Football Season 2012/2013

[Murr]

Fantastic qualities? Just don't see it, and not many Everton fans do. They've done okay, but utterly dull football. I think this is such a bad decision by Man U, and I reckon history will prove that right.

 

As for average squad, why does it matter who I support? Does that mean I can't have an opinion on man u's squad because I also (presuming from your tone this is what you meant) support a team that's average with a few great players? I think it is average - Evans, stalling, cleverly, well beck, nano, Valencia, all average playe I wouldn't want anywhere near the spurs team. But that's always been ferries genius, balancing a squad of players and getting the best out of them. Some very average players have achieved gat success at Man U. That's down to fergie. That will be completely lost now.

 

As the man city parallel... Are you joking? You DO know the wages man city play these players yeah? Also, with the spending a billion in fees do you not think players see it as opportunity to win things? Hence deciding to join them? Got nothing to do with your point. Man U can't compete with fees or wages man city and Chelsea can offer. They now have a deeply unattractive manager. We'll see what happens I guess.

 

Look, if you're happy, great. I'd be dev estates and quite. To of Man U fans are, but a surprise amount are pleased. Bizarre.

 

 

 

 

3 of the players you called out from United's "Average" squad are England Internationals, and not just fringe players but 9 out of 10 times in the starting 11.

 

I'll agree this particular Manchester United squad doesn't compare with the treble winning 99 squad, or the dominant 3 years in a row winning the league squad with our awesome foursome of Tevez, Rooney, Berbatov & Ronaldo...

 

But to win the league so early and by such a great point margin kinda implies that the current squad isn't too bad does it? Hows that Champions League football looking for you?

 

 

And as @Ramar said United's income is just fine at the moment. The one thing the Glazers have done to United is make them a business as well as a football club. Sponsorships from various companies globally, they've got a training kit sponsor worth as much as other teams main kit sponsorship.

 

If anything they are in a better position than City & Chelsea with regards to Uefas financial fair play rule. Yes we're in debt, but wiping bit by bit off each year after year.

[dazzybee]

Wrong. Man Utd have by far the best commercial revenue in the league (possibly world football). They piss all over everyone else. Check into how many deals with telecom companies around the world they have.

 

Man Utd's commercial revenue gives them enough clout to compete with wages and transfers.

 

No it isn't wrong. Yes they are the biggest club in the world, but that can't and ultimately WON'T compete with Man City and Chelsea; they won't be the ridiculous wages of those teams. If you think they will, how come they haven't?!?!

 

I disagree , yet again, with Dazzy. Spurs would be lucky to have cleverly, nani, valencia. Besides you say it is a squad of average players yet only named a small number of substitutes!

 

As for competing on wages, I agree with Tamar.

 

Utter cack, Man U more than any team absolutely rotate the majority of their squad, look how many CD partnerships they've had, midfield combinations.

 

We wouldn't be llucky in the slightest to have them players. But if you rate them, fair enough. I still believe this season has been Fergies genius and not anything to do with their squad, man city and chelsea have FAR superior squads

 

 

 

 

3 of the players you called out from United's "Average" squad are England Internationals, and not just fringe players but 9 out of 10 times in the starting 11.

 

I'll agree this particular Manchester United squad doesn't compare with the treble winning 99 squad, or the dominant 3 years in a row winning the league squad with our awesome foursome of Tevez, Rooney, Berbatov & Ronaldo...

 

But to win the league so early and by such a great point margin kinda implies that the current squad isn't too bad does it? Hows that Champions League football looking for you?

 

 

And as @Ramar said United's income is just fine at the moment. The one thing the Glazers have done to United is make them a business as well as a football club. Sponsorships from various companies globally, they've got a training kit sponsor worth as much as other teams main kit sponsorship.

 

If anything they are in a better position than City & Chelsea with regards to Uefas financial fair play rule. Yes we're in debt, but wiping bit by bit off each year after year.

