I'd call failing to beat Southampton at home a bit of a bottle job tbf. Can't expect to win the league if you can't beat the worst team in it. Chelsea and Leicester were the only other teams who didn't manage to beat us so that's the company they're keeping.
Isn't that from the film "trading places"? When I think of the storyline of the film that's the most apt reference you could make.
Thread banned. I'l let you back on when there's some decent football back, your Toon mates will have to remind me. So see you again in August.
Really? in relative terms? ... Manchester United spent £20 or £30 million on a defender (Rio) at a time when many clubs in the top 2 divisions hadn't made a seven figure transfer ... Liverpool 's current goalie cost 2 and half times our entire Premier League winning squad... but how very dare other clubs get in on the act eh? Is your Brokeback Mountain in the principality of Cloud Cuckoo Land by any chance? ... would explain a lot
To be fair doesnt seem to have annoyed you too much. You wanted city and their lottery money to win over united who made it themselves
Utd were always big spenders, but back when they spent that money on Rio, they were also winning pots and probably had one of the best commercial income streams of any club in the world. In essence they could afford to spend big, because they earned it. Trying to compare them to City who were nowhere and just lobbed £2bn at it, isn't even a viable comparison So no Flossy, again, it's not similar at all.
We've broken transfer records regularly, yes, but it was a big signing every other season. When we signed Ferdinand, he was that season's marquee signing. Similarly with Rooney etc. City were making huge signings two or three times per window, while they 'developed' this squad of theirs. But then I'd thought this was obvious. Otherwise, yeah, exactly the same.
It was financial doping at a different level. Most teams were owned by a rich supporter, then even richer fans bought clubs and pumped money in. Liverpool owned by Littlewoods when Trev the local haulage owner ran a Swindon for example. Blackburn spent a load of money to win the title. No different these days, we’re just talking ultra billionaires against multi multi millionaires
United were **** for most of the 70's and 80's, then got a massive cash injection after going to the city with a begging bowl, and bought their 90's success. Not really seeing much of a difference, other than City needing some business man to perform keepie-uppies at the Etihad.
