Manchester United
- Thread starter Jenks
- Start date
Fati_Future_BallonDor
Well-known member
Yeah will go offline too, it's gym time. See you later guys.
Maradona37
Well-known member
Just reading Bluemoon. Often read it. Lots of good posts on this lot but this is my favourite in recent days:
'You mention clubs that will improve players, such as Spurs, Newcastle, Chelsea and Villa.
I notice you didn't mention our filthy neighbours from Trafford. Which if we're being honest you couldn't have really, at least not with a straight face anyway.
The whole premise of your argument that Cunha and Mbuemo will improve the rags hinges on a critical point of them both developing under Amorim.
I'm not sure whether you've been following the rags over the past decade or so, but the last player to develop under any manager at that god forsaken place was probably Ronaldo (the first time) under the pisscan.
It doesn't matter which players that club sign and it doesn't matter which manager they bring in; as a footballing concern they're finished.
Pep would struggle at that club'
Bold sums it up. Finished as a threat and challenger.
'You mention clubs that will improve players, such as Spurs, Newcastle, Chelsea and Villa.
I notice you didn't mention our filthy neighbours from Trafford. Which if we're being honest you couldn't have really, at least not with a straight face anyway.
The whole premise of your argument that Cunha and Mbuemo will improve the rags hinges on a critical point of them both developing under Amorim.
I'm not sure whether you've been following the rags over the past decade or so, but the last player to develop under any manager at that god forsaken place was probably Ronaldo (the first time) under the pisscan.
It doesn't matter which players that club sign and it doesn't matter which manager they bring in; as a footballing concern they're finished.
Pep would struggle at that club'
Bold sums it up. Finished as a threat and challenger.
Maradona37
Well-known member
Also, remember this?
Two of them are on their way out and the other is a total hypejob
This club are the laughing stock of Europe
Two of them are on their way out and the other is a total hypejob
This club are the laughing stock of Europe
Fati_Future_BallonDor
Well-known member
CR7 developed despite playing for Manu, no club itw can stop his immense hunger to win. Otherwise yeah Manu is crap since SAF left them. I still remember the days of Moyes very well, damn he got so much hate from media and fans, ppl didnt stop laugh about him. Who would have thought in that period that that was only the start of a long loser-strike, 12 years later and they still look like an average club. Finally they have good wingers but need a CM and full back to be back.
Loki
Well-known member
While much of it is true, such words coming from a Shitty fan who only knows the word "competition" thanks to Arab money artificially boosting their shit club to the top, shows these fans lost their shame long ago.
Maradona37
Well-known member
I understand your point. But, by the same token, how else could they have caught up with the big four at the time (Arsenal, United, Chelsea, Liverpool)?
Why are you saying this if you think it is true?
Manchester Utd is finished.
And i say this as someone who doesnt like city, just no interest in premier league clubs. If you go to united, your career is over until you leave and fight back.
Loki
Well-known member
Are they entitled to catch up to these teams who got into their position by leading their clubs to success since their founding? (Except Chelsea obviously.) If they can't do it with their own work, why should they be allowed to cheat to catch up?
I mean the PL is a swamp for corruption, money laundering in the billions and political white washing, but even in that enviroment, they stood out by having a state owner, that poured billions into the club. It takes some work to stand out by that much in such an illustrious surrounding.
Iniesta Ultra
Senior Member
Don't want to see Rants get hurt but they picked a chum for his opponent tomorrow.
Maradona37
Well-known member
They didn't, though. I think I told you before but Man City were the biggest club in Manchester until the 1950s. United nearly went bust twice (google John Henry davies and James Gibson) and City helped them out actually. Gave them kits (google why they call United the rags) and let them play at Maine Road after Old Trafford was bombed during the war.
Liverpool were a nothing club until they got outside investment from the Moores family and Littlewoods in the 60s. How is their climb any different to what City have done? Other than the scale and source of the funds?
You know we get on but acting like Liverpool and Man United have been top dogs 'since their founding' in the 1800s indicates a complete lack of knowledge of English football history and is ignorant, elitist big club mentality. Did new boys United and Liverpool deserve to usurp teams like Huddersfield and Wolves who were top dogs before the 50s?
United have had two good spells in their history - Busby and Ferguson. Other than that they've been nothing. Acting like they've been diligently doing well since their inception (and not acknowledging all the shady under the table stuff that went on under Ferguson) is mental.
Outside investment has always happened - people just don't like it because it is Arab or foreign and on a much larger scale and because entitled history club fans put so much of their own self-esteem into how well their football club does. Hence, it hurts them to see someone else do well.. And as I have said before it is a chain reaction - United and Liverpool's greed set in motion the events that would make the PL a massive league and attract foreign investment.
And even if you were right, saying 'they've ruled since the start so deserve to rule forever' is so lacking in morals (in a football or sporting context) that I don't know where to begin with that.
Acting like Man City are a nothing club who came from nowhere just shows zero knowledge of English football. Yes, they're not an elite club, but Manchester City have always been a big club in the context of English football. We aren't talking about Forest Green Rovers here.
The point I am making is that outside investment and corruption has always been there, and clubs have always risen and fallen. It's just that most modern/internet football fans are clueless and think the sport started in 1992, so they assume United and Liverpool have ruled since year dot. Not true.
I don't disagree that City are corrupt, but we can hardly look at Man United, Liverpool, and both clubs' American owners as the bastion of morality for fuck sake. Or Barca for that matter. There's no good guys in football.
Come on mate. You're an intelligent guy. You know I am right with a lot of this and yo can research it yourself.
Last edited:
Maradona37
Well-known member
@Loki
I am not looking for an argument or anything - we get on and I am not referring to you in the clueless since 1992 fans.
But it's rather ridiculous to act like Man United and Liverpool have ruled English football since they were formed. United have only won the league under three managers and had only won 7 league titles in 1992.
For instance, how are Man United any better being owned partly by INEOS - a horrific company that is polluting the environment, and letting go vulnerable staff to save a pittance, while still spending a fortune on players due to dodgy cooking of the books and hiding accounts in tax havens like the Cayman islands. How is them expecting the tax payer to pay for their stadium in terrible economic times ethical?
Yes, City have a lot of problems as a club, but Man United and Liverpool are hardly the good guys here (though the clowns love to try to paint themselves as the good guys).
I am not looking for an argument or anything - we get on and I am not referring to you in the clueless since 1992 fans.
But it's rather ridiculous to act like Man United and Liverpool have ruled English football since they were formed. United have only won the league under three managers and had only won 7 league titles in 1992.
For instance, how are Man United any better being owned partly by INEOS - a horrific company that is polluting the environment, and letting go vulnerable staff to save a pittance, while still spending a fortune on players due to dodgy cooking of the books and hiding accounts in tax havens like the Cayman islands. How is them expecting the tax payer to pay for their stadium in terrible economic times ethical?
Yes, City have a lot of problems as a club, but Man United and Liverpool are hardly the good guys here (though the clowns love to try to paint themselves as the good guys).
Last edited:
Home of Barca Fans