 

Your first point is true, tell that to ellie who said they're sub players I mentioned. And I don't care if they're ENgland internationals, it shows how weak we are to be honest. Heskey was also an international, crouch, jeans, hundreds of average players.

 

Why bring it back to who I support? What's that got to do with Man U? Seems to be a common "defence" from people here, weird. But at least you agree the squad isn't a patch on previous ones, or on city or chelsea either. Fact is, if Fergie wasn't managing Man U this season they wouldn't have won it. Also, look back at the beginning of the season on here, I was one of the ONLY people who said Man U would absolutely dominate the league this year; everyone was creaming over Chelsea, especially when they won their first batch of games, and I said Chelsea would struggle and Di matteo would be sacked; I'm not saying Man U are shit; just Fergie makes them over achieve, it's more of a compliment than anything. And ultimately, obviously depending on summer signings, Moyes will struggle with (relatively).

 

As for finances, I agree with all that, I always defend Man U being run properly and have all that money because of SUCCESS not by winning the lottery. But that doesn't escape the FACT that Chelsea and Man City have spent more than Man U on transfers and wages by an insane amount. I'm staggered anyone is arguing this point when it's an absolute fact. (this whole point was explaining why players went to Man City after Flink said people went to them with Manciini not achieving anything, and i said, yeah, because of money; they can and will offer more money than man u)

 

And nothing will please me more if the FPP actually works. Chelsea and city disgust me to the core.

 

On a related note, I had a bit of a twitter debate with Chris Schilling (journalist of IGN, ONM, CVG etc) he supports city and he was slagging off the FPP saying the only chance clubs have of competing are winning the lottery and buying success. UNBELIEVABLE!!!! Teams can build and grow PROPERLY. I can't believe anyone would endorse the insane investment route in football, it kills it!!!

[Mokong]

I still believe this season has been Fergies genius and not anything to do with their squad, man city and chelsea have FAR superior squads

 

 

Sorry Dazzy, but what "genius" from Fergie do you mean that won them league that has nothing to do with the squad?

 

He picks the squad and the squad wins the games?

 

If Man City and Chelsea have "FAR" superior squads how come they weren't able to keep up with United and bring the title race to the last day..... or win it themselves 4 games before the end like Man U have done?

 

I also don't see what relevence rotating the squad has.... I'd see that more like having more quality players able to come in when others are injured/suspended/need a rest, without deminishing the squads overall performance which again by how early they won the league should be evident?

[Charlie]

No it isn't wrong. Yes they are the biggest club in the world, but that can't and ultimately WON'T compete with Man City and Chelsea; they won't be the ridiculous wages of those teams. If you think they will, how come they haven't?!?!

 

Robin van Persie sends his regards from the red side of Manchester.

[MadDog]

I love how dazzybee calls Ellmeister ellie. :p

[dazzybee]

Sorry Dazzy, but what "genius" from Fergie do you mean that won them league that has nothing to do with the squad?

 

He picks the squad and the squad wins the games?

 

If Man City and Chelsea have "FAR" superior squads how come they weren't able to keep up with United and bring the title race to the last day..... or win it themselves 4 games before the end like Man U have done?

 

I also don't see what relevence rotating the squad has.... I'd see that more like having more quality players able to come in when others are injured/suspended/need a rest, without deminishing the squads overall performance which again by how early they won the league should be evident?

 

WHAT!??! So you believe that the squads with the best players are the ones who do the best? How ridiculous! Do chelsea have a squad only marginally better than Spurs (and maybe not at all come end of season?!) - they've spent 500m over the past 10 years; they have an infinitely better squad; chelsea finished 6th last year, did they have the 6th best squad?!?!

 

It's like you're saying the manager isn't that important and it's all about the squad which is just plain preposterous.

 

Robin van Persie sends his regards from the red side of Manchester.

 

Man City offered him far superior wages than what Man U are paying him. What's your point? I don't understand.

