6-1!!! to city

[Thinwhiteduke]

The reason I hate Man Utd?

That Jock Ferguson at the helm - simple as that.

[donnygreenjeans]

The reason I hate Man Utd?

That Jock Ferguson at the helm - simple as that.

100% agreed, the only time i like to hear his interviews is when they get beat.

[Chris]

Let me get this straight.

A bunch of over-paid tossers funded by American barrow boys lost to a bunch of overpaid t**ts funded by Arabic despots.

Someone care to remind me why I should give a f**k?

I don't think anyone cares if you don't give a shit.

Ahh, the pleasures of the Internet Age. How DID I cope before technology gave me the opportunity to experience the acerbic wit of a barely pubescent keyboard warrior?

No idea, maybe you could tell us next time people want a conversation about a game you happen not to care about.

[ruby12345]

30m ferdinand 30m rooney 20m jones 12m nani 18m de gea lose against a team who are buying the league.oh the irony

[Chris Black come back]

The reason I hate Man Utd?

That Jock Ferguson at the helm - simple as that.

100% agreed, the only time i like to hear his interviews is when they get beat.

Quite like Ferguson. Very similar to Wenger. Has built club entirely in his own image, yes loads splashed out on foreign players but over years loads of British and more importantly for them Manchester born players: Scholes, Butt, Giggs (check the history, almost), Wes Brown, Welbeck, Neville G, Neville P. You will never see Chelsea do similar. Also you've got to love his mafia style media management. Who else could settle a grudge over a perceived slight by the BBC by not speaking to them for best part of a decade!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Let me get this straight.

A bunch of over-paid tossers funded by American barrow boys lost to a bunch of overpaid t**ts funded by Arabic despots.

Someone care to remind me why I should give a f**k?

I don't think anyone cares if you don't give a shit.

Ahh, the pleasures of the Internet Age. How DID I cope before technology gave me the opportunity to experience the acerbic wit of a barely pubescent keyboard warrior?

No idea, maybe you could tell us next time people want a conversation about a game you happen not to care about.

Ahh, NOW I get it. Those posts before my first one were a conversation? Please accept the apologies of a confused old man.

In future I'll stick to my misty-eyed reminiscing about the days when football at the highest level wasn't just decided by whichever club had the richest billionaire in charge. You young uns clearly love it as it currently is, and think that it matters, so good luck to you.

[RedJ]

Something I thought about the other day was this: Manchester United only seemed to get really, really successful when Sky and the money men came into the game at the highest level. Up until then, there seemed to be real competition to me - anyone could get there, and anyone could beat anyone. These days, as Billy says, it's about the money. I wonder if it wasn't all entirely coincidental..

[ruby12345]

united have many times broken the transfer record in the 80s and 90s on the likes of ince pallister etc. the current utd squad contains 30m players such as rooney ferdinand berbatov. and numerous 10-20m signing like nani de gea valencia jones smalling. as soon as city dare to look remotley like challenging them they are buying the league.

[Chris Black come back]

united have many times broken the transfer record in the 80s and 90s on the likes of ince pallister etc. the current utd squad contains 30m players such as rooney ferdinand berbatov. and numerous 10-20m signing like nani de gea valencia jones smalling. as soon as city dare to look remotley like challenging them they are buying the league.

I hold no candle for any other club than Rovers but what you can say about United is that Ferguson has concentrated on developing British talent (particularly local talent) alongside foreign talent. Chelsea and Man City operate at the whim of foreign moneymen with no patience for building a club ethos. Just buying up the best set of mercenaries their deep pockets can afford to fund. A dreadful way to run a club...

[ruby12345]

joe hart micah richards joleyn lescott wayne bridge gareth barry adam johnson all english all play for city so a mixture of english foreign

[Chris Black come back]

joe hart micah richards joleyn lescott wayne bridge gareth barry adam johnson all english all play for city so a mixture of english foreign

My point was that Ferguson has developed a huge amount of young talent himself. You have listed a load of players of which to my knowledge only Richards came through the City youth ranks. The rest were bought in at mammoth cost. Ferguson spends huge amounts of money on British and foreign talent, but crucially devotes time and resources to bringing through youth himself. Neither Chelsea or City do this.

[vaya]

united have many times broken the transfer record in the 80s and 90s on the likes of ince pallister etc. the current utd squad contains 30m players such as rooney ferdinand berbatov. and numerous 10-20m signing like nani de gea valencia jones smalling. as soon as city dare to look remotley like challenging them they are buying the league.

