Match Day Thread General matchday thread.

  • 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!
Diego said:
So not really a bottle job then if City suddenly hit form?
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock and Big Ern
Libby said:
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.
Click to expand...

Big Nathan Jones stopped the quadruple so United fans should really be grateful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Libby
ToonArmy1892 said:
Man Utd fans are probably the most arrogant, aggressive fans i've seen in Newcastle.

Most other fans are game for a laugh, bit of banter and you can have normal discussion with.

Man Utd fans come up thinking they are better than everyone and everything.

You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...

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. <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: haslam and Spurlock
PINKIE said:
Not on the scale of Chelsea and City.

So no, not similar at all <laugh>
Click to expand...

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 <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Ern
KingHotspur said:
It’s not just the amount they’ve spent, it’s how they came to get their money that annoys me. Other clubs of course spent big but they got their money in a more authentic way.
Click to expand...

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
 
FosseFilberto said:
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 <laugh>
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haslam, Treble, KingHotspur and 1 other person
FosseFilberto said:
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 <laugh>
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haslam and Diego
haslam said:
Some fans prefer the romance of the old days before financial doping meant having the money to buy the best players. Back then it was just bribing referees or opposition players to help you win trophies. Simpler times.
Click to expand...
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: haslam and Big Ern
PINKIE said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back