comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 21 seconds ago
You just have to look at how long it took ferguson to win his first title and how long it took Mancini to differentiate buying success and earning your success. Mourinho I think is a winner regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Mancini earn it or did you just choke pathetically ?
looks like somones after our young players
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/26/manchester-united-reject-paris-saint-germain-bid-adnan-januzaj
Southampton have had quite a bit of money pumped into them too anyway
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Paulpowersleftfoot #SAVEDAVE (U1037)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 21 seconds ago
You just have to look at how long it took ferguson to win his first title and how long it took Mancini to differentiate buying success and earning your success. Mourinho I think is a winner regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Mancini earn it or did you just choke pathetically ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We choked, no doubt. We would've walked that league like we did last year without the arab money though. No one wants that. The way we lost that title makes last year just sweeter.
Is 'No one' a synonym for United fans?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by (U19156)
posted 5 minutes ago
Is 'No one' a synonym for United fans?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's the Cardiff winger who scored at the Etihad
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Liverpool was successful but look now to come back into title race they would have to spend out of their pockets to build a team.
United is beneficiary of certain events (unfortunate included) and the dominance during 90's, Beckham also played a big part
Let's keep it simple - if you can go out and can buy a lot of players, then you are capable of 'buying success', so we are no different to other clubs, and that's not only City and Chelsea, but Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool also. Obviously the amount spent varies from club to club, but every club goes out to some extent to buy success.
Now you could curb this by saying that teams could only spend so much, or bring in 'X' amount of players, and had to play so many players from the youth set-up etc, but until such rules come in, then the bigger teams with money will always be accused of buying success, whichever team that may be.
The niave part of me thinks that wouldn't it be great if 20 years down the line such limits were brought in, then clubs would have to look at themselves as a whole, and make sure proper youth systems were in place etc, and then it wouldn't be a simple case of just buying success, but having to develop players and have improced coaching throughout the club. Perhaps it would lead to any profits being re-invested in the club, and God forbid, ticket prices being reduced and fans not being fleeced - now that would be a novelty (and very niave)
Every major club has had investment into it for outside sources at some point, history has a way of changing people's mind sets on it though. Chelsea and City get the brunt of it at the moment, but that is because it is happening either now or recently to both of them. I highly doubt in thirty years, if both clubs continue to be successful, people will care as much as they do now. They really would be hypocrites even more than now if that was the case.
What I would say is that creating a plc to bypass FA rules, campaigning to successfully change the allocation of match day revenue and forming the premier league could all be viewed as earning it or buying it, depending which way you look at it. It certainly isn't fair though.
Fully agree Kinsang. What we have to be careful of is that clubs don't just then raid the youth academies of the smaller clubs (which is already happening) before the club can get a decent fee. That does as much damage to football as anything else.
Melton - like most scenarios, it's a catch 22. Everyone makes the right noises, but there will always be bigger richer teams and smaller poorer ones, and those at the rich clubs will go on about the great tradition of smaller clubs, whilst at the same time trying to fleece them of their best talent!!
And of course they also say greater competition is good for the game, but we have pretty much a big 6 - if that became a big 8 or 10 (and I mean in financial terms) then I doubt those currently at the top would be quite so happy.
comment by RVP's Left Foot - The Chosen 'Juan' (U11781)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
Every team buys success regardless where the money has come from, I'm just happy we are finally spending real dosh since the Ronaldo sale
-------------------------------------------------------
Sense from a Utd fan!
I think most people would struggle to point out a team that hasnt bought success in one way or another. Be it from rich owners or being in the right place at the right time through TV money etc.
I really cant think of one in the last 30 years...........maybe Leeds? I am not too sure of their finances in the early 90s?
I'd say Leeds would be the last Si!
Maybe Liverpool when they first got to the top under Shankley, but they stayed there by hoovering all the talent up after that!
I love this idea that football has suddenly changed because the dominant forces are those owned by Billionaires.
Some clubs have had 16+ years of continuity to create a youth system & structure to counteract any short term big spending by a couple of clubs...they just haven't. Stop whinging about it
comment by M.O.J.O (U1937)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
You are now one of the biggest clubs in the world. I'm not talking about revenue or anything like that. Just in a general sense. You are. 25 years ago you were not.
25 years ago you could roam the streets of London and not bump into a United fan for miles. Now I can barely lift a drain without finding one. That shows you what your success has brought. And my point is, that the success came from massive investment from two of the richest men in football. (At the time).
---
that is the biggest load of poo ive ever read
comment by ♥♥JustAnotherPoster♥♥ (U10557)
posted 57 minutes ago
Liverpool was successful but look now to come back into title race they would have to spend out of their pockets to build a team.
United is beneficiary of certain events (unfortunate included) and the dominance during 90's, Beckham also played a big part
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have outspent United and we still dominated the Premierleague
It's obvious to point out that whilst clubs need to spend money to be successful these days, of course that money needs to be spent wisely. There are obviously umpteen examples of clubs that have spent poorly, even the best managers make poor buys, but I guess the richer clubs can afford to make a few more mistakes than the poorer ones.
Oh and just to say one thing, before we were named Manchester United, we were called Newton Heath and were it not for a few blokes all chipping in some money then there would be no Manchester United as Newton Heath were in about £2500 debt (around 250,000 in todays money apparently) and on their way to going bankrupt!
