arsed to go through it again.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

Quite naive to think there are any "unknowns" in any world league with the extensive scouting networks that all clubs now employ.

As mentioned above, Arsenal tried to sign Ronaldo first.

"Relative unknowns" would have been more accurate.

The point was that it's not as if they just spunk £50 million on "galactico's" every summer.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Apologies - I haven't actually read your posts on this thread, i've just assumed it's the same shit that you've been writing on every thread about the big four for the last couple of years, so can't be arsed to go through it again.

Anything to suit your agenda

Nice to know you noticed my 'same shit' about the big four as well. Shame you never put up an argument against it. 'Spose in your mind you can still think your view is correct all the time you never face the opposite side of the argument. It's a good defence mechanism. Fair play.

 

[Safe.]

"Relative unknowns" would have been more accurate.

The point was that it's not as if they just spunk £50 million on "galactico's" every summer.

No they spunk £20-30 million.

 

[clapham_gull]

"Relative unknowns" would have been more accurate.

The point was that it's not as if they just spunk £50 million on "galactico's" every summer.

Not sure that's a more accurate statement either.

Unknown to the media is probably more accurate.

 

[Safe.]

This season they've spent £46 million on 3 players.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

I'll get as sarcastic as I want, BUDDY.

I didn't say they were the sole cause, I said they are part of the reason for the current state of the game. Which they are. Read it again.

They are not as much of a problem as they other clubs. They are more of a problem. Did other clubs; play an instrumental part in getting rid of shared gate receipts? Did other clubs attempt to undermine the world's oldest cup competition in the pursuit of their own greed? Did other clubs shamelessly milk a 50 year old tragedy for commercial gain?

They have no appreciation or awareness for the other 92 clubs in the league. They are arrogant, gluttonous, wankers.

Yes I have a problem with Man United. Many people do. People who can comprehend that they have partially orchestrated the sorry situation we see in English football now. It's a worthy reason.

I have not once stated they are the only reason for this mess, though, much of it is clrealy down to Sky(Didn't stop Man united from sucking up to them at every oppurtunity did it?) As much as you'd like for me to have written that they are the only reasom so you have a point to argue agasint, I didn't. So try again.

Well, as we're on the subject of suiting agendas then....

1) Did other clubs attempt to undermine the world's oldest cup competition in the pursuit of their own greed?

Did United? No, they played in a competition that they had qualified for, that the FA encouraged them to enter in order to help boost the nations profile for the World Cup bid. They tried to reach an agreement with the FA to stay in the FA Cup, but it wasn't practical. So is that a valid reason for them being 'wrong' - no.

2) Did other clubs shamelessly milk a 50 year old tragedy for commercial gain?
Are you referring to the use of the sponsors logo on a commemorative poster that was removed almost immediately because United's own supporters voiced their discontent, and when the club admitted their mistake? Had they kept the sponsor up, then you might have a case.

3) They have no appreciation or awareness for the other 92 clubs in the league. They are arrogant, gluttonous, wankers.

You mean like when they sent flowers/postcards/letters to help the Albion's Falmer campaign? Like when they have pre-season friendlies with select lower league clubs that act as fund raisers? Like when they loan younger players (see McShane) out to lower league clubs?


I have no idea about the gate receipts point you've made, as I wasn't aware of it. But do you see the cinema at the Marina share takings with the crummy little Odeon in Burgess Hill? No. United have run their business better than anyone else, and you seem unable to handle it. Yes, they've made mistakes, but they aren't 'wrong', they are just the most successful. You can't run a football club and focus exclusively on on-field matters, which you seem to infer should be the case. It's almost as if you expect them to say to all their armchair fans "Sorry chaps, I know you're buying our replica shirts and following us from your armchairs, but we'd rather you f***ed off elsewhere. This is because you don't come anywhere near our home stadium, regardless of the fact that we're oversubscribed for tickets every single week, and your money should go to other clubs so they can mount a stronger challenge to us for the title instead".

In short then, you're the one with the agenda, and not only is it a tiresome one, it's a shit one.

 

[house your seagull]

viva ronaldo!