Edited May 10, 2013 by dazzybee
Automerged Doublepost

[Charlie]

Man City offered him far superior wages than what Man U are paying him. What's your point? I don't understand.

 

That players will still choose Man Utd over City/Chelsea regardless of money.

[Murr]

No it isn't wrong. Yes they are the biggest club in the world, but that can't and ultimately WON'T compete with Man City and Chelsea; they won't be the ridiculous wages of those teams. If you think they will, how come they haven't?!?!

 

I dunno man...

Rooney = £250,000 a week

RVP = £235,000 a week

Rio = £125,000 a week

We doubled Kagawa's wage to £50,000 a week when we signed him.

 

Not suggesting that other teams couldn't offer these wages or more, but United can be competitive in the wages department if needs be to sign players.

 

And with regards to transfers splashing out £31m for Berbatov, £20m for Anderson, £20m for Nani, 24m for RVP...

 

Again shows there is money to spend when deemed necessary or worth it in the eyes of Sir Alex. But more often than not the squad doesn't need as large an investment as other clubs which is pretty much proven given their success in the last x years compared to other premier league teams.

 

In one season united singed Hargreaves, Anderson & Nani for £60m. Money was there, Fergie deemed it worthy.

(I Personally don't think Anderson or Nani were worth £20m for the record)

 

 

 

Your first point is true, tell that to ellie who said they're sub players I mentioned. And I don't care if they're ENgland internationals, it shows how weak we are to be honest.

 

Again I fail to see how having footballers of International status on a club sub bench is a bad thing? If the United sub bench is made up of established international footballers, then just how strong is the starting 11?

 

 

 

WHAT!??! So you believe that the squads with the best players are the ones who do the best? How ridiculous! So ridiculous... Do chelsea have a squad only marginally better than Spurs (and maybe not at all come end of season?!) - they've spent 500m over the past 10 years; they have an infinitely better squad; chelsea finished 6th last year, did they have the 6th best squad?!?!

 

I Can't believe what I'm reading. If the squad finish first.... then yes they are the best squad! isn't that obvious. Over the course of 38 games, surely the final table is enough evidence to prove this?

 

Manchester City have a squad list full of big names, but they clearly aren't as good as Manchester United or they would of gone all the way to the final day this season wouldn't they?

 

 

Last season the title was won in the final minutes of the final day, so again doesn't that give an indication that the United squad was on par with City if it took all 38 games (and 4 minutes additional time) to separate them?

 

 

I do understand your point, if you look at a squad list on paper you'd fancy Chelsea's squad over Spurs based on the players on that list. But the names on the list don't mean that on match day they'll play any better.

[dazzybee]

That players will still choose Man Utd over City/Chelsea regardless of money.

 

Yeah, because of Fergie. I agreed with that and actually said that. What i said I believe that will stop happening now Moyes is manager.

 

@Murr

Man U spend a lot of money, they pay big wages, I've never denied it; but the don't pay as much as Chelsea or Man City; I don't understand how this is a debate. It's a fact.

 

As for internationals on the bench... well most teams in the top half have internationals on the bench. I don't rate those players I mentioned, I don't care they're internationals, I don't think Cleverley, Welbeck SHOULD be ENgland internationals.

 

As for the squad issue, this is getting silly now. I just find it incredibly simplistic to say Man U have the best squad of players because they won the league. Saying Fergie has no imput whatsoever. I find this utterly ridiculous. Did Chelsea have the 6th best squad in the premiership last season behind spurs, arsenal and newcastle?!!? NO! But in your thinking they must have because that's where they finished.

 

Though I agree with your final point, that is kind of MY WHOLE POINT; on paper, squads achieve so much, the most important as how they work together and that is the manager; and this Fergies genius.

 

I think people here are completely underestimated the importance of a manager. It's madness.

Edited May 10, 2013 by dazzybee
Automerged Doublepost

[Ramar]

Man U spend a lot of money, they pay big wages, I've never denied it; but the don't pay as much as Chelsea or Man City; I don't understand how this is a debate. It's a fact.

