What does Hargreaves owe you? You released him.

It's a great career move for him and you should be happy.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Greatteamswinit4times (U6008)

For once we can totally agree on something

As a City fan I have no idea why we have gone for Hargreaves and I am truly baffled. However this article is appalling in many respects.
To suggest that we've signed him to 'get one over' on United is beyond ludicrous.
The man is a free agent with no affiliation to Manchester United. His time at OT was blighted by injury through nobody's fault. He was released, we haven't poached him.

The most annoying part of this article however are the history and class aspects.
Why are we lacking class by signing Hargreaves???
Why do some United fans harp on about history like you have the monopoly on it? Yes you have a great history of which you should rightly as fans be proud of, but EVERY team in the league has a history. Some more illustrious than others. It isn't measured solely on trophies won, shirts sold in Hong Kong

Your article was a bit long winded to be honest.

He has every right to find the best club he can, he obviously feels he has the ability still. United werent willing to take a risk (understandable) in awarding him a new contract and it looks like City are, Good luck to him.

Thanks for the responses, we all have our opinions. I just think that it's sad that a footballer can go from United to City to supposedly resurrect his career. I know these lads are millionaires but do they think so little of the game they bleed dry that they have no passion. He spent the last four years at Manchester United, kissing the shirt and now he's going to play for Manchester City. City and United fans can't stand each other because it's a rivalry. What depth does that rivalry have when the people representing us couldn't give a damn about it. I'm not saying Hargreaves is wrong, he is what he is. What I'm saying is what are we fans and why do we care when the clubs who dictate our moods are populated with money grabbing mercenaries.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Rod Hull and Emu, or whatever your name is, I think maybe my post was a bit long winded. It was a rant I wanted to get off my chest. But injured, released or not United would not sign any - I repeat any - of the current City squad. Why? Because history and rivalries matter. It's what fans crave, it's why they adore their clubs. They want to believe that what they support has meaning. And my point about City fans is how can you cheer a player like Hargreaves when if Fergie had wanted him he'd be happily wearing our shirt this year kissing our badge. Surely you want players who actually give a damn.

Good point about Owen. Obviously anything I say now could be deemed as I'm only saying it to back up my argument, but no, Owen shouldn't have come to United.

Emu's in the zone (U4783)

Yaya Toure will be off to ACON which has to be taken into consideration.

How do you know United wouldn't sign any of the current City squad given the opportunity?? Are you SAF's pa?

What a stupid comment. I'm willing to bet that Fergie would have signed Joe Hart in the summer if, say for arguments sake that he had fallen out with Mancini and refused to sign a new contract before you got deGea. He was also very interested in Richards a couple of seasons back.
Fergie would sign any player who he thought would do a job for United.. and that includes City players... because he is a professional who sees what is best for his club. Any suggestion otherwise is naive at best

U10436
-----------

Mate I totally understand where you're coming from and agree with your sentiments. Unfortunately you won't be a popular voice because the modern game is no longer about loyalty and many of the fans these days seem to focus on the players' rights rather than club/football ethics. I've been supporting United for over 30 years and remember a time when just because a player COULD sign directly to a rival didn't mean he SHOULD. It's just not the done thing. This has been lost somewhere along the way and a little bit of soul gets lost along with it.

You can justify anything these days as long as it benefits the player or the club regardless of whether it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. To accept this as nothing more than the "player looking out for what's best for him" is the thin end of the wedge. If people feel that way then soon we'll have them justifying players being sold to their rivals. After all if you don't want the player you might as well sell him to your rivals and make some money from it? What's wrong with that eh? Perhaps we shouldn't have let Hargo's contract run down and sold him to City a or 2 ago? I wonder what fans would have thought of that? Perhaps we should of let Heinze go to Liverpool - after all he was only doing what's best for him!

It's simple, no exceptions! I doubt many will understand this sentiment but I for one appreciate your thread

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but to state that no player should sign for a rival team, is just crazy.
Should Matt Busby have never managed Utd because he had played for City?
Billy Meredith, Dennis Law, Peter Barnes, Tony Coton, Terry Cooke, Carlos Tevez of the top of my head all played for both clubs.

Dennis Law even played for City before he played for United, should he have never played for United.

Should Mark Hughes had turned down the City managers job, just because he played for United

There is no logic to your thinking. Should Adebayor not play for Spurs as an ex Arsenal player. Where do you stop

tiptopcheshireblue (U8566)

There's a difference between moving directly from your club to your rivals rather than ending up there after other moves. As the OP says, you can't be wearing your club shirt one minute and then be wearing your rivals immediately afterwards. Technically nothing wrong with it, but there's nothing technically wrong with selling players to your rivals either but it's just not done. The club wouldn't dare and the fans wouldn't expect it. However it seems the players wouldn't give a fck.

So by your own logic, United should not have signed Cantona from Leeds, as they were there big rivals at the time, having won the league the season before?

Emu. I am not Sir Alex's right hand man but it is my strong held feeling that he would not sign a current City player. Mainly because he respects the United fans but also because it wouldn't be lost on him how, in your example, an ardent City player could fall out with his manager and look to move to the clubs local rival. Give Sir Alex more credit than that and I throw it back that you are in fact naive if you think that scenario is likely. Yes, Michael Owen was signed but the circumstances were different. I'm not saying one player can't go to a rival but to do it as Hargreaves has done - directly from one to another - leaves a bad taste. I'm sure Spurs fans empathise with this ala Sol Campbells move. And this debate isn't just about United eliteism. I can't stand Liverpool but I respect their manager and their history and I couldn't foresee Dalglish taking any United player off us. Just like we wouldn't take one of their current crop. I and those that follow my thought, like Sir Alex, Dalglish, are a dying breed. And I think that's sad. Because what you're left with - and it's sad so many can't see this - is a less meaningful game.

The Cantona transfer is in no way similar to what Hargreaves has done. Cantona was at Leeds for a few months and since when have Leeds ever been a rival of Uniteds. Now who is naive.

For someone who claims to have followed United all your life, how can you calim that Leeds were not one of Uniteds rivals. During the 60's and early 70's Leeds were one of the most successful English sides. Leeds won the 1st division title in 1991 beating United to the title.
Just because Leeds have fallen down the leagues, do not believe when you play them in the carling cup that the rivalry will not resurface. I suggest you ask your fellow reds, particularly those old enough to remember about Leeds and the the rivalry. Canona was with them for 6 months, but it is irrelevant.
Upto last year most reds did not see city as a rival.

Nnnnnnnineteen and u come across as very bitter people, why should any free agent have to justify himself to a former clubs fans when he was released! Your problem is with city, god knows why but you come across as very bitter people!

comment by (U10436) posted 4 minutes ago

...since when have Leeds ever been a rival of Uniteds. Now who is naive.
--------------------------------------

Agreed, it's like saying Bolton are our rivals!

Anyway, it's simple - some believe it's ok to let players go or be sold directly to their rivals. I and others like me believe they shouldn't. It's not something you can find a common ground on so this will end up becoming a fruitless debate. For me there's no compromise on this, it goes against everything I believe in.

I would be the one thrrowing the pig's head at Figo

Hargo should just have retired to please the United fans

comment by Cityblueloz
--------------------------------

Nothing to do with City. You've clearly not read what I've written and decided to wind yourself up. A common trait with berties. And why would I be bitter, esepcially towards city. It's like Richard Branson being bitter about the pi55ed up tramp on a park bench.

U are naive if you don't think Leeds are your rivals!

Doesn't know his own clubs history! How old are you?

U are naive if you don't think Leeds are your rivals!

Not anymore mate there not even in the same league.