So whats the big deal? If either team had won surely it would have been a case of throwing enough money at a problem and you'll solve it?
Who's throwing money at Manchester United?
Depending on whose numbers you believe.... In the last 4 years, City's owners has thrown close to a £Billion at them. In the same period, the Glazers have bled United of close to half a billion.
I don't blame any City fans for enjoying their success (and I don't want to be accused of 'sour grapes') but it is inconceivable that City would be champions today if our respective owners were both financially neutral.
United fans seem to forget the likes of Rooney, Ferdinand etc were all signed for mega bucks. Strange that, isn't it?.
United fans seem to forget the likes of Rooney, Ferdinand etc were all signed for mega bucks. Strange that, isn't it?.
And Ronaldo was sold for mega bucks but that's not the point.
United make a [b]lot[/b] of money every year - some from the gate, some from TV (same share as everyone in the Prem), some from merchandise sales, some from sponsors and some from selling players.
Some of those mega bucks are spent on buying 'big ticket' players, some is spent on developing players from within and quite a bit goes to servicing the Glazer's debts (some of which are linked to the purchase of the club, some of which are subsidising their other businesses).
If 77,000 people wanted to go and see Macclesfield Town every week, they would not have just dropped out of the league.
Player follow the money always has been always will be. Good luck to citeh i say enjoy it while it lasts but this idea they will build a dynasty is delusional imo (utd fan born and bred in manc)
Good luck to citeh i say enjoy it while it lasts but this idea they will build a dynasty is delusional imo (utd fan born and bred in manc)
Because a dynasty is... what, exactly? It's just a self-sustaining business - Liverpool had it for the 80s, then Man U picked up the baton and ran with it. If they're playing CL football every season, and winning the League or thereabouts, players will want to come and play for them. Chelsea have built a footballing "dynasty" in the last 10-15 years.
The unfortunate fact is that in order to break into the elite - basically top 3 - you need a kickstart, or in other words, a ton of cash. For all 'arry's BS, Spurs have spent a shedload of cash on players to get to where they are too.
Now the real comparison would be Arsenal with City, Chelsea or Man U. *Arsenal* shows the difference between spending megabucks and not, and it's a sad state of affairs.
(City fan born and bred.)
The biggest factor in Utds success is Ferguson. Other teams have had more spending power, but lacked the consistency. Who in the Utd team would make the city first team?
Rooney
Vidic? (out for most of this season)
A great season, with particular well dones to Newcastle, Wigan and Man Utd (haters twine away)
Who cares about Utd??!
No plaudits for Liverpool in bucking the "big spend buys success" philosophy? We spent a fortune and did rubbish. Bloody crossbar.
Who cares about Utd??!
Errmmmmm, wouldn't have been much of a season without them, and they brought European football back to England, so I'd say most folk should. Clearly the greatest club in this land (and no I'm not from Manchester - not even really a fan).
Don't understand why football so partisan/them and us.
S'only a game.
Don't understand why footbal so partisan/them and us
You're kidding? Partisanship is the only honest thing about footy these days. I love hating Man Utd. as I'm sure they love hating Liverpool. Although I'm worried about my sneaking admiration for the fans and philosophy of FC United...
As I said - a fan of the game played well, rather than a fan of a team.
I can't be a Utd fan, 'cos I feel sorry for 'your lot'.
I love hating Man Utd. as I'm sure they love hating Liverpool.
Only on match days, otherwise Liverpool don't make it to my radar. Lodders might have set the bar a little too high on the hate stakes for your average fan though... 😆
Lodders might have set the bar a little too high on the hate stakes
Yeah, I've seen his comments elsewhere. I probably feel innately similar, but I hate the word "scum" when applied generically. Except on match days... 😀
If Chelsea win on Sat Manure will have had a bad year.....
When the fella retires what then? Steve McLarens free?
Manchester United rich because they are successful.
Manchester City successful because they are rich.
They aren't rich though.Manchester United rich because they are successful.
Our debts at the moment make Rangers look minted! Its only because our gate receipts, TV rights etc from - guess what - people actually wanting to watch them, that we're not up the same creek without a paddle
I don't begrudge City their success, they've some fantastic players, played some quality football, as have we. Its been the best season I can remember since it was us and Arsenal slugging it out, with Viera and Henri.
You can't get much more value-for-money than going to the final minute of extra time to decide it
But just have a look at how far the Manchester clubs are clear of everyone else? Absolutely out of sight. Can't see it being any different next season. Its great for the city. Simple as that!
When the fella retires what then? Steve McLarens free?
Mou.
united have spent megabucks over the last 15 years or so. Without that investment they would not have won the league, the champions league etc.
city have spent megabucks in the last couple of years. Without it they would not have won the league.
the only difference is the investment timescale.
