Originally posted by phil3000It's time you copped on and tried to live in the real world for a change...in case you didn't notice their has been loads and loads of changes in the world in the last 30 years and one of them concerns football, it's time you learned to deal with it. I suppose you think it's Manu's fault theirs so much money in the game? Money is a HUGE part of football and if you don't like it you should go watch a different sport.
If you go back to the 70,s and 80,s , Leeds utd, Arsenal ,Aston Villa ,Derby County ,Everton ,Nottingham Forest ,Blackburn Rovers and LIverpool all won the first div ,they were pushed by teams like ...Watford,Ipswich Town and a mix from the teams mentioned previously .
All these teams were basically on a level playing field in financial terms ,and it was ...[text shortened]... MONEY !!!! didnt see Man utd winning much in them days when they was,nt MEGA BUCKS !!!!!! 😉😉
In any case I think you'll find hundreths of millions of people will find this season great to watch, the title race going to the last week between United, Liverpool and Chelsea looks likely!
Originally posted by spurs73You're an absolute clown. Wasn't your first point that United had bought the title, now you're saying that United have no money?
Jammest- SORRY TO BUST YOUR BUBBLE but i think it is you, who does not understand - you will find your club manchester United are £500m in the red..
Your american owners borrow money on the club so at any time the banks could ask for their money back, or if their other business interests fail, they will have to sele their best players or pay back what the ...[text shortened]... ues/premierleague/manutd/5130064/Manchester-United-debt-soars-to-700m-despite-record-season.html
What relevance does United buying titles have with somebody buying the club by placing the club in huge debt? I know you aren't exactly the sharpest tool in the box, but please explain.
United were never in debt until the Glazer's bought the club with money borrowed against the club. Previously, any of their large transfers were due to having large revenue streams.
Unlike the likes of Chelsea, Villa, Spurs and the other wannabe clubs, United usedn't spend money the business wasn't making due to some wealthy benefactor.
It's laughable that a fan of Spurs, a mid table side at best is slagging a team for buying titles when his own team are spending more than United, and looking like relegation candidates for most of the season. LMFAO!!!
Also, the figures you cited for the likes of Nani and Anderson are wayyyy off. But then, when all you read is the Sun, it's hard for you to get anything right.
And another point, Ferguson likes an English backbone to his team. Due to the dearth of English talent, you have to pay a premium for top English talent. You slag United off for paying large sums of money for young english players, and yet you'd slag them off if they had all foreigners as well.
When Ferguson paid 18odd million for Carrick, you laughed that he was over priced. Now, that he has been at a decent club for a couple of years, he's probably worth twice that.
To be honest, I don't plan on replying to any more of your posts, as I don't tend to enjoy interacting with vacuous anuses.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakI don't dispute the rest of your post, but how are these way off?
Also, the figures you cited for the likes of Nani and Anderson are wayyyy off. But then, when all you read is the Sun, it's hard for you to get anything right.
And another point, Ferguson likes an English backbone to his team. Due to the dearth of English talent, you have to pay a premium for top English talent. You slag United off for paying large su ...[text shortened]... g to any more of your posts, as I don't tend to enjoy interacting with vacuous anuses.
D
Sporting, being a listed company in the secondary stock market, declared a sale of 25.5 Million Euro for Nani. In pounds, for the time, it would be roughly 17M GBP. Porto declared the sale as 30M EUR for Anderson.
Originally posted by JamesqtThe point i was trying to make , back then when Man U was,nt the financial giant they are now ,they won diddly squat ,in fact they got relegated to the old 2nd div !!! so sit down and behave your self !!! dont know what your on about going to the last week , you best get up to speed with whats going on ..
It's time you copped on and tried to live in the real world for a change...in case you didn't notice their has been loads and loads of changes in the world in the last 30 years and one of them concerns football, it's time you learned to deal with it. I suppose you think it's Manu's fault theirs so much money in the game? Money is a HUGE part of football and ...[text shortened]... the title race going to the last week between United, Liverpool and Chelsea looks likely!
Originally posted by phil3000Oh, I was under the impression that United had won a European Cup and first division titles?
The point i was trying to make , back then when Man U was,nt the financial giant they are now ,they won diddly squat ,in fact they got relegated to the old 2nd div !!!
More vacuous footballing comments. I'd love to hear some interesting footballing discussion, but all we get is tired old half truths in the name of banter.
D
Originally posted by PalynkaI'd like to see the source for those figures. Everywhere I've read it's been "undisclosed".
I don't dispute the rest of your post, but how are these way off?
Sporting, being a listed company in the secondary stock market, declared a sale of 25.5 Million Euro for Nani. In pounds, for the time, it would be roughly 17M GBP. Porto declared the sale as 30M EUR for Anderson.
Also, even if those are the fees, the impression I have is that there would have been conditions attached for the fees to reach those amounts. I'd be very surprised if Fergie paid £17m straight for an absolute untried player like Nani.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakThose are the figures the clubs disclosed to the CMVM, which is the Portuguese authority governing the stock market. If they're factual or not is another story, but I don't have any reason to doubt them.