 

Classic dazzy move the goalposts. We've gone from "Man Utd can't compete with Man City/Chelsea's wages" to "Man Utd don't pay as much as Chelsea or Man City".

 

The first is incorrect, the second is correct but only because they don't need to. They can pay the same sums, they don't have to because they tend not to attract the same level of mercenary tossers that the other two do.

 

Man City £202M

Chelsea £171M

Man Utd £160M

 

The difference between Man Utd and Chelsea? ~£200k a week, so that's one or two top tier players. Man City are far ahead because they've got a ridiculous amount of bench warmers on top dollar. Something Man Utd doesn't.

[Mokong]

WHAT!??! So you believe that the squads with the best players are the ones who do the best? How ridiculous! Do chelsea have a squad only marginally better than Spurs (and maybe not at all come end of season?!) - they've spent 500m over the past 10 years; they have an infinitely better squad; chelsea finished 6th last year, did they have the 6th best squad?!?!

 

It's like you're saying the manager isn't that important and it's all about the squad which is just plain preposterous.

 

 

 

On paper big names are big names. A bunch of great individual players does not automatically mean a great team on the whole. That is what the league positions is showing.

 

In Man U's case they proved they are the better team over the course of a full 38 games (or rather 34)

 

To say one team is "FAR Superior" to others based on a list of great indiviual players is just as silly.

 

Never said Fergie had "Nothing" to do with this. Of course he did. He trained the team, selected the team and worked on tactics, etc. But to say their success this year is not related to the players he had is just as silly. If he had a weaker group of players all the genius management in the world wouldn't have provided the same results.

 

Spending X amount of millions on big name players doesn't always equate to a "superior" Team. If it did then the champsions would always be the team that spent the most during transfer windows.

 

Remember that year when Fergie sold the likes of Mark Hughes and Paul Ince one summer, spent nothing and brought in a bunch of "kids". People said he'd win nothing that year that other teams would do better cause they bought in newer better players.... I think Man U won the double that year?

 

 

You can't judge a team on the individual players within it but on the sum of the players that make up that team. You say "on paper" Chelsea have a team that is better than being 6th best in the Prem. Maybe on the individual meritts of each player, maybe. But over the course of a 38 game season that is the measure of a team as a whole.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Mokong

[Murr]

That is exactly what I was trying to get across in my post too, the table shouldn't lie after 38 games.

[Clownferret]

just to chip in here on the financial side of football. If it wasn't for Abramovich and the Arabs the Premiership would be like Scotand with Man Utd winning every season, apart from Man Utd fans does anybody really want that?

Yes Chelsea and Man City have obviously benefited from the huge amounts of money poured into the clubs, but so has the Premiership in general and all the other clubs also. Firstly, the Premiership is regarded as the best and most competitive league in the world and attracts all the top players and secondly, the money that Chelsea and Man City spend on transfers benefits the selling clubs. When Chelsea paid £20+ million for SWP it wiped out half of Man City's debt at the time, likewise Charlton, Blackburn & West Ham all received massive transfer fees for players which enabled them to reduce their debts. Whether you like it not some clubs are buying clubs and some clubs are selling clubs and selling clubs quite often rely on cashing in on their best players, if the rich clubs are stopped from buying players from the poorer clubs, the rich clubs will still be rich but we will see a lot more of the poorer clubs sliding into administration and less top foreign stars coming to the Prem.

[Murr]

just to chip in here on the financial side of football. If it wasn't for Abramovich and the Arabs the Premiership would be like Scotand with Man Utd winning every season, apart from Man Utd fans does anybody really want that?

 

I can't argue with the fact that it does help the smaller clubs in the league and the premier league in general having wealthy owners in the game.

 

But I don't think it'd of been a one horse race every season had they not of arrived.

 

Arsenal have given Manchester United competition for many seasons, as have other teams before the 'Russians and Sheikhs' came over.

