comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Jose Mauricio (U6489)
posted 2 minutes ago
I too wish United were the only UK club with unlimited purchasing power. That also sounds very healthy for the prem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've never had that. We've been ran as a business since day dot of the PL.
There's one club in the PL where money is not important. That's why they win everything. Their owner has been two two games in 13 years. He didn't even attend their first ever CL final against Chelsea. That's how much he's interested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve managed to contradict yourself in about four sentences there stretty. Must be close to your record 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you’ve started off by insinuating money isn’t important and that we aren’t run as a business, which strictly speaking isn’t true as he’s definitely already sold stakes in City and will ultimately sell up, but that’s another conversation. Then you’ve gone on to explain how he’s not in it for the sport because he’s only been to two games, which I’m not sure of the relevance of really given the likes of the Glazers and Mike Ashley have been to many games whilst also being parasitic drains on their respective clubs, but again, another conversation.
comment by Jose Mauricio (U6489)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Jose Mauricio (U6489)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
I too wish United were the only UK club with unlimited purchasing power. That also sounds very healthy for the prem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another daft comment, and from a Chelsea fan. The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. Regardless of how the money is obtained, there would have likely been depressingly little competition for United without foreign investment. The rules that everyone adhere to benefit the club who were most financially set up at the time that the rules were established.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We make enough to dominate even with it. The Glazers and their complicit puppets are thd reason we don't.
We've been robbed of being an English Bayern Munich and the fanbase have enabled it with their support of The Glazer regime.
Utd bought the league for years now all of a sudden it’s a sin.
We've been robbed of being an English Bayern Munich
-----
Truly a tragedy for English football.
Manchester United are rich for years and for more than ône reason.
First, OT is next to Trafford Park where tens of thousands of men worked, usually including Saturday morning. So at midday they could eat in the canteen, have a couple of beers, and stroll to the game.
Then the Busby boys attracted fans, Munich kept them for sympathy.
Then the next team had Charlton ,Law and most importantly Best. He was handsome, looked like a Beatle and great talent.
He was the first to bring glamour to football.
We won the European Cup.
The fans stayed loyal, and were
rewarded with Ferguson.
The financial side made good use of all this with record breaking deals for shirts, boots etc.
Prize money kept coming.
Nothing came from rich men, rather the other way round.
Complaints about us buying success are unfair, the money was earned
Didn't realise John Henry Davies was a pauper
You learn something new every day
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 16 minutes ago
Didn't realise John Henry Davies was a pauper
You learn something new every day
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that £300 helped.
Did you have to go on Wiki to find someone who helped us all those long long years ago.
Are you weird enough to think it changes my post?
Why yes, of course you are.
Let's not pretend that the sky era didn't permanently alter the financial landscape of top tier English football and enshrine Man Utd at the top of the pyramid, leaving them a commercial juggernaut that other clubs in the country can't compete with. Regardless of why, where or how, it's not healthy to have a monopoly. Otherwise we would have the English Bayern
comment by Jose Mauricio (U6489)
posted 8 minutes ago
Let's not pretend that the sky era didn't permanently alter the financial landscape of top tier English football and enshrine Man Utd at the top of the pyramid, leaving them a commercial juggernaut that other clubs in the country can't compete with. Regardless of why, where or how, it's not healthy to have a monopoly. Otherwise we would have the English Bayern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain how Sky only benefitted United ?
Didn't Abramovitch help Chelsea all those years ago.
Haven't Arsenal, Everton, Leicester and others benefitted from rich owners, and of course City and now Newcastle.
Would you say our rich owners benefitted us?
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,
In other words that statement that nothing came from rich men is clearly false.
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?
Sign in if you want to comment
Premier League Hypocrisy
Page 3 of 3
posted on 11/6/23
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Jose Mauricio (U6489)
posted 2 minutes ago
I too wish United were the only UK club with unlimited purchasing power. That also sounds very healthy for the prem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've never had that. We've been ran as a business since day dot of the PL.
