The whatever footie that's going on (with actual fans) thread

city_boy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Maybe it was too early to mention dull draws...but we now need City to up their game tomorrow and snatch a jammy draw with Southampton

Oh well, never mind. At least you got to enjoy the world's most entertaining football side in that thriller at the Stadium of Light

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Maybe it was too early to mention dull draws...but we now need City to up their game tomorrow and snatch a jammy draw with Southampton

Oh well, never mind. At least you got to enjoy the world's most entertaining football side in that thriller at the Stadium of Light

Thanks for knocking those cocky scummers down a peg. We keep a nice 6 point difference and its back to the 2 horse race, even if the light blue horse seems to have 3 legs half the time

pblakeney

PBlakeney wrote:

FWIW, I placed a bet on Chelsea winning the league before it started at @ 2/1.

Paddy Power paid out last Friday! Kaching! :P

I am thinking that City will get soundly trounced tonight and implode.

So I put the winnings on a Southampton win on Sunday. Fingers crossed.

And that, boys and girls, is why gambling is a bad idea.
Never mind, I could still win twice on the league champions.
Come on Citeh!

Apologies for the death nell City Boy.

Manc33

Everyone knows Southampton have been riding their luck and it was only a matter of time before they got well beaten, at home, by a top side.

What annoys me is they sold all their players and then did way better. :shock:

Man City knew they would be swapping places with Sarfampton if they could get the win.

Same with Liverpool beating Newcastle, I knew Liverpool weren't going to keep on losing and Newcastle weren't going to be able to keep on winning. There's an "ebb and flow" to football that's for sure.

We're (Manchester United) back where we belong in the top 4 now anyway, its all I care about because we ain't gonna win the league with Chelski there, but I think we can get 2nd place with City 3rd.

Stevo_666

Manc33 wrote:

we ain't gonna win the league with Chelski there, but I think we can get 2nd place with City 3rd.

Dead right on the first bit Now where's City Boy

Manc33

Stevo 666 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

we ain't gonna win the league with Chelski there, but I think we can get 2nd place with City 3rd.

Dead right on the first bit Now where's City Boy

I'll just add that Man City only won the league last year because Liverpool handed it to them and the other time they won it, technically they didn't "win" the league because they had the same points as Man United. Yeah they get the win "on goal difference" but they had the same points thus, were not better, not really.

Try winning the league by eighteen points (Manchester United - 1999–2000) and I might begin to start to think about being impressed. Goal difference... tsk! Relying on slip ups by other teams to clinch it... pffffffff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQZTK6xJ1Bw

city_boy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

we ain't gonna win the league with Chelski there, but I think we can get 2nd place with City 3rd.

Dead right on the first bit Now where's City Boy

After many years of listening to the deluded drivel of Manyoo supporters I tend to just leave them to it now and just think 'Aw, bless.....!'

Manc33 wrote:

I'll just add that Man City only won the league last year because Liverpool handed it to them and the other time they won it, technically they didn't "win" the league because they had the same points as Man United. Yeah they get the win "on goal difference" but they had the same points thus, were not better, not really.

Try winning the league by eighteen points (Manchester United - 1999–2000) and I might begin to start to think about being impressed. Goal difference... tsk! Relying on slip ups by other teams to clinch it... pffffffff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQZTK6xJ1Bw

:roll: Aw, bless......!

Manc33

I'm just waiting for some billionaire conglomerate to buy up Manchester United so we can get success the easy way - by simply paying for it. Just kidding, I want my team to actually have morals and ethics. Even as a player for City or Chelsea I would be thinking in the back of my mind after having a blistering season... "but we bought it". Its about pride, surely? For the players and the fans.

That is one thing that even as a Manc I have to hold my hands up and say Liverpool would have deserved to win the league last year had they done it, because they didn't pump a billion quid into the squad in the five years leading up to it in order to do it, they are a real team like Manchester United. This is why I respect Arsenal so much, they barely even spend money at all, nevermind buying up superstars. Then again they never win anything, they are just a "good team". It proves what I am getting at though. Look at Harry Redknapp managing Wimbledon, I think they had a fanbase of 3,000 fans or something, yet stayed in the top flight for years. I find that stuff amazing honestly. These are the proper managers.

