Joined: Aug 24 2005 Posts: 15807 Location: East Hull
El Pac Carnegie wrote:You do make me chuckle lad. How on earth can pocketing over £100k a week and winning a title not be enjoyable? I'd bloody love it!
To belittle any team winning a title is preposterous and if Mancini manages it with Man City it would be nothing but extremely impressive. To assemble a squad over one summer and have it challenge immediately would be very impressive. All Man City are doing is what Utd and Chelsea have done over the past few years, just at an accelerated pace.
Will have to agree to disagree. Give any team £200million-£300million and they could probably buy trophies. If they end up with the Premiership I personally won't feel they've achieved anything (same with Chelsea), whereas Arsenal or Man U I would. Just my opinion.
"The Mail understands..." NOTHING!
[quote="-VIKINGMAN-"]Respect to Roofs, the president of East Hull. [/quote]
Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:Man United's run of success owes itself as much to their wealth as anything else. They were lucky to become the biggest club in the country and to start a reign of success at the beginning of the Sky era. They were also helped massively by being in the CL every year. They have massive advantages over everyone else but you never get anyone belittling their honours.
Even with unlimited wealth, Citeh face a massive climb to be able to compete with the likes of Man United and Chelsea to win titles. Those clubs have top, established players and have the knowledge and experience of what it takes to win the major prizes. They have managers who have won a pair of CL titles each.
For you to say that Citeh beating them to the title isn't an achievement is just stupid. Of course they wouldn't even be challenging without the money, but just because they have the money there is still a huge amount of luck and hard work involved to earn them a league title.
And you geordies tried to buy your place at the top of English football and managed to screw it up. Tough 5hit that your rich benefactors aren't rich enough or are just divvy frauds.
How were United "lucky" in becoming the countrys biggest club? We always have been even when we weren't winning titles, mainly due to our worldwide popularity, hence getting 45k a week in division 2. As for bringing players through we're by far the best at it.
Neville G Neville P Wes Brown O'Shea Beckham Scholes Butt Fletcher Giggs
to name a few, also had plenty of players who have gone on to well elsewhere. Evans
Joined: Aug 05 2002 Posts: 14094 Location: He can smoke a pound in a single bound!
Mark wrote:How were United "lucky" in becoming the countrys biggest club?
Timing.
If the PL and it's associated money come along 10 years earlier, you wouldn't be the club you are now.
Quote:As for bringing players through we're by far the best at it.
Neville G Neville P Wes Brown O'Shea Beckham Scholes Butt Fletcher Giggs
1 regular in the last 10 years, I'm sure a number of clubs have brought more through to be regulars in the last 10 years.
In fact that group of youngsters is another slice of luck. Not many, if any, clubs get so many good players through in one period that become the spine of a team.
I'm not Jesus Christ, I've come to accept that now.
[quote][b]XBrettKennyX wrote:[/b] Once more the anti SC brigade, purposely or otherwise fail to see the point.
You can't simply put a good crop of youngsters coming through down to luck. Credit good scouting and good coaching, all of which comes back to the club having the financial muscle to employ and retain them.
I'd be happy enough for City to give up the Sheikh's billions if it meant a return to the days when the league was relatively open and a team like Forest could come from nowhere to win the title.
I feel rather less guilty about the possibility (if it happens) of City "buying success" in the distorted football world post the introduction of the Premiership and Champions League.
The main point is that our money came from being popular and succesfull for many years even pre-premiership. In 1989 we signed Ince, Webb and Phelan in 1982 we signed Robbo so you can't put our money and success soley down to being lucky. It's about being a big and succesful club for many decades, we didn't have the advantage of a sugar daddy. I think that is the point people are making. LFC have spent a shitload and haven't progressed any.
Joined: Aug 05 2002 Posts: 14094 Location: He can smoke a pound in a single bound!
AvA wrote:You can't simply put a good crop of youngsters coming through down to luck. Credit good scouting and good coaching, all of which comes back to the club having the financial muscle to employ and retain them.
No, I don't think it's all down to luck. But how often in one youth team (I know Giggs was a year or two ahead) are there so many good players that can become the backbone of a team? Teams are usually lucky to get one a year that may become competent in the first team, never mind excel.
I'm not Jesus Christ, I've come to accept that now.
[quote][b]XBrettKennyX wrote:[/b] Once more the anti SC brigade, purposely or otherwise fail to see the point.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Give any team £200million-£300million and they could probably buy trophies. If they end up with the Premiership I personally won't feel they've achieved anything (same with Chelsea), whereas Arsenal or Man U I would. Just my opinion.
