But they're the best team in the world, what with all that moneyTheMaraudingDog wrote:F*CK ALL!
Yes, City last won a major trophy in 76 and that’s 33 years ago but last nights defeat means their cabinet won’t be opened till next season at the earliest.
34 years F*CK ALL!
They will go bust in 5 yearsSchards#2 wrote:They will win the Premiership within 5 years.
Sadly, money talks.
It didn't for Kaka. The only players who will go there are one's like Bellamy and Bridge coming to the end of there careers looking for one last big pay day.Schards#2 wrote:They will win the Premiership within 5 years.
Sadly, money talks.
The new money took over during the transfer window when they were already out of the race for a champions league spot.Jackson Corner wrote:It didn't for Kaka. The only players who will go there are one's like Bellamy and Bridge coming to the end of there careers looking for one last big pay day.Schards#2 wrote:They will win the Premiership within 5 years.
Sadly, money talks.
Just 4 of those to go nowSchards#2 wrote:They will win the Premiership within 5 years.
Sadly, money talks.
...dirty cash I want you, dirty cash I need you so.Schards#2 wrote:They will win the Premiership within 5 years.
Sadly, money talks.
United have brought success, it happened at the beginning of the Premier League era. May not have been 10s of millions but they were outspending everyone around them.Harry Carry wrote:LOL @ Buying success, especially saying that about Man Utd. Chelsea did have a quicker rise to success, but you forget that they were there or there abouts in the League and they did win trophies prior to Abramovich taking over.
The didn't buy success though, they spent the 10s of millions because they earn't it by being, SUCCESSFUL.daswonder wrote:United have brought success, it happened at the beginning of the Premier League era. May not have been 10s of millions but they were outspending everyone around them.Harry Carry wrote:LOL @ Buying success, especially saying that about Man Utd. Chelsea did have a quicker rise to success, but you forget that they were there or there abouts in the League and they did win trophies prior to Abramovich taking over.
They spent quite heavily before Abramovich and didn't win the league.Harry Carry wrote:LOL @ Buying success, especially saying that about Man Utd. Chelsea did have a quicker rise to success, but you forget that they were there or there abouts in the League and they did win trophies prior to Abramovich taking over.
We're you in nappies or something?daswonder wrote:United have brought success, it happened at the beginning of the Premier League era. May not have been 10s of millions but they were outspending everyone around them.Harry Carry wrote:LOL @ Buying success, especially saying that about Man Utd. Chelsea did have a quicker rise to success, but you forget that they were there or there abouts in the League and they did win trophies prior to Abramovich taking over.
In 92 when they were outspending everyone they had only a FA Cup and Cup Winners Cup to their name in the previous 26 years.boy1985 wrote:The didn't buy success though, they spent the 10s of millions because they earn't it by being, SUCCESSFUL.daswonder wrote:United have brought success, it happened at the beginning of the Premier League era. May not have been 10s of millions but they were outspending everyone around them.Harry Carry wrote:LOL @ Buying success, especially saying that about Man Utd. Chelsea did have a quicker rise to success, but you forget that they were there or there abouts in the League and they did win trophies prior to Abramovich taking over.
LOLz at success. European Cup?Harry Carry wrote:LOL @ Buying success, especially saying that about Man Utd. Chelsea did have a quicker rise to success, but you forget that they were there or there abouts in the League and they did win trophies prior to Abramovich taking over.
See my post above.daswonder wrote:
In 92 when they were outspending everyone they had only a FA Cup and Cup Winners Cup to their name in the previous 26 years.
Does nobody understand when the Premier League began, not 95, not 96, not 97 but 1992.
What's the got to do with it?daswonder wrote: In 92 when they were outspending everyone they had only a FA Cup and Cup Winners Cup to their name in the previous 26 years.
Does nobody understand when the Premier League began, not 95, not 96, not 97 but 1992.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 35 guests