CuteMancs wrote:Another story today, this time from The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... nders.html
Worth a read...
failsworthblue wrote:CuteMancs wrote:Another story today, this time from The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... nders.html
Worth a read...
A bitter Arsenal fan who is brought on Talkshite every week by piss pot Brazil and the failed cricketer Irani who think that everything he says is real.
He stated the scum were actually better off with the debt and could afford to spend £70mil a year on players>
says it all
MARKMAKAVELI wrote:Never usually get into it with United fans but this is from facebook...Just click on it to zoom
IanWright wrote:You know, the most telling statistic on that entire article is the fact that the Rags spent £6.75mil on Pallister, Webb, Phelan, Ince and Wallace. This was BEFORE they had even won a league title. I'd like to add Schmeichel into the mix as well. He was the world's most expensive 'keeper when he signed for them in '91, wasn't he?
Now, the fundamental point of all this is that Man Utd "fans" would have you believe that their successes gave them the funds to go out and spend big bucks in the transfer market. Fairy nuff- but where on earth did they get this money prior to '93? An FA Cup success in 1990? The Cup Winners Cup in 91?
The 'holier than thou' crap emanating from their collective orifices makes me sick.
It's very easy to say that Man City have 'bought' the league. In fact, it's a lazy argument. Yes, people will look at the record books in years to come, wonder how Man City got where they are, how they won the league to break the dominance of Man Utd and Chelsea and the simple answer would be; 'ridiculous investment at the behest of a foreign owner'.
However, if you were to look at the kind of money other big clubs have invested, and yet come up wih nothing (Newcastle, Tottenham, Leeds), it's a massive, massive achievement to win the league in spite of what was spent.
IanWright wrote:You know, the most telling statistic on that entire article is the fact that the Rags spent £6.75mil on Pallister, Webb, Phelan, Ince and Wallace. This was BEFORE they had even won a league title. I'd like to add Schmeichel into the mix as well. He was the world's most expensive 'keeper when he signed for them in '91, wasn't he?
Now, the fundamental point of all this is that Man Utd "fans" would have you believe that their successes gave them the funds to go out and spend big bucks in the transfer market. Fairy nuff- but where on earth did they get this money prior to '93? An FA Cup success in 1990? The Cup Winners Cup in 91?
The 'holier than thou' crap emanating from their collective orifices makes me sick.
It's very easy to say that Man City have 'bought' the league. In fact, it's a lazy argument. Yes, people will look at the record books in years to come, wonder how Man City got where they are, how they won the league to break the dominance of Man Utd and Chelsea and the simple answer would be; 'ridiculous investment at the behest of a foreign owner'.
However, if you were to look at the kind of money other big clubs have invested, and yet come up wih nothing (Newcastle, Tottenham, Leeds), it's a massive, massive achievement to win the league in spite of what was spent.
ronk wrote:WORTH EVERY PENNY
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: carl_feedthegoat, carolina-blue, Indianablue, PeterParker and 616 guests