United will still win the league

[cmonurz]

FTR I prefer Man U (dislike the least?) of the top clubs because, by and large, they have always had the more exciting players and played the better football (not true this season I accept).

This fwiw. As a Liverpool fan boy I’m torn between United moving another league title clear of Liverpool, or it being won by an utterly soulless club in Manchester City. It’s like choosing between the rope and firing squad.

[Hoop Blah]

Agreed with most of the last few posts about how Man Utd have got where they are. The combination of trail blazing in Europe, the Munich crash, the Busby Babes, exciting football and the glamour of Best, Law and Charlton set them up nicely at a time when football was just hitting the big time thanks to TV.

They are the English glamour club.

Anything that happens these days just can't quite compete with that because it's a totally different environment clubs are competing in.

[blindedbythelights]

personally i could give a shiny shit whos spent money or how theyve got it, or indeed who ultimately wins it. Citeh have at least made it interesting coz for the neutral there's nothing duller than seeing Man Yoo/whoever winning the title with half a dozen games still to play

[Maguire]

personally i could give a shiny shit whos spent money or how theyve got it, or indeed who ultimately wins it. Citeh have at least made it interesting coz for the neutral there's nothing duller than seeing Man Yoo/whoever winning the title with half a dozen games still to play

Exactly.

Don't give a fack which of the top clubs wins - ideally you'd have five of them level on points going into the last game for a proper bit of viewing.

And they all spend millions of pounds, so get over it.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

I cannot stand Man Utd.

Half of the fanbase includes those who would mock you for supporting a smaller team, yet feel the need to comment on the performance from the comfort of the sofa or newspaper.

Mention famous players and they come out with 'Rafael or Michael Carrick'

At least when City were down in the basement divisions they still brought in biggish crowds. When we went to Manchester last year, you got the sense that City was a community club, a likeable club. The fans were good natured unlike United.

[Jerry St Clair]

^^^^^this

My Dad fits that bill exactly (he's a bit older, though)

add in the 1968 European Cup Final

I once worked with a guy from Romford who was at the 1958 FA Cup final when Utd lost 2-0 to Bolton three months after Munich. This game spawned the "Cockney Reds" - basically London turned out to to fill Wembley and support Man Utd. As this generation have passed their allegiance down to their kids you get the masses of southern based supporters that Man Utd are often admonished for.

[Ian Royal]

I used to hate Utd, but I think you've got to respect how successful they've been for so long.

I can't stand Chelsea, but somehow there's just something funny about the way City have bumbled along being in Utd's shadow for so long and then the comic way in which they've gone about things since getting money. They've been a bit comedy and have still given everyone a chance by having the likes of Tevez and Ballotelli blowing up and focusing so heavily on attack. They play entertaining football.

Chelsea were just a dull grinding machine. Terry and Cole far more hateful than Ballotelli and Tevez. Mancini far more likeable than Mourinho.

[TheMaraudingDog]

I cannot stand Man Utd.

Half of the fanbase includes those who would mock you for supporting a smaller team, yet feel the need to comment on the performance from the comfort of the sofa or newspaper.

Mention famous players and they come out with 'Rafael or Michael Carrick'

At least when City were down in the basement divisions they still brought in biggish crowds. When we went to Manchester last year, you got the sense that City was a community club, a likeable club. The fans were good natured unlike United.

Any idea how big Uniteds crowd was when we were out ogre
f the top flight?

I'll give you a clue...still the highest league average in Britain.

While City lost half of their crowd.

Leave football talk to the grown ups.

[Mr Angry]

I'm not a Man Utd fan, but some of the comments on here have been well out of order!

Man Utd, together with Liverpool, transcend football in a way that clubs like Chelsea, Man City and yes, Reading, can only ever dream about; anyone who thinks they are finished because of this rather embarrasing choke (probably for the only time since Sir Alex won the title for the first time) is delusional.

[floyd__streete]

this rather embarrasing choke (probably for the only time since Sir Alex won the title for the first time)

1997/98 was a chokeROFL too. Marc Overmars and all that.