Stevo_666

Manc33 wrote:

I'm just waiting for some billionaire conglomerate to buy up Manchester United so we can get success the easy way - by simply paying for it.

Err, they already have been . The Glazers are worth $4.4 billion: proof that money does not buy success

Manc33

I am talking about money pumped into the club - not what the owners are worth. The Arabs that own City could lose $4.4Bn (£2.79Bn) and not even notice. Abramovich, a single man, has more than double the wealth of all three Glazers.



This shows that we are only now having to spend big to match the other two clubs that started it. In two years alone there City spent £275M.

More stuff:
http://therepublikofmancunia.com/did-un ... ourse-not/

Says there "In Ferguson’s first five years he spent the same amount as Spurs (£19m) and less than Liverpool (£24m). Whilst United’s spending was more than the average team, we were by no means blowing others out of the water in the same way that Chelsea and City have done."

Yep, we're only spending £59M on a player now to try to remain competitive, knowing now, we can't if we don't spend like that.

Stevo_666

Manc33 wrote:

I am talking about money pumped into the club - not what the owners are worth. The Arabs that own City could lose $4.4Bn (£2.79Bn) and not even notice. Abramovich, a single man, has more than double the wealth of all three Glazers.



This shows that we are only now having to spend big to match the other two clubs that started it. In two years alone there City spent £275M.

Hang on, over the last few years Man U has spent nearly 80% of what Chelsea has and you're pleading poverty?

And in 2014/15, you've spent 55% more than Chelsea but you've still only got 2/3 as many points in the PL. I refer you to my post above

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

Hang on, over the last few years Man U has spent nearly 80% of what Chelsea has and you're pleading poverty?

And in 2014/15, you've spent 55% more than Chelsea but you've still only got 2/3 as many points in the PL. I refer you to my post above

On thin ice, undoubtably.

cornerblock

Manc33 wrote:

I'm just waiting for some billionaire conglomerate to buy up Manchester United so we can get success the easy way - by simply paying for it. Just kidding, I want my team to actually have morals and ethics. Even as a player for City or Chelsea I would be thinking in the back of my mind after having a blistering season... "but we bought it". Its about pride, surely? For the players and the fans.

That is one thing that even as a Manc I have to hold my hands up and say Liverpool would have deserved to win the league last year had they done it, because they didn't pump a billion quid into the squad in the five years leading up to it in order to do it, they are a real team like Manchester United. This is why I respect Arsenal so much, they barely even spend money at all, nevermind buying up superstars. Then again they never win anything, they are just a "good team". It proves what I am getting at though. Look at Harry Redknapp managing Wimbledon, I think they had a fanbase of 3,000 fans or something, yet stayed in the top flight for years. I find that stuff amazing honestly. These are the proper managers.

Morals and ethics eh? What like Ryan 'shag your brothers wife' Giggs? You really don't know much about the mind of a footballer if you believe they'd give a flying about the amount spent to assemble the team they are part of. If United are lucky enough to win the Capital One cup this season is Di Maria is going to say it was the £120 million Man U spent in the summer that bought it? Course not. The same way Barcelona and Real Madrid players don't fret about winning trophies time and time again.

It's called football and since it began the teams with the most money tended to attract the best. You should know that being a United fan. Quite funny really hearing whinging coming from Old Trafford about richer clubs. I'm sure you'd have liked things to have just stayed as they were with the stranglehold of you and Arsenal. Tough, things have changed.

Oh and one more thing, Harry Redknapp never ever managed Wimbledon, Dave Bassett who was knicknamed Harry did. Your not one of those JCL's are you?

Edit; I've just remembered, you can't win the Capital One cup! Just goes to show what £120,000,000 can't buy!

tim_wand

Harry Redknapp managing Wimbledon


Classic and as for Dave Bassett. didn't his brother Mike manage England???

Poor impoverished United, £750 million from Nike in shirt sponsorship and only able to pay Falco £360'000 a week.

And yer it made my blood boil to see "Family man Giggs" Walk around Wembley with His Kid and Wife after paying his Brother off for Shagging his sister in law and trying to gag the press for revealing it.

All the top clubs maintain a stranglehold through a combination of great wealth and great wealth generating success, I don't think us Utd or Arsenal fans have a leg to stand on just because some new faces have finally got their faces in the trough.

