Swansea income £80 mill Utd income £290 mill..............................................nice level playing field, just as it should be.
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.
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.
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".
You'll have to elaborate on the buying titles theory. Who funded it? The Edwards? Jack Walker? The Glazers' bankers?
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 "
Most money is one thing , almost all of it is another. Premier League titles mean half as much ,in my eyes , compared to First Division ones. Just an opinion , we all have them .
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?
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
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?
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
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!