 

Newcastle were running away with the league one season, Keegan com-busts and United won.

 

Liverpool were very close to pipping United in one of the more recent seasons and finished 2nd ahead of Chelsea who had at that point already spent a hefty amount. Actually looking at that year on Wikipedia that was the year Manchester City were bought out and Robinho joined them.

 

Not to say that Liverpool weren't financially backed in that season, but they didn't have as much money as Chelsea or Man City thrown at them.

[Jon]

As much as I love jumping on the Utd buying success bandwagon (and they did). You only have to point what Fergy did at Aberdeen with a squad full of Scots. What he achieved there was unheard off.

[Clownferret]

I can't argue with the fact that it does help the smaller clubs in the league and the premier league in general having wealthy owners in the game.

 

But I don't think it'd of been a one horse race every season had they not of arrived.

 

Arsenal have given Manchester United competition for many seasons, as have other teams before the 'Russians and Sheikhs' came over.

 

Newcastle were running away with the league one season, Keegan com-busts and United won.

 

Liverpool were very close to pipping United in one of the more recent seasons and finished 2nd ahead of Chelsea who had at that point already spent a hefty amount. Actually looking at that year on Wikipedia that was the year Manchester City were bought out and Robinho joined them.

 

Not to say that Liverpool weren't financially backed in that season, but they didn't have as much money as Chelsea or Man City thrown at them.

 

Arsenal stopped being a genuine contender once the stadium move kicked in.

Newcastle had one crack at it but that was years ago before the Sky riches really started to kick in and likewise with Liverpool they had one good season.

The fact of the matter is the last 9 prem champions have been Man Utd x 5, Chelsea x 3 & Man City x 1 and in every year Man Utd did not win the league they were runners up, so without the Chelsea & City money Man Utd would have won the league for the last 9 seasons.

[Jon]

Arsenal stopped being a genuine contender once the stadium move kicked in.

Newcastle had one crack at it but that was years ago before the Sky riches really started to kick in and likewise with Liverpool they had one good season.

The fact of the matter is the last 9 prem champions have been Man Utd x 5, Chelsea x 3 & Man City x 1 and in every year Man Utd did not win the league they were runners up, so without the Chelsea & City money Man Utd would have won the league for the last 9 seasons.

 

The common denominator with those three sides?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dazzybee]

On paper big names are big names. A bunch of great individual players does not automatically mean a great team on the whole. That is what the league positions is showing.

 

In Man U's case they proved they are the better team over the course of a full 38 games (or rather 34)

 

To say one team is "FAR Superior" to others based on a list of great indiviual players is just as silly.

 

Never said Fergie had "Nothing" to do with this. Of course he did. He trained the team, selected the team and worked on tactics, etc. But to say their success this year is not related to the players he had is just as silly. If he had a weaker group of players all the genius management in the world wouldn't have provided the same results.

 

Spending X amount of millions on big name players doesn't always equate to a "superior" Team. If it did then the champsions would always be the team that spent the most during transfer windows.

 

Remember that year when Fergie sold the likes of Mark Hughes and Paul Ince one summer, spent nothing and brought in a bunch of "kids". People said he'd win nothing that year that other teams would do better cause they bought in newer better players.... I think Man U won the double that year?

 

 

You can't judge a team on the individual players within it but on the sum of the players that make up that team. You say "on paper" Chelsea have a team that is better than being 6th best in the Prem. Maybe on the individual meritts of each player, maybe. But over the course of a 38 game season that is the measure of a team as a whole.

 

Okay, but we're saying exacrtly the same thing; I was saying their squad isn't as good as others; not team, their squad, which means players, not how they work ptgether, but the individuals that make it up. My argument is that Fergies genius is he can create an amazing team out of not having the greatest squad. HE is the difference, not the strength of the squad. Which you seemed do disagree with before, but now seem to be agreeing with.

 

I was saying Fergie was amazing; you QUESTIONED why I said he was a genius, and have now just confirmed everything I said.

