Interact
Interact


City reserves look good as well!

Started by: fossil (7481)

An awesome three minutes from city,going 3-1 up against a Wolves team looking fairly decent!

Started: 26th Oct 2011 at 20:44

Posted by: fireplace6899 (inactive)

500 million Latics would have a good side.

Replied: 26th Oct 2011 at 21:03
Last edited by fireplace6899: 26th Oct 2011 at 22:11:07

Posted by: kellysdad (inactive)

1-6

Replied: 26th Oct 2011 at 21:11

Posted by: fireplace6899 (inactive)


United Siddy

World Champions 2 0

European Cups 3 0

League Champions 19 2

FA Cup 11 5

Carling Cup 4 2

UEFA Super Cup 1 0

Total 40 9

Replied: 26th Oct 2011 at 21:17

Posted by: fossil (7481)

City's fifth goal and Wolves second goal,probably as good as you will see!
I am neither a Wolves or City supporter but I like to watch good football,and most people would be happy enough to watch quality,unless you are just interested in results



"%00 million Latics would have a good side".
I am not sure I quite understand that Fp,but if you mean if Latics spend a lot of money they might have a good team,well they might just do if it was available

Replied: 26th Oct 2011 at 21:50

Posted by: baker boy (15613)

fossil just like man u does,spends a lotta brass

Replied: 26th Oct 2011 at 22:25

Posted by: bassman (3591)

FP' utd have been one of the richest clubs in the world for years.If they wanted a player they went and bought him because of their wealth.The only thing difference between utd and city is city has done the same but in a shorter time.Utd are no longer top of the pile where money is concerned anymore....get used to it.

Replied: 26th Oct 2011 at 22:28

Posted by: ruddy duck (inactive)

bassman

Spot on!

Replied: 26th Oct 2011 at 22:33

Posted by: fireplace6899 (inactive)

They can have their billions, they will never overtake United. FACT

Replied: 27th Oct 2011 at 17:58

Posted by: ruddy duck (inactive)

fireplace6899

I only hope you are right, otherwise you are going to end up with one big egg on your face!

Replied: 27th Oct 2011 at 18:02

Posted by: fireplace6899 (inactive)

They have to win 19 league titles and thats just for a start.

It can never happen.

Replied: 27th Oct 2011 at 18:21

Posted by: bluesfan (1636)

If they do we'll be going to the game in a flying saucer

Replied: 27th Oct 2011 at 18:31

Posted by: fireplace6899 (inactive)

bluesfan

Replied: 27th Oct 2011 at 18:44

Posted by: bassman (3591)

Utd bought the titles with their riches over the years..

Replied: 27th Oct 2011 at 22:12

Posted by: fireplace6899 (inactive)

United created their own riches. No sugar daddy like Chelski, Siddy and Liverpool.

Any club could have bought the players Siddy did, if they had been given the money.

Replied: 27th Oct 2011 at 22:55

Posted by: bryanp121 (1319)

liverpool have spent over 120 million in less than a year and they are no better than what they was,its getting the players to play together, silva of city is world class, wish united had him.

Replied: 27th Oct 2011 at 23:48

Posted by: the_gwim_weaper (inactive)

TOM, from income streams such as broadcast rights, sponsorship and sales of tickets and merchandise.

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 07:22

Posted by: ruddy duck (inactive)

bryamp121

A bit like United were when Sir Alex first came to Old Trafford?

Come on, Liverpool are in a stage of rebuilding under Dalglish and the new owners.

Face the fact that player for player, City now have a squad as good as, if not better then United.

The fact is that United had more money in the past to buy all the best players and this may also have had something to do with the club winning so many championships, cup finals etc.

Remember, Wigan Warriors were also the same a few season's ago, when they won numerous trophies including eight Challenge Cup Finals etc as a result of buying all the best players and being the only professional club in the game.

United will still be sucessfull, but not as sucessfull as in the past due to other club's now having the same finanancial clout as them.

Get use to it and accept that times are changing!

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 07:27
Last edited by ruddy duck: 28th Oct 2011 at 07:37:41

Posted by: chatty (8853) 

The fact that United have had more money in the past to buy all the best players and this having something to do with the club winning so many championships doesn't stand up.

More to do with having the right manager.

They wouldn't have gone 25 years without otherwise.
(In those 25 years they were still the biggest and most glamorous club, something that hisses the scousers off no end)

City do have as good if not better squad than United, and will probably go on to win loads, no one can argue that,
(but United will still be the biggest and most glamorous club).

Can we all agree though it hasn't been "earned" and could have quite easily been the Latics, Bolton, Blackburn (again)
who won the lottery!


Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 08:05

Posted by: ruddy duck (inactive)

Chatty

Exactly, in the past!

Times have changed in football where finance is concerned, or like many United supporters, you have been too busy bragging to notice.

And clubs like the Latic's, Bolton and Blackburn now have no chance.

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 08:12

Posted by: chatty (8853) 

Not at all.

As you have already stated United will still be successful.

I've no reason to complain, seen doubles, trebles, and them become the most successful club in English football.

How long before a fan of the Nouveau riche can say that? if ever.

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 09:19

Posted by: bassman (3591)

Chatty, you're correct about the manager,he is one of the best, but he has always had the money to buy his choices.Would SAF been as successful at Wolves,Wigan,Blackburn etc if he had to work within their financial constraints.I agree as well they have the name to make lots of money and have been, for many years the weathiest club in the world which has helped them keep at the top.Now clubs have become playthings for the rich and money is no object.If the likes of City keep at the top for a while their finances will improve and through those finances could eqhal Utd.