Am I the only one who prefers United's game to City's, final day? Away to middle-of-the-road nonentities Sunderland, comfortable away win with half an ear on the score at Eastlands. Meanwhile back in Manchester, City's opponents QPR need the points just as much as City do, having wasted relative millions on tat.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I cannot stand Man Utd.

Half of the fanbase includes those who would mock you for supporting a smaller team, yet feel the need to comment on the performance from the comfort of the sofa or newspaper.

Mention famous players and they come out with 'Rafael or Michael Carrick'

At least when City were down in the basement divisions they still brought in biggish crowds. When we went to Manchester last year, you got the sense that City was a community club, a likeable club. The fans were good natured unlike United.

Any idea how big Uniteds crowd was when we were out ogre
f the top flight?

I'll give you a clue...still the highest league average in Britain.

While City lost half of their crowd.

Leave football talk to the grown ups.

So when was this time that City lost half their crowd after relegation?

[Franchise FC]

this rather embarrasing choke (probably for the only time since Sir Alex won the title for the first time)

1997/98 was a chokeROFL too. Marc Overmars and all that.

Am I the only one who prefers United's game to City's, final day? Away to middle-of-the-road nonentities Sunderland, comfortable away win with half an ear on the score at Eastlands. Meanwhile back in Manchester, City's opponents QPR need the points just as much as City do, having wasted relative millions on tat.

And the last six words are why no-one in sky blue is going to be worried at the weekend.

Not over-confident, just not worried.

[Mr Optimist]

I cannot stand Man Utd.

Half of the fanbase includes those who would mock you for supporting a smaller team, yet feel the need to comment on the performance from the comfort of the sofa or newspaper.

Mention famous players and they come out with 'Rafael or Michael Carrick'

At least when City were down in the basement divisions they still brought in biggish crowds. When we went to Manchester last year, you got the sense that City was a community club, a likeable club. The fans were good natured unlike United.

Any idea how big Uniteds crowd was when we were out ogre
f the top flight?

I'll give you a clue...still the highest league average in Britain.

While City lost half of their crowd.

Leave football talk to the grown ups.

So when was this time that City lost half their crowd after relegation?

City's season ticket holder numbers and average crowd both increased following relegation to the third tier in the late 90s. Man yoo's crowds grew after Munich.

[TheMaraudingDog]

We've another mongdiv. Citys average in the 90's = early 20's. now mid 40's.

Uniteds attendance in few years before 58 was on a par with those after.

[Mr Optimist]

We've another mongdiv. Citys average in the 90's = early 20's. now mid 40's.

Uniteds attendance in few years before 58 was on a par with those after.

Are you disputing the fact that in adversity in relegation to the thid tier for the first time in their history, their average attendance and season ticket numbers went up?

City were the better supported club in Manchester prior to Munich, another fact.

Resorting to name calling says it all.

[TheMaraudingDog]

Resorting to name calling beats making up facts.

City were averaging early 30s before Munich and United mid 40s.

[Franchise FC]

Resorting to name calling beats making up facts.

City were averaging early 30s before Munich and United mid 40s.

Oh, please.

You are entrenched in your position - so are we.
Nothing you can say will make anyone change their mind, likewise with you.

70 year old trivia means nothing - football was invented in 1992, just to provide enough money for Utd to win a league title at last.

[Mr Optimist]

Resorting to name calling beats making up facts.

City were averaging early 30s before Munich and United mid 40s.

Between the two world wars, which was before Munich, City averaged more than United for 16 of 21 seasons.

[Hoop Blah]

Resorting to name calling beats making up facts.

City were averaging early 30s before Munich and United mid 40s.

Utd's average in the 1950's up to the 57-58 season was 38k. 57-58 it was 53k, the following season it was 47k.

I think the point was more about the wider sympathy and support for the club though, not just match going fans.

For all those throwing supposed facts and figure around, it would add a bit of credibility to your argument if you could back it up a bit as personally I've no idea how accurate any of these claims are.

City are a well supported club, always have been really. Utd are much the same but their 'brand' is infinitely stronger and that's why they're the powerhouse they are these days.

For the record, my stat above comes from figures taken from this United website: http://red11.org/mufc/stats/attendances.htm

[LoyalRoyalFan]

Boring attendances

City are the better team.