 

That is exactly what I was trying to get across in my post too, the table shouldn't lie after 38 games.

 

ARGH!!!! I agree, the table doesn't lie, but the table doesn't represent who has the best players which is what you lot seem to be suggesting!!!! Oh my god!!! Fuck me. MY WHOLE POINT WHICH PEOPLE DISAGREED WITH was that Fergie is the difference, he adds in insane amount to the squad, he is working with an inferior squad than chelsea andf man city and still abttered the league, which I predicted (again most people disagreed with me at the beginning of the season) BECAUSE HE IS AN AMAZING MANAGER!!!!

 

Classic dazzy move the goalposts. We've gone from "Man Utd can't compete with Man City/Chelsea's wages" to "Man Utd don't pay as much as Chelsea or Man City".

 

The first is incorrect, the second is correct but only because they don't need to. They can pay the same sums, they don't have to because they tend not to attract the same level of mercenary tossers that the other two do.

 

Man City £202M

Chelsea £171M

Man Utd £160M

 

The difference between Man Utd and Chelsea? ~£200k a week, so that's one or two top tier players. Man City are far ahead because they've got a ridiculous amount of bench warmers on top dollar. Something Man Utd doesn't.

 

Wouldn't say that's moving the goalposts, but I do agree with that, in theory Man U could compete, but any club could; it would put them in financial jeopardy and simply won't happen. If Cheslea, Man City and Man u all went for the same player, Man U would offer them the lowest wages. Chelsea have calmed down the past few years (well they did enough work the first few) but man city would still blow Man U out of the water.

[Ramar]

It really wouldn't put them in financial difficulty. Kagawa was paid for completely by two commercial deals struck that summer. He literally cost them nothing except for endorsing some Chinese paint company.

[Nintendohnut]

Indeed, I'm not sure where your getting your information from, Dazzy. City and Chelsea have money from their owners, and there is a lot of it, but just because United don't have rich owners doesn't mean they don't have money. They make their money as a business, selling the brand and endorsing companies, and because of that they have just as much money to throw around as City and Chelsea. In the last few years they haven't had to do that, because players respect the club and know that it is an honour to play for the club. They choose United over City because the two clubs offer completely different environments, and many players prefer the United environment. However, the fact that they haven't had to pay top dollar for all their signings has meant they could pay off some of the debt brought into the club by the Glazers. They have been making profit regularly.

 

If Fergie leaving changes the feeling around the club slightly, they will spend some of that profit on boosting the squad. They may not pay off the debt so quickly, but they will maintain their form and continue to be successful, ensuring that the club as a business continues to thrive. They will compete with City and Chelsea if they have to. I don't think they will, though - Alex Ferguson was not Manchester United. He was a very important part of it, but the club was bigger than him and it always will be.

 

Business, biatch.

 

(I typed this entire post on an iPad and didn't make many mistakes, if any. It's not hard, Dazzy!)

[bob]

You spelt bitch wrong.

[Nintendohnut]

Lamb it. Thets rally annoy ging.

[dazzybee]

Indeed, I'm not sure where your getting your information from, Dazzy. City and Chelsea have money from their owners, and there is a lot of it, but just because United don't have rich owners doesn't mean they don't have money. They make their money as a business, selling the brand and endorsing companies, and because of that they have just as much money to throw around as City and Chelsea. In the last few years they haven't had to do that, because players respect the club and know that it is an honour to play for the club. They choose United over City because the two clubs offer completely different environments, and many players prefer the United environment. However, the fact that they haven't had to pay top dollar for all their signings has meant they could pay off some of the debt brought into the club by the Glazers. They have been making profit regularly.

 

If Fergie leaving changes the feeling around the club slightly, they will spend some of that profit on boosting the squad. They may not pay off the debt so quickly, but they will maintain their form and continue to be successful, ensuring that the club as a business continues to thrive. They will compete with City and Chelsea if they have to. I don't think they will, though - Alex Ferguson was not Manchester United. He was a very important part of it, but the club was bigger than him and it always will be.

