or to join or start a new Discussion

55 Comments
Article Rating 4 Stars

some laughable facts

injuries
------------

city 1 (our ex player)
us 13 now? I've lost count

money spent
-----------------

city well over half a billion within about 2-3 years

united haven't even spent that in 20 years.

united are in decline and city are the new barcelona apparently.

city fans starting to call other clubs small clubs HAHA (i wont name their fans)

merry christmas fellas

posted on 27/12/11

Interesting response.

posted on 27/12/11

i always think if United are equal with or above everyone then we will win the league and i think there is only one season in the last 20 when that hasnt happened.

posted on 27/12/11

Go on then, list all the other clubs who could afford to splash 30m on Rio Ferdinand in 2002 then.

Well if you're sure we're only here for the short term and that United will win the Prem this season, can I also have this weeks lottery numbers please?

----

you do realise united won numerous titles, were in numerous CL's and won a CL previously dont you? or were you one of those supporters who started watching football in 2009 when City became rich and a top 5 club

posted on 27/12/11

City didn't become a top five club in 2009

Your fella didn't mention where any money had come from, just made a point which implied United have no financial advantage over most other domestic clubs. I asked him to name other clubs that could have afforded 30m on Rio in 2002. There was no response.

posted on 27/12/11

hmm, other than arsenal and liverpool..... not sure to be honest didnt follow other clubs that closely

posted on 27/12/11

Put it this way, our record signing was 6m on Robbie Fowler that season ... Which is another story for another day.

posted on 27/12/11

I think the point is that any money United have spent has been generated by their own income which came from previous success. It is like a guy who built a big successful business from scratch , building on it year on year and ploughing the profits back into the business to grow it, and compare that to someone whose dad just bought it for him because he was rich.

posted on 27/12/11

If you like parodies does that then mean that great films deserve no credit because they have been independently financed by a producer.

posted on 27/12/11

I don't see the analogy there at all. Are you talking about a film made by a multi millionaire because they just can, or an independent film made on a shoestring by a talented producer ? which do you think sounds most like City ?

posted on 27/12/11

Producers finance films in the early stages, if the film is good enough it will go on to make a lot of money and be successful.

The producer doesn't necessarily interfer with how the film is made, that's the role of the director and the actors, but they ensure that the film stays on track with the initial goal.

Without the producer kick starting the whole process with a financial injection the film wouldn't happen, and the world would be deprived of something beautiful.

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 4 from 5 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available