Dodgy penalty and no red card in 5 mins... Bent as ****? Nah...just **** Arsenal innit ... PGMOL well played
Hey Cmon you still won that man city winning a case trophy this weekend. please log in to view this image
He will only give Wolves a free kick if he books one of the Wolves players at the same time, dodgy as **** this like.
The bit in bold is just made up, United paid well obviously but so did a lot of clubs during that period because a lot of clubs were then getting premier league and Sky money. I've never pretended United don't pay high, too high to some individuals, but allowing clubs to be ran by oil states allows them to pay whatever, and no other clubs can compete without the potential for going under. Other clubs can, and did, compete with us in the 90's, we weren't playing double what other clubs could pay but we did of course have some high earners. City currently pay Haaland £650k a week after tax. Instead of trying to force clubs into selling home grown talent to balance the books because they seemingly can't stop made up sponsorship, a simple solution is to have a league wide, Europe wide even, reasonable salary cap. I'm not saying bring it down to £50k a week or something, I'm saying cap it where non oil state clubs can also offer a decent competitive salary. They've completely lost their way in trying to police this and are failing utterly. I don't think there is a club out there wouldn't go down this route, as long as the cap wasn't stupid low, or high.
Considering you finished out of the top 6 last season and you’re out of the top 6 now, I’m not sure you’re in a position to make these comments.
Got no problem with it - if your club has the money then feel free - but linking that ability to spend to distinct financial parameters that favour those clubs that have already built commercial empires rather than simply - can your owners afford it? ... is just anti-competitive ... and contradicts how the big clubs evolved historically ... It's also a bit if a cosy, sepia- coloured myth, that United have always built organically for their periods of success ... Dennis Law was a British transfer record at the time - likewise Andy Cole and Rio Ferdinand ... all 3 were instrumental in hugely successful periods for the club - Angel di Mario, not so much! ... but still a British transfer record
Man Utd did have the highest wage bill in the 90’s. Liverpool were second. Then Chelsea went above you around 2004. Then City went above them about 10 year later. I just think it comes back to there’s always times when one or two teams can blow everyone else out of the water financially. That’s Chelsea, Man City and Newcastle in the here and now but Chelsea are ****e and don’t seem to be a big pull, at the moment. Newcastle United are still irrelevant to the world outside of Newcastle and just don’t have any pull. The football world has always accepted this and at some point this will change again and other teams will come to the fore. I certainly don’t support transfer or salary caps. They’ve never been part of the game and never should be introduced.
So were Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, Nicky Butt, Gary Neville, Phil Neville, Darren Fletcher, Wes Brown, David Beckham. Most of them also won the treble, and the cost **** all and were home produced. Clubs have bought players from other clubs since forever, it's not an exclusive to United and it's not really the argument, although you keep insisting on bringing it up. There have always been high transfer fees, and there always will be. City haven't been charged with buying expensive players, just in case you didn't know that. That's not breaking any rules. They've been charged with cooking the books, which is.
They have actually. It was Jimmy Hill who campaigned successfully to get rid of them. Like I said, footballers will still be minted, it's not as if the cap would be at a couple of grand a week.
