United will still win the league

[sandman]

To be fair to them you need to spend the money on players to compete in the first place. As Coppell said when we were in the PL you need to spend a good amount to stay there for more than two or three seasons and that applies doubly so to challenge for the title.

This project:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14973123
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14975349

would suggest they are keen to develop their infrastructure which is more than you could say for Chelsea when Abramovich initially took over.

[Ginger Ninjas]

Tbf Man Utd have done really well to hang in there for so long.
With Jones and Smalling still very raw,Evans generally a handicap,the keeper shaky early on,Vidic injured,Schloes only playing for part of a season they still finish miles ahead of pretenders like Arsenal and Spurs-the same Spurs that idiots were suggesting in January could/would actually be Champions.
Man Utd have won quite a few games by the odd goal but fell short and in fact were rather embarrassing in the two games v City who have shown that they got a bit too casual mid-season and but for that might have won the league by a good ten points or so as at times they have been so far ahead of the rest.

I dislike Man Utd with a vengeance but respect how well they have done where IMHO they have won games when the opposition have been too scared to have a real go at them and whereas they may have tonked the 3rd(or 4th) placed team 8-2 they have also been stuffed 6-1 at home,been humiliated in the Champions League and Europa League and conceded 4 at home to Everton of all people,a result that seems to have put paid to their chances of winning the league.

With Marauding Dog and Kes we have two totally blinkered followers of other clubs but at least The Dog goes to games and I for one hope that he continues to post on here in the General Football section.

Normally don't agree with your postings VM (they're a bit too pro-L'pool for my liking ) but this is spot on

In very simplistic terms, you could argue that if Vidic had just played in the game at the Etihad Utd would've won the league as he may have marked Kompany properly.

[soggy biscuit]

In very simplistic terms, you could argue that if Vidic had just played in the game at the Etihad Utd would've won the league as he may have marked Kompany properly.

Had Yaya Toure not gone to the African Nations Cup etc etc

[comeonyouroyals]

In very simplistic terms, you could argue that if Vidic had just played in the game at the Etihad Utd would've won the league as he may have marked Kompany properly.

Had Yaya Toure not gone to the African Nations Cup etc etc

More than just Yaya if Tevez hadn't been a ass, if Ballotelli hadn't been a ass, if Kompany hadn't got injured etc etc

[rhroyal]

Never before has one of these been so apt

Maybe you could explain why

To be fair, Man Utd have built up their spending power through years of success, selling out a 76,000 seater stadium every and breeding support on every part of the globe.

People confuse their debt with deficits and bad management. Not so much the case (no more so than most clubs anyway). They've been bought out through a leveraged buyout, which basically means the Galziers financed their bid through debt and not equity. These can be controversial, as the business bought out is held as collateral for the debt. However, this doesn't suggest for a moment that Man Utd have built up masses of debt by spending beyond their means. And you can see why United fans protest (although PE firms get a lot of bad press they haven't entirely earned, which I won't go into).

[sheshnu]

I haven't got the figures to back this up (obviously), but it seems to me that when Man U spent more than everybody else they won the league, when Blackburn spent the most they won the league, when Chelsea spent the most they won the league. Now Man City are spending more than everybody else and will surely start winning league titles - doesn't matter to most neutrals where the money has come from and it's not even really a criticism, it's just the way it is. No point trying to vilify or defend clubs that do it through whatever means they can.

I do wonder how much money Zingaravich actually has, hopefully a bucketload.

[Franchise FC]

Never before has one of these been so apt

Maybe you could explain why

To be fair, Man Utd have built up their spending power through years of success, selling out a 76,000 seater stadium every and breeding support on every part of the globe.

People confuse their debt with deficits and bad management. Not so much the case (no more so than most clubs anyway). They've been bought out through a leveraged buyout, which basically means the Galziers financed their bid through debt and not equity. These can be controversial, as the business bought out is held as collateral for the debt. However, this doesn't suggest for a moment that Man Utd have built up masses of debt by spending beyond their means. And you can see why United fans protest (although PE firms get a lot of bad press they haven't entirely earned, which I won't go into).

I'm not confusing anything. There's no bad management, in fact the very opposite. But to say that they didn't 'buy' the title is at best misguided or misinformed.

[soggy biscuit]

Never before has one of these been so apt

Maybe you could explain why

To be fair, Man Utd have built up their spending power through years of success, selling out a 76,000 seater stadium every and breeding support on every part of the globe.

Yeah they just happened to have a 76,000 seater stadium from no where and the revenue from that gave them a winning team.

City are doing now what Utd did 20-25 years ago. Poach a successful foreign manager and break transfer records. Utd get a lot of support around the world now because they did that for years and years. If City keep doing what they are doing now for years then they will be successful and get lots of fans around the world

[rhroyal]

In the 80s it was far more possible to make up ground on the top teams through wise spending and good management. There is only one way to catch the top teams today, and it is ££££££.

Fergie built up a team over time, and almost got sacked in ensuring that he got it right. One of the defining squads of his era came almost entirely out of his academy.

