Premier League Hypocrisy

I've happily filtered you again Top form.
Reading your posts today, they are your normal mixture of denseness and pretentiousness.

I've never known anyone to be such a crybaby when someone points out that they're wrong.

comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 29 minutes ago
For those that don't know, John Henry Davies was a rich businessman who rescued United from bankruptcy and extinction.

The sum of money he put into the club in the early 20th century was a significant amount for that time, given both monetary inflation and football inflation.

For those that don't know how inflation works, you can't buy a house in Chelsea for a pound now like you could many many years ago,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what? Many clubs, including City and Chelsea had injections of cash at various points in history. So stupid to use those to justify clubs like City ruining football.

And none of them ever did what City owners have done. Davies and the likes played by the rules at the time, they also didn't use offshore accounts, fake sponsorships etc to buy and pay the best players and managers etc. Cheating and doping the fack out of football while breaking the rules left right and centre.

115 charges should actually be closer to 1000 charges. This is a club whose entire revenue could not pay just the playing staff wages alone, leave alone taxes and the tea lady, for 3 years straight. Now bringing in more revenue than Madrid and United with next to no fans whatsoever.

Shut your mouth boy.

None of this changes the fact that the statement that nothing came from rich men is clearly false which is what I was responding to

But hey, you carry on raging and having an imaginary argument

comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 1 minute ago
None of this changes the fact that the statement that nothing came from rich men is clearly false which is what I was responding to

But hey, you carry on raging and having an imaginary argument
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously the statement is made in a certain context, a context which you must ignore in order to look like you know your ass from your elbow.

Now shut it! Boy.

Not hard to say, well that's true, rich men did fund United many years ago but I don't think it's comparable to what's happening today because...

This is how adult interactions are usually conducted FYI. Weird concept around here I know.

For those who don't know it was Newton Heath he bought, together with three others. They all put in £200, not £300.
It makes not a jot of difference to the post I made above about United's wealth.

comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 29 minutes ago
For those that don't know, John Henry Davies was a rich businessman who rescued United from bankruptcy and extinction.

The sum of money he put into the club in the early 20th century was a significant amount for that time, given both monetary inflation and football inflation.

For those that don't know how inflation works, you can't buy a house in Chelsea for a pound now like you could many many years ago,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what? Many clubs, including City and Chelsea had injections of cash at various points in history. So stupid to use those to justify clubs like City ruining football.

And none of them ever did what City owners have done. Davies and the likes played by the rules at the time, they also didn't use offshore accounts, fake sponsorships etc to buy and pay the best players and managers etc. Cheating and doping the fack out of football while breaking the rules left right and centre.

115 charges should actually be closer to 1000 charges. This is a club whose entire revenue could not pay just the playing staff wages alone, leave alone taxes and the tea lady, for 3 years straight. Now bringing in more revenue than Madrid and United with next to no fans whatsoever.

Shut your mouth boy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having looked, you could not buy a house in Chelsea for €1 in 1902. Not even _£200.

I didn't say that a house could be bought in Chelsea in 1902 for a pound.

Very mature behaviour again.

I’m getting a bit tired of United fans moaning about City ‘cheating’.

Let’s say they have cheated.

What has that actually mean for us? Has it meant they’re on a different level, financially, to us?

No.

So what exactly is our gripe, other than a rather flimsy ‘I just want to see the rules adhered to’ type moan?