I hold no candle for any other club than Rovers but what you can say about United is that Ferguson has concentrated on developing British talent (particularly local talent) alongside foreign talent. Chelsea and Man City operate at the whim of foreign moneymen with no patience for building a club ethos. Just buying up the best set of mercenaries their deep pockets can afford to fund. A dreadful way to run a club...

The 'developing British/local talent' thing is something that Ferguson tends to trot out now and then. In reality though:

Rooney - Everton
Ferdinand - West Ham
Smalling - Fulham
Young - Villa
Hernandez - Guadalajara
Jones - Blackburn
Evra - Monaco
etc etc

There's no diffeence between United or City, or most Premiership clubs - money talks.

[ruby12345]

yet his current squad exists of english players bought for over inflated prices i.e rooney smalling jones ferdinand and others such as valencia bought from teams like wigan who stood 0 chance of saying no to thier millions

[BillyStubbsTears]

Something I thought about the other day was this: Manchester United only seemed to get really, really successful when Sky and the money men came into the game at the highest level. Up until then, there seemed to be real competition to me - anyone could get there, and anyone could beat anyone. These days, as Billy says, it's about the money. I wonder if it wasn't all entirely coincidental..

No it wasn't co-incidental.

In the 20 years up to the Sky/Premiership  revolution, the following clubs finsihed in the top 3 of the old Div 1

Leeds
Man U
Sheff Weds
Arsenal
Liverpool
Crystal Palace
Villa
Spurs
Forest
Everton
West Ham
Southampton
Watford
Ipswich
West Brom
Man City
QPR
Derby

In the first 5 years of the Premier League, as the money was still not fully concentrated in the hands of the big boys, the following finished in the top 3:

Man Utd
Norwich
Villa
Blackburn
Newcastle
Forest
Liverpool
Arsenal

In the last 14 years, as the money and power has become totally concentrated, the following have finished in the top 3:
Arsenal
Man U
Liverpool
Chelsea
Leeds
Newcastle
Man City

In the last 8 years, 24 top three places have been up for grabs. These have been filled by Man U (8 times), Chelsea (8 times) Arsenal (4 times), Liverpool (3 times) and Man City (once).

The idea of genuine competition has been strangled out of the game, and replaced with a packaged-up business where mega-investment pretty much guarantees a place at the very top, and a place at the very top is impossible without mega-investment.

What does that have to do with sport?

And we end up in a situation where bairns are celebrating as some form of success, the fact that an \"underdog\" has broken into that top group after spending over half a billion quid on its squad.

It's sheer, utter, unadulterated, pointless shite, for people who have no f**king idea what the heart and soul of football are supposed to be. It's safe, predictable packaged up \"entertainment\" for the X-Factor generation.

[Thinwhiteduke]

Manchester born players: Scholes, Butt, Giggs (check the history, almost), Wes Brown, Welbeck, Neville G, Neville P.

.

Of which you should really be crediting Brian Kidd for the majority of those - not the bitter drunken Scot.

As for Fergusons problem with the BBC - that was due to the beeb exposing dodgy dealings involving his son

[ruby12345]

ha ha beat me too it vaya. its double standards of course. utd spend more money than anyone.now its citys turn they trot out the facts that they produced beckham neville years ago

[ruby12345]

and before city had any money they produced thier own such as paul lake gary flitcroft mike sheron joey barton shawn wright phillips. not as good as the man utd crop but talented in thier own right.

[Chris Black come back]

ha ha beat me too it vaya. its double standards of course. utd spend more money than anyone.now its citys turn they trot out the facts that they produced beckham neville years ago

Look, so everyone is absolutely clear, I don't give a toss for any of them. But in trying to find some molecule of soul amongst the top 4 then Ferguson has to be admired as he has yes he has SPENT HUGE AMOUNTS ON BRITISH AND FOREIGN TALENT but has also built up teams full of local lads which I will list again for impact: Scholes, Butt, Gary Neville, Phil Neville, Wes Brown, Ryan Giggs, Danny Welbeck. These are not just British players but Manchester players. Not bad going. And again, how many players have Chelsea and Man City brought through the youth ranks? I heard today that the last British player to come through Chelsea youth ranks was John Terry. If that is true, then that is a total disgrace given all the money they have spent.

[MrFrost]

Something I thought about the other day was this: Manchester United only seemed to get really, really successful when Sky and the money men came into the game at the highest level. Up until then, there seemed to be real competition to me - anyone could get there, and anyone could beat anyone. These days, as Billy says, it's about the money. I wonder if it wasn't all entirely coincidental..

No it wasn't co-incidental.

