Match Day Thread UTD v Taffs

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
the ex roofer said:
Never said any of that whatsoever , only said that you had more money to BUY titles , simple .
Teams like Everton and Villa had more titles the ManU till the Premier League , speaks volumes .
We will see how Man U does now that other teams have as much money to spend as you ....welcome to the "Leveller playing field "
Click to expand...

Swansea income £80 mill
Utd income £290 mill..............................................nice level playing field, just as it should be.
 
the ex roofer said:
It's a turbulent " Top 6 " group where teams are tripping all over themselves this season , like never before .United have an opportunity to actually win the title this season .Their biggest threat not to , is the pressure put on them by their own , and I use the word loosely , .....support .
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand. This isn't about the top 6, or the turbulent nature of the league, or even the fact we're losing or drawing games. What you are missing is it isn't simply the manager's job to put 11 men out on the pitch and say "there you go" and for the rest of us to shrug our shoulders and say "give it time". If it was that simple we'd all be earning millions managing PL football clubs. He has to demonstrate some degree of skill and craft and competence in his job.

I take it you agree that there is real potential in the squad of players we have? Barring a couple of positions on that pitch, I'm guessing you do from what you've posted earlier. What's frustrating is watching a guy taking a reasonably talented group of players and having them play like muck. His philiosophy is to contain footballers, to make them play a rigid system which stifles creativity. If we were seeing Van Gaal trying to manage the players in a way where they were developing to play to their full potential and there was some long term strategy clearly seen on the pitch, then nearly every United supporters I know would gladly accept the results we've had this season and also accept it will take time and maybe even a period without success. That really isn't the issue. You're making accusations but you have no idea of the support unless you've been going to our ground and have spoken to the supporters. Instead, what you've done is taken the usual soundbites about big club supporters and thrown it lazily at us without actually finding out the reasons for the disappointment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seabreeze and glazerfodder
LVG said he thought the first 30 minutes v Swansea was the best part of the game.

Here endeth the lesson. How anyone can defend this idiot's thinking is beyond me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ValleyGraduate12
Christiansmith said:
I thought LVG's methods were based on being pragmatic on our need to get results but it is now seemed that's his principled approach to football. He baffled me this weekend with his assertion that the first half was better than the second and that he felt that although the second half yielded the right outcome it was risky and worse than the first half.

FFS.


In Saturday’s first half against Swansea City Manchester United stank out Old Trafford. It is no exaggeration to say Louis van Gaal oversaw a display that felt poorer than the very worst of the David Moyes vintage two years ago. Not according to the Dutchman, though. United scored twice after the break to win the game yet Van Gaal said: “When we score goals and we create always chances, then it is a big difference because also, in this [press] room, a lot of journalists are saying the second half was better. I can say that it was not better.” In a particularly competitive field this goes down as one of the prime head-scratchers offered by Van Gaal. If goals and chances created are not the mark of a team playing better, then what is? Over to you, Louis. Jamie Jackson.


I couldn't have put it better.
Click to expand...
That's the guy who wrote the book I mentioned the other day. A proper hatchet job on Moyes and, as my brother put it, "a love letter to LVG".
 
the ex roofer said:
Are you one of a fleet of fans that think you're the only team with all the money these days like the first 15 seasons or so in the Premier and still think you must win all the time ,Those days are gone , you can't buy titles anymore so get use to earning titles with that shoe on the other foot .
Click to expand...
You'll have to elaborate on the buying titles theory. Who funded it? The Edwards? Jack Walker? The Glazers' bankers?
 
Stan said:
You'll have to elaborate on the buying titles theory. Who funded it? The Edwards? Jack Walker? The Glazers' bankers?
Click to expand...
Does it matter who funded it? Marketing I guess funded most of it , not the point .The point is you had so much money more than anyone during you're "Reign of Terror " and is the only way you were able to win titles .
Previous to the Premier League , when it comes to league titles , you were mediocre at best . Face it , you bought you're success when nobody else could . It's a different story now , there are four or five clubs that can buy it .
Made me laugh a bit when " The Russian " came along at Chelsea and the Man U forums came alive complaining about them having a "Sugar Daddy " funding them and how it wasn't "Proper "
 
the ex roofer said:
Does it matter who funded it? Marketing I guess funded most of it , not the point .The point is you had so much money more than anyone during you're "Reign of Terror " and is the only way you were able to win titles .
Previous to the Premier League , when it comes to league titles , you were mediocre at best . Face it , you bought you're success when nobody else could . It's a different story now , there are four or five clubs that can buy it .
Made me laugh a bit when " The Russian " came along at Chelsea and the Man U forums came alive complaining about them having a "Sugar Daddy " funding them and how it wasn't "Proper "
Click to expand...