But I am sure most people know this already anyway
Sign in if you want to comment
Nonsense about buying Success
Page 4 of 5
posted on 26/1/14
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 21 seconds ago
You just have to look at how long it took ferguson to win his first title and how long it took Mancini to differentiate buying success and earning your success. Mourinho I think is a winner regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Mancini earn it or did you just choke pathetically ?
posted on 26/1/14
looks like somones after our young players
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/26/manchester-united-reject-paris-saint-germain-bid-adnan-januzaj
posted on 26/1/14
Southampton have had quite a bit of money pumped into them too anyway
posted on 26/1/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/1/14
comment by Paulpowersleftfoot #SAVEDAVE (U1037)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 21 seconds ago
You just have to look at how long it took ferguson to win his first title and how long it took Mancini to differentiate buying success and earning your success. Mourinho I think is a winner regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Mancini earn it or did you just choke pathetically ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We choked, no doubt. We would've walked that league like we did last year without the arab money though. No one wants that. The way we lost that title makes last year just sweeter.
posted on 26/1/14
Is 'No one' a synonym for United fans?
posted on 26/1/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/1/14
comment by (U19156)
posted 5 minutes ago
Is 'No one' a synonym for United fans?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's the Cardiff winger who scored at the Etihad
posted on 26/1/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/1/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/1/14
Liverpool was successful but look now to come back into title race they would have to spend out of their pockets to build a team.
United is beneficiary of certain events (unfortunate included) and the dominance during 90's, Beckham also played a big part
posted on 26/1/14
Let's keep it simple - if you can go out and can buy a lot of players, then you are capable of 'buying success', so we are no different to other clubs, and that's not only City and Chelsea, but Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool also. Obviously the amount spent varies from club to club, but every club goes out to some extent to buy success.
Now you could curb this by saying that teams could only spend so much, or bring in 'X' amount of players, and had to play so many players from the youth set-up etc, but until such rules come in, then the bigger teams with money will always be accused of buying success, whichever team that may be.
The niave part of me thinks that wouldn't it be great if 20 years down the line such limits were brought in, then clubs would have to look at themselves as a whole, and make sure proper youth systems were in place etc, and then it wouldn't be a simple case of just buying success, but having to develop players and have improced coaching throughout the club. Perhaps it would lead to any profits being re-invested in the club, and God forbid, ticket prices being reduced and fans not being fleeced - now that would be a novelty (and very niave)
posted on 26/1/14
Every major club has had investment into it for outside sources at some point, history has a way of changing people's mind sets on it though. Chelsea and City get the brunt of it at the moment, but that is because it is happening either now or recently to both of them. I highly doubt in thirty years, if both clubs continue to be successful, people will care as much as they do now. They really would be hypocrites even more than now if that was the case.
What I would say is that creating a plc to bypass FA rules, campaigning to successfully change the allocation of match day revenue and forming the premier league could all be viewed as earning it or buying it, depending which way you look at it. It certainly isn't fair though.
posted on 26/1/14
Fully agree Kinsang. What we have to be careful of is that clubs don't just then raid the youth academies of the smaller clubs (which is already happening) before the club can get a decent fee. That does as much damage to football as anything else.
posted on 26/1/14
Melton - like most scenarios, it's a catch 22. Everyone makes the right noises, but there will always be bigger richer teams and smaller poorer ones, and those at the rich clubs will go on about the great tradition of smaller clubs, whilst at the same time trying to fleece them of their best talent!!
And of course they also say greater competition is good for the game, but we have pretty much a big 6 - if that became a big 8 or 10 (and I mean in financial terms) then I doubt those currently at the top would be quite so happy.
posted on 26/1/14
comment by RVP's Left Foot - The Chosen 'Juan' (U11781)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
Every team buys success regardless where the money has come from, I'm just happy we are finally spending real dosh since the Ronaldo sale
-------------------------------------------------------
Sense from a Utd fan!
posted on 26/1/14
I think most people would struggle to point out a team that hasnt bought success in one way or another. Be it from rich owners or being in the right place at the right time through TV money etc.
I really cant think of one in the last 30 years...........maybe Leeds? I am not too sure of their finances in the early 90s?
posted on 27/1/14
I'd say Leeds would be the last Si!
posted on 27/1/14
Maybe Liverpool when they first got to the top under Shankley, but they stayed there by hoovering all the talent up after that!
posted on 27/1/14
I love this idea that football has suddenly changed because the dominant forces are those owned by Billionaires.
Some clubs have had 16+ years of continuity to create a youth system & structure to counteract any short term big spending by a couple of clubs...they just haven't. Stop whinging about it
posted on 27/1/14
comment by M.O.J.O (U1937)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
You are now one of the biggest clubs in the world. I'm not talking about revenue or anything like that. Just in a general sense. You are. 25 years ago you were not.
25 years ago you could roam the streets of London and not bump into a United fan for miles. Now I can barely lift a drain without finding one. That shows you what your success has brought. And my point is, that the success came from massive investment from two of the richest men in football. (At the time).
---
that is the biggest load of poo ive ever read
posted on 27/1/14
comment by ♥♥JustAnotherPoster♥♥ (U10557)
posted 57 minutes ago
Liverpool was successful but look now to come back into title race they would have to spend out of their pockets to build a team.
United is beneficiary of certain events (unfortunate included) and the dominance during 90's, Beckham also played a big part
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have outspent United and we still dominated the Premierleague
posted on 27/1/14
It's obvious to point out that whilst clubs need to spend money to be successful these days, of course that money needs to be spent wisely. There are obviously umpteen examples of clubs that have spent poorly, even the best managers make poor buys, but I guess the richer clubs can afford to make a few more mistakes than the poorer ones.
posted on 27/1/14
Oh and just to say one thing, before we were named Manchester United, we were called Newton Heath and were it not for a few blokes all chipping in some money then there would be no Manchester United as Newton Heath were in about £2500 debt (around 250,000 in todays money apparently) and on their way to going bankrupt!
But I am sure most people know this already anyway
posted on 27/1/14
Yes I did Greg!
Page 4 of 5