 

Business, biatch.

 

(I typed this entire post on an iPad and didn't make many mistakes, if any. It's not hard, Dazzy!)

 

It's like people don't read my posts. I've never said Man U don't have money, I have said they are the biggest club in the world, I have said they pay a lot of money for players and on plays wages... All I said was they cannot compete financially with man city. Don't agree with this bit, okay, but don't keep saying all the other stuff to prove a point when I've already said it.

 

Cain also say, that I mean this as a positive to Man U, certain Man U fans seem a ttle defensive (I know not all of you are Man U fans have commented). I see Man U as being a club run properly, a club that is massive because of success, a club where they don't need to spunk 500 million on players because their management and set up can get the best of the team and have a phenomenal mentality, it's all a good thing. Fact is Man U have spent less than spurs net from 92-2010. Manu don't spend insane amounts of money on players or on their wages. People can pull on transfer out if they want,but the facts are Man U haven't spent close to city, and like I say haven't spent more than a surprising amount of clubs.

 

But you know what, this was a small point (which some seem to have cling onto) about fergie as a whole. But fine. So here thinks Man U can compete with man city financially? That's what everyone is saying? Bizarre. But okay.

[jayseven]

I don't see why that's an issue though, Dazzy. They can't compete with City financially... so they pay less money and win more trophies... so why bother 'competing'? It's the silverware that attracts the names that you want playing for your team.

 

Your point of "fergie won it with his magic" is... little else than stating some elements of obviousness. But as much as you want to praise Ol' Alec it's only fair to highlight the ineffectiveness of the rival managers that cannot come close, despite an increased budget.

 

So here thinks Man U can compete with man city financially? That's what everyone is saying? Bizarre. But okay.

I think people are merging two arguments here.

 

1. Man U do, financially, earn a buttload of dosh that surpasses Man City's income.

2. Man City are, financially, more willing to throw money at players.

 

Dazzy you are just highlighting City's lack of care of balancing their payload. It's not necessarily a positive, just a statement, or an observation.

 

Going forwards it may be an issue with Man U potentially having a shaky season under new management, but the point the others are making is that Man U can turn on the money tap down the line if they needed to. But they don't right now. They're winning things. So why bother?

 

Chelsea can spend £50m on torres, while Man U can spend half that on Van Persie. Which was the smarter deal?

[dazzybee]

I don't see why that's an issue though, Dazzy. They can't compete with City financially... so they pay less money and win more trophies... so why bother 'competing'? It's the silverware that attracts the names that you want playing for your team.

 

Your point of "fergie won it with his magic" is... little else than stating some elements of obviousness. But as much as you want to praise Ol' Alec it's only fair to highlight the ineffectiveness of the rival managers that cannot come close, despite an increased budget.

 

 

I think people are merging two arguments here.

 

1. Man U do, financially, earn a buttload of dosh that surpasses Man City's income.

2. Man City are, financially, more willing to throw money at players.

 

Dazzy you are just highlighting City's lack of care of balancing their payload. It's not necessarily a positive, just a statement, or an observation.

 

Going forwards it may be an issue with Man U potentially having a shaky season under new management, but the point the others are making is that Man U can turn on the money tap down the line if they needed to. But they don't right now. They're winning things. So why bother?

 

Chelsea can spend £50m on torres, while Man U can spend half that on Van Persie. Which was the smarter deal?

 

Completely agree, I think I am stating the obvious, but people are denying it. I was saying Man U are so successful because of fergie, people argued against it and that they have the best squad.the whole point was with fergie gone, Man U will struggle without him.

 

But my whole point wasn't an attack, just stating obvious facts,but everyone seemed to argue against it. I'm not saying one is better than the other. If act I clearly stated Man U are much better! Read the whole debate and you'll see what I mean.

 

I slagged of city the way they operate and praised Man U. But just said that's the way it is.