I'm not undermining Man City's achievements; they have used the likes of Hart and Richards, whilst even Kompany was brought in relatively cheap at £6m and has been developed into a far better player than what they originally brought in. They have managed a lot of big name signings without letting egos get the better of them (Tevez saga aside). But they would not be where they are now without a hefty financial advantage at the outset, rather like Chelsea.

Man Utd invested wisely and allowed an excellent manager to do his job.

EDIT: I have no big issue with what City are doing. As alluded to by somebody else in this thread, they look like they want to invest for the future with academy investment and are trying to build a football club that can compete in the future. No issue with that. Just saying it's hard to compare it with what Man Utd did; completely different eras.

[manny96]

...and bullied their way financially and politically in helping to bring about the Premier League's inception. They cemented their place at the top of English football through money, not just good management, and thereby sold the rest of English football down the river.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Yeah they just happened to have a 76,000 seater stadium from no where and the revenue from that gave them a winning team.

City are doing now what Utd did 20-25 years ago. Poach a successful foreign manager and break transfer records. Utd get a lot of support around the world now because they did that for years and years. If City keep doing what they are doing now for years then they will be successful and get lots of fans around the world

Fergie was actually a flop for years at United. In his first four seasons they finished 11th, 2nd (a distant 2nd), 11th and 13th. The year after they were 6th, and it wasn't until his 6th season they looked like real contenders. They were big spenders, but they had the money to enable them to do so. They weren't bankrolled by anyone.

As for overseas support, Utd certainly have a "brand" that goes beyond pure success. The continued large support for Liverpool overseas - easily still Britain's 2nd most popular club overseas, shows it's not all about winning.


However, it is true that they have benefitted financially from the changes in the game in terms of finance, all of which have benefitted the rich, and made it easier for the rich to get richer, and widen the gap between themselves and the rest. Complaints about other clubs only winning because the are able to spend more, while different in reason, are still a bit rich.

[Hoop Blah]

Fergie built up a team over time, and almost got sacked in ensuring that he got it right. One of the defining squads of his era came almost entirely out of his academy.

Totally agree you can't really compare the growth and circumstances of the two clubs, but not sure I'd agree with the above statement. Which squad are you talking about?

I'd also endorse VM's view that what Fergie has got out of this squad, in an admittedly odd Premier League season, is a fantastic achievement. They still have some exceptional players, but it's a pretty weak squad when all's considered.

[soggy biscuit]

Fergie built up a team over time, and almost got sacked in ensuring that he got it right.

according to some rag journalists.

fans were booing him and chanting for him to lose his job but those who were employing him always said he was not going to and now state that it was never even discussed between them.

[rhroyal]

Fergie built up a team over time, and almost got sacked in ensuring that he got it right. One of the defining squads of his era came almost entirely out of his academy.

Totally agree you can't really compare the growth and circumstances of the two clubs, but not sure I'd agree with the above statement. Which squad are you talking about?

I'd also endorse VM's view that what Fergie has got out of this squad, in an admittedly odd Premier League season, is a fantastic achievement. They still have some exceptional players, but it's a pretty weak squad when all's considered.

I believe the one which famously led to "You'll win nothing with kids" from Alan Hansen, from which Scholes, Giggs, Neville and Beckham contributed to success for years.

[just some bloke]

If we don't, i won't post ever again.

Hope this is working out for you, you stupid fucking cunt.

[Hoop Blah]

Fergie built up a team over time, and almost got sacked in ensuring that he got it right. One of the defining squads of his era came almost entirely out of his academy.

Totally agree you can't really compare the growth and circumstances of the two clubs, but not sure I'd agree with the above statement. Which squad are you talking about?

I'd also endorse VM's view that what Fergie has got out of this squad, in an admittedly odd Premier League season, is a fantastic achievement. They still have some exceptional players, but it's a pretty weak squad when all's considered.

I believe the one which famously led to "You'll win nothing with kids" from Alan Hansen, from which Scholes, Giggs, Neville and Beckham contributed to success for years.

Oh right, the one that probably less than 50% of the actual playing squad was really from the their academy then (not that 5 or 6 players weren't a large part of the team for many years to come mind - a great achievement, but one they've not repeated)?

[floyd__streete]

As for overseas support, Utd certainly have a "brand" that goes beyond pure success.

In terms of brand-building, Munich was one of the best things ever to happen to MUFC.

I am not even attempting a despicable fishing escapade. Talk to football fans in their late 50s early 60s (and I know one or two people who fall into that bracket) and a good many will have a genuine United soft-spot due to the national outpouring of grief at the sudden loss of that superb young side. And as we know, parental influence often has influence over the future generation's choice of team. The Flowers of Manchester spawned an empathy across the country and around the world; out of tragedy came a genuine legacy which the club itself has marketed superbly over the past 20 years or so.

[LUX]

^^^^^this

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

add in the 1968 European Cup Final

[LUX]

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).

[Silver Fox]

I've never been a fan of man U, but I'd rather they won the league than Citeh, however i really want QPR to be relegated so I'm in something of a pickle WRT Sunday's Sky-hyped shenanigans