There's one club in the PL where money is not important. That's why they win everything. Their owner has been two two games in 13 years. He didn't even attend their first ever CL final against Chelsea. That's how much he's interested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve managed to contradict yourself in about four sentences there stretty. Must be close to your record 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you’ve started off by insinuating money isn’t important and that we aren’t run as a business, which strictly speaking isn’t true as he’s definitely already sold stakes in City and will ultimately sell up, but that’s another conversation. Then you’ve gone on to explain how he’s not in it for the sport because he’s only been to two games, which I’m not sure of the relevance of really given the likes of the Glazers and Mike Ashley have been to many games whilst also being parasitic drains on their respective clubs, but again, another conversation.
posted on 11/6/23
comment by Jose Mauricio (U6489)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Jose Mauricio (U6489)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
I too wish United were the only UK club with unlimited purchasing power. That also sounds very healthy for the prem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another daft comment, and from a Chelsea fan. The mind boggles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. Regardless of how the money is obtained, there would have likely been depressingly little competition for United without foreign investment. The rules that everyone adhere to benefit the club who were most financially set up at the time that the rules were established.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We make enough to dominate even with it. The Glazers and their complicit puppets are thd reason we don't.
We've been robbed of being an English Bayern Munich and the fanbase have enabled it with their support of The Glazer regime.
posted on 11/6/23
Utd bought the league for years now all of a sudden it’s a sin.
posted on 11/6/23
We've been robbed of being an English Bayern Munich
-----
Truly a tragedy for English football.
posted on 11/6/23
Manchester United are rich for years and for more than ône reason.
First, OT is next to Trafford Park where tens of thousands of men worked, usually including Saturday morning. So at midday they could eat in the canteen, have a couple of beers, and stroll to the game.
Then the Busby boys attracted fans, Munich kept them for sympathy.
Then the next team had Charlton ,Law and most importantly Best. He was handsome, looked like a Beatle and great talent.
He was the first to bring glamour to football.
We won the European Cup.
The fans stayed loyal, and were
rewarded with Ferguson.
The financial side made good use of all this with record breaking deals for shirts, boots etc.
Prize money kept coming.
Nothing came from rich men, rather the other way round.
Complaints about us buying success are unfair, the money was earned
posted on 11/6/23
Didn't realise John Henry Davies was a pauper
You learn something new every day
posted on 11/6/23
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 16 minutes ago
Didn't realise John Henry Davies was a pauper
You learn something new every day
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that £300 helped.
Did you have to go on Wiki to find someone who helped us all those long long years ago.
Are you weird enough to think it changes my post?
Why yes, of course you are.
posted on 11/6/23
Let's not pretend that the sky era didn't permanently alter the financial landscape of top tier English football and enshrine Man Utd at the top of the pyramid, leaving them a commercial juggernaut that other clubs in the country can't compete with. Regardless of why, where or how, it's not healthy to have a monopoly. Otherwise we would have the English Bayern
posted on 11/6/23
comment by Jose Mauricio (U6489)
posted 8 minutes ago
Let's not pretend that the sky era didn't permanently alter the financial landscape of top tier English football and enshrine Man Utd at the top of the pyramid, leaving them a commercial juggernaut that other clubs in the country can't compete with. Regardless of why, where or how, it's not healthy to have a monopoly. Otherwise we would have the English Bayern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain how Sky only benefitted United ?
Didn't Abramovitch help Chelsea all those years ago.
Haven't Arsenal, Everton, Leicester and others benefitted from rich owners, and of course City and now Newcastle.
Would you say our rich owners benefitted us?
posted on 11/6/23
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,
posted on 11/6/23
In other words that statement that nothing came from rich men is clearly false.
posted on 11/6/23
I've happily filtered you again Top form.
Reading your posts today, they are your normal mixture of denseness and pretentiousness.
posted on 11/6/23
I've never known anyone to be such a crybaby when someone points out that they're wrong.
posted on 11/6/23
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.
posted on 11/6/23
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
posted on 11/6/23
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.
posted on 11/6/23
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.
posted on 11/6/23
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.
posted on 11/6/23
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.
posted on 11/6/23
I didn't say that a house could be bought in Chelsea in 1902 for a pound.
Very mature behaviour again.
posted on 11/6/23
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?
Page 3 of 3