Originally posted by spurs73 however the point i was trying to make was that United have always spend BIG to win things (apart from the season when the likes of beckham, scholes, giggs etc come through some 15 years ago)
FACT!!!
LOL.
"Matt Busby took a radically different direction to other clubs when rebuilding his ageing team. Rather than spend large sums of money on world renowned players, he recruited teenagers who had just left school. In the space of five years, he only made two major signings - winger Johnny Berry from Birmingham and striker Tommy Taylor from Barnsley.
The 1952-53 season saw the retirement of Johnny Carey yet it also saw the introduction of the Busby Babes as the Championship team began to lose steam. David Pegg, Dennis Viollet, Duncan Edwards, and Bill Foulkes all made their first appearances in the 1952-53 season. Many of the players at this time were a tribute to the scouting skills of Chief Scout Joe Armstrong (assigned the duty of finding talent in the North of England), Bob Bishop (Belfast), Billy Behan (Dublin) and Bob Harper, underpinned by United's innovative youth policy under Matt Busby. United finished eighth in 1954 and fifth in 1955 before winning the league by an 11 point margin in 1955-56 with Tommy Taylor and Dennis Viollet leading the line for a side which had an average age of only 22."
Keep trying durs. One of these days, you'll get a FACT!!! right.
"Matt Busby took a radically different direction to other clubs when rebuilding his ageing team. [b]Rather than spend large sums of money on world renowned players, he recruited teenagers who had just left school. In the space of five years, he only made two major signings - winger Johnny Berry from Birmingham and striker Tommy Taylor fro ...[text shortened]... e of only 22."
Keep trying durs. One of these days, you'll get a FACT!!! right.
You don't seriously think that Giggs and the others emerged the same season, do you?
D
SORRY not sure what point your are trying to make here...they all come through between 1992-94....i never said they come through the same season....you silly boy
Edit:- my point was they were the youngstars from your youth and reserves teams who come through togather to form a championsship winning squad.
I am sorry i did not make it simple for you to understand.
Originally posted by spurs73 i never said they come through the same season....you silly boy
Um, yes you did. Here it is in glorious black and white...
"apart from the season when the likes of beckham, scholes, giggs etc come through some 15 years ago"
Emphasis is mine.
Originally posted by spurs73 so was the situration better before?
4 teams have been winning everyhing year in..year out for the last 5-10 years... the same 4 teams... its better because we got another BIG player on the scene.
You are P-ed off because Liverpool (unless you get taken over soon by that other arab company that is sniffing around at the moment) will struggle this seaso ...[text shortened]... eing the so called 'top 4' with big bucks and you become concerned about the future of the PL.
Yes, of course I'm annoyed that Chelsea has bought their way above LFC and that Man City now have the power to do so. For selfish football reasons (ie I want LFC to be succesful) who wouldn't be?
But what I'm saying is that this situation is not good for football. How anyone thinks a c**k waving contest amongst Americans and Arabs which will almost certainly result in rising ticket prices, the alienation of fans and possible bankruptcy of clubs is good is beyond me.
As for you and a few others, I think the SKY hype about the big 4 has probably cheesed you off to such an extent that you just want to see a change to those names. What you have failed to do is tell me why it's a good thing for Spurs or indeed anyone else in the Premiership. How is the purchasing of football clubs by billionaires a good thing for football? What I can't understand is why you "a real football fan" think it's good. Surely, it goes against everything you think you stand for?
Originally posted by Seitse The fact that you don't see the profit in Chelsea's financial statements, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Chelsea is just part of a corporate structure tought by its owner to produce revenue.
Trust me, I know about these things: An unprofitable division or subsidiary doesn't mean that the business is going "bad".
If the "business" you are referring to is Abramovich then of course the "subsidiary" (Chelsea) can be unprofitable without being "bad".
How does this disprove what I said?
Chelsea is being run at a loss. It's being propped up by Abramovich's billions that come from his many profitable organisations. Chelsea is Abramovich's c**k waving PR vehicle and plaything.
So, if Roman leaves and sells Chelsea to, say, two charlatans like Hicks and Gillette (Liverpool), how long do you thing the loss making business will last, especially considering that they were on the brink of administration in 2003?
Originally posted by Angry Boy If the "business" you are referring to is Abramovich then of course the "subsidiary" (Chelsea) can be unprofitable without being "bad".
How does this disprove what I said?
Chelsea is being run at a loss. It's being propped up by Abramovich's billions that come from his many profitable organisations. Chelsea is Abramovich's c**k waving PR vehicle and ...[text shortened]... ill last, especially considering that they were on the brink of administration in 2003?
As for you and a few others, I think the SKY hype about the big 4 has probably cheesed you off to such an extent that you just want to see a change to those names. What you have failed to do is tell me why it's a good thing for Spurs or indeed anyone else in the Premiership. How is the purchasing of football clubs by billionaires a good thing for football? ...[text shortened]... football fan" think it's good. Surely, it goes against everything you think you stand for?[/b]
I cant speak for the others, but as for me, you are 100% correct.. the media's hype for the so called 'top 4' has p-ed me off and YES i do want to see another club get in the mix there!
As for your other points...the damage has already been done regarding ownership of english clubs. We can not go back to the 'good old' days.
More and more english clubs will be owned by forign billionaires so there is no point in me getting upset about that now.
So i dont care that city are the latest to be taken over to be honest. I hear some rich Indian now wants to take over Newcastle...lets see what happens.
lets see how much Man U's starting 11 plus 7 subs cost comparied to the same for Spurs?
So Spurs have spent huge amounts frivolously in the past, didn't get success from their poor business, and that's supposed to mean something because another better run business now has more money due to their better on and off the field performance?
Robinho!!!
06 Sep '08 22:04
Back to Top