I'd like to see the source for those figures. Everywhere I've read it's been "undisclosed".
Also, even if those are the fees, the impression I have is that there would have been conditions attached for the fees to reach those amounts. I'd be very surprised if Fergie paid £17m straight for an absolute untried player like Nani.
D
Nani had already played for the Portuguese NT, so it's not absolute untried but I agree that both the sums seemed good sales, though.
Originally posted by PalynkaI also find it amazing that £18m would be paid straight for a player who had only recently recovered from a broken leg and a lengthy lay off. Anderson is worth it, but Nani is nowhere near a £17m player.
Those are the figures the clubs disclosed to the CMVM, which is the Portuguese authority governing the stock market. If they're factual or not is another story, but I don't have any reason to doubt them.
Nani had already played for the Portuguese NT, so it's not absolute untried but I agree that both the sums seemed good sales, though.
Having said all that, United seem to give Portuguese sides very fair treatment in acknowledgement of the League's usefulness in producing talent and as a landing base for South American players. They may be thinking that an inflated fee here and there may give them an advantage in the future.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakI just think they paid what the clubs were asking. If you look at the average sale price of top players from those clubs (especially Porto), then you'd see the price was not that unusual.
I also find it amazing that £18m would be paid straight for a player who had only recently recovered from a broken leg and a lengthy lay off. Anderson is worth it, but Nani is nowhere near a £17m player.
Having said all that, United seem to give Portuguese sides very fair treatment in acknowledgement of the League's usefulness in producing talent and as ...[text shortened]... be thinking that an inflated fee here and there may give them an advantage in the future.
D
Originally posted by phil3000Do you actually watch football or do you just read the back pages of the sun and listen to people in the pub?
back then when Man U was,nt the financial giant they are now ,they won diddly squat, dont know what your on about going to the last week , you best get up to speed with whats going on ..
So as well as first division titles and FA cups your trying to tell me that Manu didn't become the first English club to win the European cup in 1968, a throphy that only 3 other English clubs have ever won?
I'm also talking about the fact that next year will be a very close 3 horse race!
1 edit
Originally posted by JamesqtUnited did not win much through-out the 70s and best part of the 80s as Phill posted- this is a fact.
Do you actually watch football or do you just read the back pages of the sun and listen to people in the pub?
So as well as first division titles and FA cups your trying to tell me that Manu didn't become the first English club to win the European cup in 1968, a throphy that only 3 other English clubs have ever won?
I'm also talking about the fact that next year will be a very close 3 horse race!
I suspect you and Rag are under 30y so have watched most of your football since the advent of the PL and Ski Sports- but guess what FOOTBALL WAS HERE BEFORE SKY SPORTS AND THE PL😲
English clubs who have won the European cup/CL are=
Liverpool, Man U, Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest😏
Originally posted by JamesqtI have probably seen more games than you have had lolly pops sun shine !!
Do you actually watch football or do you just read the back pages of the sun and listen to people in the pub?
So as well as first division titles and FA cups your trying to tell me that Manu didn't become the first English club to win the European cup in 1968, a throphy that only 3 other English clubs have ever won?
I'm also talking about the fact that next year will be a very close 3 horse race!
Did i mention the 60,s ? any way , while on the subject .... to win the European cup you had to win your games [about six usually ] or you was out !! the way it is now ,witth a league system favours big clubs with big squads ,you can lose games and still get through to the next round , as Spurs 73 pointed out ,,, Aston Villa ,,, Notts Forest and Liverpool won it the hard way and Man Utd were no where on the horizon ..BECAUSE as i said before, it was a level playing field in financial terms then ... who do you think the three will be ? 🙂
Originally posted by spurs73Actually what Phill posted was "they won diddly squat", do you really think their could ever be a club that dominates every decade? Yes football was also great befor the PL, I never said it wasn't! Anyway in which decade was it that Spurs dominated English football?
United did not win much through-out the 70s and best part of the 80s as Phill posted- this is a fact.
...FOOTBALL WAS HERE BEFORE SKY SPORTS AND THE PL😲
The reason we dominate now is because we have by an absolute mile the best manager in the world managing our club!
Originally posted by phil3000I don't really like lolly pops so you might be right 😉
I have probably seen more games than you have had lolly pops sun shine !!
to win the European cup...favours big clubs with big squads...Villa, Notts Forest and Liverpool won it the hard way...it was a level playing field in financial terms then ... who do you think the three will be ? 🙂
Yes you need a big squad to win the PL or CL, so what, that's the way football is now, get over it!
If we were to argue about which is harder to win the CL now or the old European cup this thread will go on for another year, yes the big clubs can lose in the earlier rounds but if we were still doing it the old way Barca, Liverpool and Chelsea wouldn't of qualified theirfor the quality of teams is far stronger the new way
So what if it's not a level playing field in financial terms, like I said stop watching football if this bothers you, and let the rest of us enjoy next years title race between perhaps 3 of the 4 best teams in the world!