Manc33

We're only having to spend loads now because Chelsea have been doing relentlessly from 2003 onwards, plus now Man City coming along and doing the same thing has pretty much forced us to.

(I thought it was Harry lol) :oops:

pblakeney

Manc33 wrote:

We're only having to spend loads now because Chelsea have been doing relentlessly from 2003 onwards, plus now Man City coming along and doing the same thing has pretty much forced us to.

(I thought it was Harry lol) :oops:

Selective memory at work again.
Let's have a look at Manchester United buys before Chelsea started the big spending.
2001/2002 - Juan Veron - £28 million.
2002/2003 - Rio Ferdinand - £27.5 million.

Need I go on?

Any Manchester United fan trying to take the financial high road is lost.

city_boy

Manc33 wrote:

We're only having to spend loads now because Chelsea have been doing relentlessly from 2003 onwards, plus now Man City coming along and doing the same thing has pretty much forced us to.

(I thought it was Harry lol) :oops:

Keep 'em coming Manc33....absolute pure comedy gold!

Although might I suggest that, instead of continuing to prove why Manyoo fans are the most detested and ridiculed in the world, you research the history of your own club first. That way you might save yourself further embarrassment

tim_wand

Shall we start taking bets now on who spends the most in the January transfer window???

I think poor Man Utd will be forced to spend big, because those nasty big clubs like Chelski and Man City have started playing rather well.

I m hoping Arsenal take in a Swedish Midfielder ( preferably under 5ft6 ) with a broken spine!!!!

city_boy

tim wand wrote:

I think poor Man Utd will be forced to spend big

It will be interesting to see how much they do spend, if anything? Maybe the Glazier's will want to see some return on the *£212million :shock: that they have spunked (sorry, invested ) on the team just in the last 12 months.

* Does not include the £350k/week (£18million/year!!!) wages for Falcao!!

Stevo_666

tim wand wrote:

I think poor Man Utd will be forced to spend big, because those nasty big clubs like Chelski and Man City have started playing rather well.

Partly true

pblakeney

City Boy wrote:

* Does not include the £350k/week (£18million/year!!!) wages for Falcao!!

Double that to include Rooney.

city_boy

Stevo 666 wrote:

tim wand wrote:

I think poor Man Utd will be forced to spend big, because those nasty big clubs like Chelski and Man City have started playing rather well.

Partly true

Don't be too hard on yourself mate, Chelsea aren't playing too badly and they're almost a big club

Manc33

If Chelsea can beat a team 0-2 away when the home team they are beating desperately needs the points and is right on the verge of winning the league and Chelsea's manager has ruddy flu, what chance has any other team got!

Mourinho should go manage Brentford or someone, new challenge and all that. Why is he managing Chelsea when he already has anyway. He could just go to Germany. Make Dortmund proper rivals to Munich.

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

tim wand wrote:

I think poor Man Utd will be forced to spend big, because those nasty big clubs like Chelski and Man City have started playing rather well.

Partly true

Don't be too hard on yourself mate, Chelsea aren't playing too badly and they're almost a big club

Likewise - you can take comfort that hardly anyone apart from Man U supporters hate City, because you have to be successful to be hated :P

Manc33

I don't take Man City seriously as a team regardless of how good they might be currently. There's Manchester United and there's Liverpool. Beyond that, in a historical sense, who cares. Not one other team comes close to those two. You'd probably have to say Nottingham Forest.

pblakeney

Nottingham Forest?
With one title win?

Arsenal are the third runners in the historical battle.

ballysmate

Been on my feet all day. Absolutely knackered.

Some tw@t kept singing, "Stand up if you hate Man Utd"

tim_wand

Manc 33 is bound to love Forest , its a club that his hero Dave Bassett has managed, or was that Harry Rednapp , or was that Bournemouth, God its all so confusing.

Manc33

Redknapp kept West Ham in the top flight for years, hardly spending any money.

Bassett kept Wimbledon in the top flight for years, hardly spending any money.

Sorry for getting one rubbish team mixed up with another rubbish team. :P

Spoiler
Tonight was a bit of a coupon buster with three of the six games all ending up away wins.

type:epyt

PBlakeney wrote:

Arsenal are the third runners in the historical battle.

There was a good quote/point on tv on Sunday ... Arsenal and Man Utd both had 10 league title wins each when Wenger took over.