Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:45 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Being bitter is an aspect of personality not who you support. I'm guessing when Newcastle were paying over the odds for Asprilla, Shearer, Smith and the like you were outside St James protesting about how Newcastle were oppressing those clubs who didn't have as much finance behind them. Swings and roundabouts bud that's all.

It's completely different though IMO. Newcastle were top of the league when they bought Asprilla (and who knows maybe he contributed to them losing it?) and had only spend 7.5 million (£4million Barton, £2.5million Ginola, £1million Hislop - can't count £6million Ferdinand cos his transfer fee they already had in the kitty after getting £7million for Cole). To put it in perspective they got to the top of the league after spending £1million less on three players than what Liverpool did on one (£8.5 million for Collymore IIRC). Point is sure Newcastle spent big but they were usually already a big and competitive club beforehand.
Many City have gone from nothing to the top overnight, and IMO it's pathetic. The greedy players will be jumping around in May singing 'Championes Championes' but it will mean f**k all. Fantasy football with a club who'd been absolute garbage for years and years. You could take any club in the land and do what they've done if you have the money.
Mancini spoke in paper the other day about respect. Personally I have no respect for them at all, they've took the easy route to trophies, i.e. buying them. No achievement at all.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:12 pm  

Roofs wrote:

It's completely different though IMO. Newcastle were top of the league when they bought Asprilla (and who knows maybe he contributed to them losing it?) and had only spend 7.5 million (£4million Barton, £2.5million Ginola, £1million Hislop - can't count £6million Ferdinand cos his transfer fee they already had in the kitty after getting £7million for Cole). To put it in perspective they got to the top of the league after spending £1million less on three players than what Liverpool did on one (£8.5 million for Collymore IIRC). Point is sure Newcastle spent big but they were usually already a big and competitive club beforehand.
Many City have gone from nothing to the top overnight, and IMO it's pathetic. The greedy players will be jumping around in May singing 'Championes Championes' but it will mean f**k all. Fantasy football with a club who'd been absolute garbage for years and years. You could take any club in the land and do what they've done if you have the money.
Mancini spoke in paper the other day about respect. Personally I have no respect for them at all, they've took the easy route to trophies, i.e. buying them. No achievement at all.

Never on God's good earth, have I EVER read such blinkered SH1T3 in all my years.
If you want to pleasure yourself, in comparing transfer prices paid for under-achievers...well, that's your funeral.
Why are City players more greedy than anyone elses...come on...I'd love to know. I'm sure St Alan of Shearer's (aka The Geordie Messiah....he's not the messiah...he's a naughty boy...just look at those petulant kicks, elbows etc) contract, consisted soley of Stottie Cake and Newkie Brown.....well, maybe not. Newcastle broke the British transfer record for him, and gave him wages that reflected his billing. Was he not greedy? Was Asprilla not. likewise many others. RUBBISH......THEY'RE ALL GREEDY....Just like you'd be, trying to better yourself, in your next job interview.


If I were you (thank God I'm not), I'd transfer your hatred for City, and direct all your passion towards Newcastle. life can be terribly lonely in a straight jacket and a padded cell.

When United won the majority of trophies (and are still winning), I simply 'took it on the chin'. Looks like the boot MIGHT be shifting to the other foot. I for one am relishing it (if it does happen).

Foreign ownership is here to stay, like it or not.
Funny how fans adore foreign players, but hate foreign owners. You can't have it both ways, surely.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:37 pm  

inside_man wrote:

And how is that different to a £30mil+ player like Berbatov playing in the reserves every week?

Two fold. Berbatov makes the squad/bench. Secondly; there is no way Utd will let him go on loan/free.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:53 pm  

Who gives a hoot what they spend.

I want to see players like Silva, Aguero and Dzeko lighting up the Premierleague.

It's the reason I pay my sky subscription and the reason why the league is the best in the world.

Utd have spent masses for years, now City do it, they don't like it.

Well diddums, you had your cake.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:01 pm  

People seem to think Uniteds success is somehow more 'pure' because apparently they created their success 'properly'.

People look back on miniscule amounts of money (by todays standards) and think united didn't spend big. Well I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the transfer market has inflated astronomically over the last 20 years, and what look like small fees now, were big fees at the time.

United have spent to gain success just like any other club, if anything united were lucky to be in the right place at the right time in 92 when the 'big bang' occured so to speak.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:12 pm  

Banielates wrote:

People seem to think Uniteds success is somehow more 'pure' because apparently they created their success 'properly'.

People look back on miniscule amounts of money (by todays standards) and think united didn't spend big. Well I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the transfer market has inflated astronomically over the last 20 years, and what look like small fees now, were big fees at the time.

United have spent to gain success just like any other club, if anything united were lucky to be in the right place at the right time in 92 when the 'big bang' occured so to speak.

Exactly. They benefited massively from the cash injection the game had from Sky and the fact that their success coincided with the Premier League starting to go global - they've managed to dominate the game since partly due to the huge amount of money they made from it and spent large sums of that money on players along the way (and obviously having a pretty good manager running things helped too...).

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:16 pm  

Roofs wrote:

It's completely different though IMO. Newcastle were top of the league when they bought Asprilla (and who knows maybe he contributed to them losing it?) and had only spend 7.5 million (£4million Barton, £2.5million Ginola, £1million Hislop - can't count £6million Ferdinand cos his transfer fee they already had in the kitty after getting £7million for Cole). To put it in perspective they got to the top of the league after spending £1million less on three players than what Liverpool did on one (£8.5 million for Collymore IIRC). Point is sure Newcastle spent big but they were usually already a big and competitive club beforehand.

Did you know that in your first year back in the Premiership Newcastle only City, United and Blackburn spent more. In your second season back you spent more than everybody else (the season you are referring to) and the third year you were also the biggest spenders (spending approximately 20% more than your closest rival spender, Liverpool). In your fourth year back in the Premiership, for the third year running you topped the transfer spending table. In this fourth year Newcastle spent 50% more than Aston Villa, who were the second biggest spenders that year. The fifth year back Newcastle again topped the transfer spending table, spending 60% more than the second highest spending team, Arsenal.

Given that evidence what's the difference? Surely topping the transfer spending for four years in a row is an attempt to 'buy' the title as you prefer to call it.

Roofs wrote:

Many City have gone from nothing to the top overnight,

Again no difference to what Newcastle did (springing up from the depths of nowhere after twenty years of oblivion touring Darlington, Carlisle, Hartlepool etc).

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:17 pm  

While the result is a belter, and quite amusing, City's success has come purely from the wallet of that Arab geezer, same with Chelski with Roman. Spending millions and millions to win the title, not develop a champion squad is a bit like paying a prostitute, good at the time but deep down, its much better with a girlfriend.

But meh, Everton actually won today and I'm fully expecting Indy to lose, plus its my payday tomorrow so I'm happy

One notable thing though....how come we see no Citeh fans here when they lose?

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:19 pm  

MSH wrote:

While the result is a belter, and quite amusing, City's success has come purely from the wallet of that Arab geezer, same with Chelski with Roman. Spending millions and millions to win the title, not develop a champion squad is a bit like paying a prostitute, good at the time but deep down, its much better with a girlfriend.

Woe is me.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:21 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Woe is me.

Meh, enjoy it, I'll await the day football realises where its going...