He who has the most money in anything often wins

Welcome to a capitalist society
 
the ex roofer said:
Does it matter who funded it? Marketing I guess funded most of it , not the point .The point is you had so much money more than anyone during you're "Reign of Terror " and is the only way you were able to win titles .
Previous to the Premier League , when it comes to league titles , you were mediocre at best . Face it , you bought you're success when nobody else could . It's a different story now , there are four or five clubs that can buy it .
Made me laugh a bit when " The Russian " came along at Chelsea and the Man U forums came alive complaining about them having a "Sugar Daddy " funding them and how it wasn't "Proper "
Click to expand...
So it was unfair because United generated money to spend on transfers? No one stopped the other clubs from having a crack at the commercial market!

When do you consider our "Reign of Terror" to have taken place?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ValleyGraduate12
Stan said:
So it was unfair because United generated money to spend on transfers? No one stopped the other clubs from having a crack at the commercial market!

When do you consider our "Reign of Terror" to have taken place?
Click to expand...
Not going to go on repeating myself , it's not how you got the money , it's just that you had more than anyone else to buy you're titles . Good luck with your young team and old manager , they'll need it fighting against across the city money these days ....cheers
 
the ex roofer said:
Not going to go on repeating myself , it's not how you got the money , it's just that you had more than anyone else to buy you're titles . Good luck with your young team and old manager , they'll need fighting cross City money these days ....cheers
Click to expand...
When do you consider our "reign of terror" to have taken place?
 
the ex roofer said:
Well it certainly didn't happen prior to the Premier Stan .....lol.....cheers
Click to expand...
So I'm going to assume our "reign of terror" was the 90's post the start of the PL.

92/3 season
United total spend £2.3m, net spend £215k
Liverpool total spend £5.375m, net spend £3.075m

93/4 season
United total spend £3.85m, net spend £2.85m
Liverpool total spend £1.9m, net spend £1.1m

94/5 season
United total spend £8.25m, net spend £-3.98m
Liverpool total spend £17.1m, net spend £14.6m

95/6 season
United total spend £8.75m, net spend £2.9m
Liverpool total spend £4.5m, net spend £3m

96/7 season
United total spend £5m, net spend £500k
Liverpool total spend £14.35m, net spend £4.65m

97/8 season
United total spend £6.15m, net spend £-2.525
Liverpool total spend £4.95m, net spend £3.2m

98/9 season
United total spend £27.75m, net spend £25.95m
Liverpool total spend £12.05m, net spend £7m

Total United spend of £62.05m and a net spend of £25.91m
Total Liverpool spend of £60.225m and a net spend of £36.625m

United won 5 titles and a European Cup.
Liverpool didn't.

Do you want to chat about the money Fergie spent in comparison to Chelsea and City after the Glazers took over?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Treble, cytrax and Diego
the ex roofer said:
Does it matter who funded it? Marketing I guess funded most of it , not the point .The point is you had so much money more than anyone during you're "Reign of Terror " and is the only way you were able to win titles .
Previous to the Premier League , when it comes to league titles , you were mediocre at best . Face it , you bought you're success when nobody else could . It's a different story now , there are four or five clubs that can buy it .
Made me laugh a bit when " The Russian " came along at Chelsea and the Man U forums came alive complaining about them having a "Sugar Daddy " funding them and how it wasn't "Proper "
Click to expand...

Tbf Roof, yes Utd were the heavyweight spenders during the 90s had they wanted to be however it was their own money. Also, Giggsy, Butt, Scholes, Beckham and the Nev brothers didn't cost a penny so it's not really true that they bought their success a la Chelski and Man £ity.
 
You got Liverpool on the brain ...lol .
The Uniteds , Liverpools , Man City's , Real Madrids , Barcalonas , Milans , Munichs and such should have made that " Super League " and you could all swing you're money laden dicks at each other and left the rest "Unruined" .
I know if I was a fan of one of those clubs , I would be prouder of any accomplishments being a big fish winning in a big pond rather than a little one.
Money is spent on a lot more than just transfers Stan . I got to get out of here , sorry to bother all , and good luck
 
the ex roofer said:
You got Liverpool on the brain ...lol .
The Uniteds , Liverpools , Man City's , Real Madrids , Barcalonas , Milans , Munichs and such should have made that " Super League " and you could all swing you're money laden dicks at each other and left the rest "Unruined" .
I know if I was a fan of one of those clubs , I would be prouder of any accomplishments being a big fish winning in a big pond rather than a little one.
Money is spent on a lot more than just transfers Stan . I got to get out of here , sorry to bother all , and good luck
Click to expand...
You said the only reason we won titles was because we bought them. I've shown that to be bollocks as we weren't the biggest spending club in the league.

Probably best that you do make your exit as you've shown yourself up as ill informed and bitter!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back