In the 20 years up to the Sky/Premiership  revolution, the following clubs finsihed in the top 3 of the old Div 1

Leeds
Man U
Sheff Weds
Arsenal
Liverpool
Crystal Palace
Liverpool
Villa
Spurs
Forest
Everton
West Ham
Southampton
Watford
Ipswich
West Brom
Man City
QPR
Derby

In the first 5 years of the Premier League, as the money was still not fully concentrated in the hands of the big boys, the following have finished in the top 3:

Man Utd
Norwich
Villa
Blackburn
Newcastle
Forest
Liverpool
Arsenal

In the last 14 years, as the money and power has become totally concentrated, the following have finished in the top 3:
Arsenal
Man U
Liverpool
Chelsea
Leeds
Newcastle
Man City

In the last 8 years, 24 top three places have been up for grabs. These have been filled by Man U (8 times), Chelsea (8 times) Arsenal (4 times), Liverpool (3 times) and Man City (once).

The idea of genuine competition has been strangled out of the game, and replaced with a packaged-up business where mega-investment pretty much guarantees a place at the very top, and a place at the very top is impossible without mega-investment.

What does that have to do with sport?

And we end up in a situation where bairns are celebrating as some form of success, the fact that an \"underdog\" has broken into that top group after spending over half a billion quid on its squad.

It's sheer, utter, unadulterated, pointless shite, for people who have no f**king idea what the heart and soul of football are supposed to be. It's safe, predictable packaged up \"entertainment\" for the X-Factor generation.

Not a lot. And neither do McKay's plans for the next two years.

[ruby12345]

i think you have a secret and its a red manchester one

[Chris Black come back]

and before city had any money they produced thier own such as paul lake gary flitcroft mike sheron joey barton shawn wright phillips. not as good as the man utd crop but talented in thier own right.

This is my point! When huge amounts of money are thrown in to the mix then any idea of developing talent is cast aside in favour of short term marquee signings.

Paul Lake was a fantastic player.

[Chris Black come back]

i think you have a secret and its a red manchester one

Hahahaha. Couldn't be further from the truth. Never watched a single other team than Rovers. Don't have Sky tv and don't watch premier league football. Was thinking of quoting Liverpool as an example but could only get as far as Gerrard, Carragher and the young laddy playing full back for them now. Fair amount of north Welsh talent over recent years but not scouse proper.

[Padge_DRFC]

Difference is Manchester United have paid for these players. A group of Arabs have bought City's team and a Russian bought Chelseas.

[Thinwhiteduke]

Whatever.

All I know is its great fun watching the crowd of red shirted gormless mongs staring in disbelief on MOTD2.

Almost as much fun as watching handfuls of Man Utd shirted supporters sat outside a pub in Bentley earlier with their heads in the hands.

[vaya]

Difference is Manchester United have paid for these players. A group of Arabs have bought City's team and a Russian bought Chelseas.

Young's transfer fee was paid for by public subscriptions from the sreets of Salford?

Seems a little unlikely.

[Spike]

Come on Willy McKay sell on some of our short term shit to help them out and get us a few quid in the process.

[ruby12345]

robbie fowler steve mcmanaman david thompson dominic matteo stephen wright martin kelly jay spearing john flanagan adam hammil jack robinson mike marsh. all played premiership football via liverpools academy and michael owen fairly local in chester

[ruby12345]

and an american billionaire bought utds players so whats your point? russian arab american whats the difference?

[hoolahoop]

ha ha beat me too it vaya. its double standards of course. utd spend more money than anyone.now its citys turn they trot out the facts that they produced beckham neville years ago

I suggest you check out your facts fella, City have spent nett to sales more in the last 3 years than Man U have spent in the last 10 years.
However you can also add to that list Liverpool and Chelsea who have also spent more over the last 10 years. You have probably forgotten the nurturing and sales of the likes of Ronaldo for example.
I would supply the link but i can't be arsed to correct an obviously biased set of assumptions.
I'm with BST on this one who has more than thrown your free-spending argument out of the window...........City have a fine team, were superb today but don't let facts get in the way of your ridiculous assertios eh. poor little City eh ?
He is right ALL these teams and the way they split the pot has more than destroyed our national game and has sent probably 60-70 clubs into near-penury whilst they shop abroad whilst largely ignoring the players that could have been bought from teams outside the Prem.
thus providing income to the like's of us.

[ruby12345]

utd had their time buying the best and winning then came chelsea now its citys turn.all 3 spent a shed load of cash to get that success meanwhile big football clubs like villa newcastle simply cant compete. i remember a time when qpr and watford and villa norwich had a more than reasnable chance of winning the league. also forest able to compete in domestic and european competition.sadly those days will never be seen again.