 

[Slough Seagull]

I have no idea about the gate receipts point you've made, as I wasn't aware of it. But do you see the cinema at the Marina share takings with the crummy little Odeon in Burgess Hill?

Not the same is it. All football matches have two teams therefore some of the money should go to the away team.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Well, as we're on the subject of suiting agendas then....

1) Did other clubs attempt to undermine the world's oldest cup competition in the pursuit of their own greed?

Did United? No, they played in a competition that they had qualified for, that the FA encouraged them to enter in order to help boost the nations profile for the World Cup bid. They tried to reach an agreement with the FA to stay in the FA Cup, but it wasn't practical. So is that a valid reason for them being 'wrong' - no. That's one side of the argument, yes. But as far as information I've seen on here it's the faulty side. Dandyman made the original point about it on another thread and I carried it on assuming it to be factually correct.

2) Did other clubs shamelessly milk a 50 year old tragedy for commercial gain?
Are you referring to the use of the sponsors logo on a commemorative poster that was removed almost immediately because United's own supporters voiced their discontent, and when the club admitted their mistake? Had they kept the sponsor up, then you might have a case. But they were prepared to put the sponsor on wern't they? And they would have done if fans hadnt voiced their opinion.

3) They have no appreciation or awareness for the other 92 clubs in the league. They are arrogant, gluttonous, wankers.

You mean like when they sent flowers/postcards/letters to help the Albion's Falmer campaign? Like when they have pre-season friendlies with select lower league clubs that act as fund raisers? Like when they loan younger players (see McShane) out to lower league clubs?
Great. Flowers. That'll improve the state of the game. Fund-raisers, fair enough. Largely to present themselves in a better light for which they need to do, after playing a part in making the league system so money-driven, umcompetitive and disadvantaged to lower league sides. Loan youngsters out is something all clubs do. Not all of them send some of them abroad like Man United though.

I have no idea about the gate receipts point you've made, as I wasn't aware of it. But do you see the cinema at the Marina share takings with the crummy little Odeon in Burgess Hill? No. United have run their business better than anyone else, and you seem unable to handle it. Yes, they've made mistakes, but they aren't 'wrong', they are just the most successful. You can't run a football club and focus exclusively on on-field matters, which you seem to infer should be the case. It's almost as if you expect them to say to all their armchair fans "Sorry chaps, I know you're buying our replica shirts and following us from your armchairs, but we'd rather you f***ed off elsewhere. This is because you don't come anywhere near our home stadium, regardless of the fact that we're oversubscribed for tickets every single week, and your money should go to other clubs so they can mount a stronger challenge to us for the title instead".

Comparing the gate-reciepts point to the cinema bussiness is ludicrous. They have run their bussiness by exploiting others. They have not run in fairly. They have run it so nye on everything is built to suit them. You seem incapable of handling that. I've made no mention of plastic fans so don't know why you've brought that up. It's expected that clubs look to gain fans. I haven't criticised that. If your suggesting that there's nothing wrong with armchair fans then that's a differn't matter.

Yet again the main point is missed that Man United have contributed to our joke of a league and football system. In short then, you're the one with the agenda, and not only do you miss the main criticism of Man United, you do it tiresomely.

In short then, you're the one with the agenda, and not only is it a tiresome one, it's a shit one.

....

 

[Safe.]

WW i don't see how Anderson, Park, Fletcher and Nani are average players.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

Not the same is it. All football matches have two teams therefore some of the money should go to the away team.

It was only a basic example, but I was under the impression that a small cut did go to away teams (5%)?, apart from in cup matches (which are generally a one off) where the receipts are split 50/50. And in the league, there is a return fixture for the money to be balanced out.

Also, wouldn't it be a bit unreasonable to expect a team with a bigger ground to pay higher running costs because they have managed to build a superior stadium, yet still give half the takings away?

Furthermore, if using a 50/50 theory, it is unfair that an away teams revenue can be limited by an opponents capacity, which is totally out of their control.

Basically, I don't see how that can be a stick to hit United with, especially when 90% of the Old Trafford crowd is there for the home team anyway.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

Yet again the main point is missed that Man United have contributed to our joke of a league and football system

....and so have 91 other clubs, they've just done it better than everyone else.