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 12:01

Posted by: bryanp121 (1319)

town,united make millions selling united kits and other things world wide, they get more sponsers so more money, the ground holds over 70,000 and is full nearly all the time,they have M U TV that brings a very good sum of money in, in all they make millions, over the last 20 years because of their success its grown and grown,thats why the champions league is more important than our domestic cups, the money,ask any team in prem, win fa or league cup or get in the champions league, what do you think the answer would be.

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 14:58

Posted by: chatty (8853) 

bassman, obviously you couldn't make a case for Wigan winning the treble if they had Fergie, Paisley, Shankley and Cloughie running the gaff between them.

Fergie always having the money?

Aberdeen!

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 18:09

Posted by: bryanp121 (1319)

fergy had no money at aberdeen and got them into europe, came to old trafford when the team was dire,people say he was lucky with the kids comming through but he had to get them playing in the best way for united, got united winning trophies while playing attacking football,

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 18:16

Posted by: ruddy duck (inactive)

But that was when the other clubs did not have the same ammount of finance to buy the same standard of players as United!

When will it sink in?

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 19:27

Posted by: chatty (8853) 

Just pulled this off the internet after 2 minutes "research"

STATS: Which Teams Spend The Most?

Continuing on with the theme of buying success, I was pointed in the right direction of an article in The Mirror which looked at every Premiership season’s top spender.

1992-93: Blackburn £8.11m (4th); ­champions Manchester United £2.3m.
1993-94: Blackburn £8.65m (2nd); champions Manchester United £3.75m.
1994-95: Everton £10.9m (15th); champions ­Blackburn £6.8m.
1995-96: Newcastle £14.78m (2nd); champions Manchester United £750,000.
1996-97: Newcastle £16.5m (2nd); champions Manchester United £7.5m.
1997-98: Newcastle £21m (13th); champions Arsenal £16.55m.
1998-99: Manchester United biggest spenders with £27.75m and also ­champions.
1999-2000: Liverpool £36.3m (4th); ­champions Manchester United £10m.
2000-01: Leeds £38.45m (4th); ­champions Manchester United £7.8m.
2001-02: Manchester United £57m (3rd); champions Arsenal £23.25m.
2002-03: Manchester United biggest spenders with £33m and also champions.
2003-04: Chelsea £121m (2nd); champions Arsenal £13.25m.
2004-05: Chelsea biggest spenders with £89m and also champions.
2005-06: Chelsea biggest spenders with £63.4m and also champions.
2006-07: Chelsea £64m; champions Manchester United £18.6m.
2007-08: Manchester United biggest spenders with £52.125m and also ­champions.
2008-09: Manchester City £113m (10th); ­champions Manchester United £46.75m.
2009-10: Manchester City £124m (5th); ­champions Chelsea £23.5m.

It is also interesting to note that United have only been the highest spenders in 4 of the 18 Premiership seasons, the same number as Chelsea, and were champions in 3 of those seasons. Our remaining 8 Premiership title were won when we were not the top spenders.

When will it sink in?

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 20:02

Posted by: fireplace6899 (inactive)

THAT MIGHT FINALLY SHUT THE CLOWNS UP CHATTY.wELL DONE.

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 21:17

Posted by: ruddy duck (inactive)

Excuse me, but its now about which clubs are the richest and not just about who spends the most on players!

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 21:29

Posted by: chatty (8853) 

ruddy duck(5287) 28th Oct 2011 at 19:27

"But that was when the other clubs did not have the same ammount of finance to buy the same standard of players as United!"


Er what?

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 22:54

Posted by: bassman (3591)

Chatty, my point was,Fergie is a great manager and went to one of the most famous and wealthy clubs in the world.This enabled him to assemble his team a lot easier. Because of the prestige Utd have, they only had to show an interest in a player and he would want to go there, plus there's been a few times when players have been ready to sign for someone else and Utd have basically nipped in and signed them.All as I am saying is because of their reputation and prestige they have had an advantage through it.Now what is happening is they are being caught up on the money side if not being overtook and it,s levelling the playing field up,only a bit, but enough. To be honest and I think you may agree, that without Fergies 25 years we wouldn't even be having this debate, he is Utd.

Replied: 28th Oct 2011 at 22:55

Posted by: rio caroni (5077) 

Have I missed something? Not seen one mention of any member of the GLAZER family

Replied: 29th Oct 2011 at 00:58

Posted by: chatty (8853) 

bassman 2123 27th Oct 2011 at 22:12

"Utd bought the titles with their riches over the years."

Your point seems plain enough to me!



Exactly, it's astonishing he has done what he's done in recent years despite the Glazers sucking money out of the
club, whilst other clubs are having money pumped in!

Replied: 29th Oct 2011 at 08:02

Posted by: kenny (inactive)

The origin of this thread was about a game someone watched on TV,since then it has gone a hill steeper than Parbold
Why does everything have to boil down to Man Utd etc

As I posted on a previous thread

MAKES YOU PROUD TO BE A WIGANER

Replied: 29th Oct 2011 at 10:33

Posted by: ruddy duck (inactive)

kenny

Because they are always bragging and others are fed up of it!

Replied: 29th Oct 2011 at 10:42

Posted by: chatty (8853) 

Replied: 29th Oct 2011 at 11:02

Posted by: bryanp121 (1319)

chatty, hope that sinks in for the knockers.

Replied: 29th Oct 2011 at 14:49
Last edited by bryanp121: 29th Oct 2011 at 14:54:19

 

Note: You must login to use this feature.

If you haven't registered, why not join now?. Registration is free.