To be the top performer in any sport you need to invest, simple as that.
Yes, Arsenal are a good comparison - what have they won in the last 7 years?
And Hora - STFU!!! Spare yourself further embarrassment. You know as much about football as I know about heart surgery
Investment timescale AND the source of the revenue.
I say you deserve Sven or Steve McLaren for the spot when Fergie retires.
😆
Sadly the West Brom manager is now taken 😉
Manchester United rich because they are successful.
And they're not successful this year either.
It will be interesting to see their strategy this summer. It's obvious that City have the stronger squad currently, and also younger.
Even utd's best two players, Giggs and Scholes, need replacing within a year (even though he's unretired for another season).
They [u]need[/u] to spend more than City just to keep up, never mind challenge to win the title again.
I don't think Fergie would be staying on without investment promises either, but it's only going to get harder for them. Players used to want to go there because of the success. They would turn down higher wages elsewhere to be part of a winning team. Its changed with Nasri.
City now offer higher wages and success, players want to go there.
I think it's been a massive achievement for AFC getting the stadium built and them in the position they are. It's sensible and derserves credit. Thing is, the game isn't sensible anymore and demands instant success with money being thrown left right and centre which doesn't always work.
Investment timescale AND the source of the revenue.
why is that imnportant? it depends whether you place greater value on having oil money from a sheikh or revenue from hundreds of thousands of 'supporters' from the far east who have never been to old trafford and never will. Lets be entirely honest about it, united have exploited foreign markets purely for the revenue it brings. A cynic might even suggest that ji-sung park is part of that marketing strategy too.
rich sugar daddy vs global marketing = no real difference IMO. All part of the modern game and perhaps both are a long way from the roots of the game.
Because the marketing is based on success and is in someway earned?
I'd rather select someone for promotion based on their performance, success in the role, and how good they have been exploiting that success on the application form, rather than the twunt who gets the job cos he plays golf with one of the directors.
rich sugar daddy vs global marketing = no real difference IMO.
Except when sugar daddy gets bored and looks for a new play thing to [i]invest[/i] his money in. You'd need to work very hard to alienate a whole new [s]market[/s] fan base.
Man City won the title.
Everyone else didn't - that is all.
Got fed up with BBC News reporters at the open-top bus parade blathering on about the Stretford team. We all know how biased the media are.
The investment in the training ground and Academy does suggest that the Sheik is in it for the long term...
Losing to Lincoln City seems a long way in the past.
you cannot win the league without serious money [Liverppol aside who seem to be able to spend to achieve less than everton]
The money could be from an investor" or form the fan base
Either way it is not fair for the majority of teams as popularity leads to more money which helps keep you at the top etc
I think for the long term it is amn issue for football. basicaly even in the EPL moist teams are playing fro nothing - wont win the league , wont get relegated so it is dull.
Whether it is unfair is a mute point.
The Americans have a very socilaist apporoach to draft choices to leave teams much more equal.
I think the authorities seem intent on fiar play rules but whether they can enforce it remains unclear - ie EThiad just paying silly money to sponsor City shirts
Got fed up with BBC News reporters at the open-top bus parade blathering on about the Stretford team. We all know how biased the media are.
Oh, God help us! One Premiership and they're acting like scousers already 😆
Look on the bright side. Yet again Huddersfield are in the play offs.
Yet again we'll be in Div1 next season.
Binners why don't you support a team from where you were born and grew up?
Zach is Stretford born and bred so legitimately can support a Manc team 😆
*yawns*
Because the marketing is based on success and is in someway earned?
That argument is out of date already. City have the success now. Utd won nothing this year.
Marketing based on a successful team can be lost just as easily as any owner walking away. Those fans in the far east have far less invested in their current team. It wouldn't take too many trophyless years for them to move on. How many foreign shirt sales for the second best team in Manchester?
The big myth in football is that it's harder to retain the title than win it first. Success brings it's own rewards, money and reputation. City now have their own money, but are making moves on Utd's fanbase and income too.
It's really pretty pathetic for Man U fans to be bleating about money. Man U have for years been the most cynically commercial club - I don't see any moral high ground in exploiting fans in Surrey and Beijing by bringing out as many team kits as they think they can get away with. (wasn't there 5 in a season at one point?)
you cannot win the league without serious money [Liverppol aside who seem to be able to spend to achieve less than everton]
How many trophies did Man U win again this season? 😉
Binners - You'll find that Man City fans have been complaining about the Red obsession of the media since 1968.
Thats just logistics though innit? Donating column inches etc to people wot win stuff. All I saw on telly last night was a sea of blue. I really can't see where this supposed bias has come into it.
Maybe the paranoia will fade with the bitterness over time? 😉
The bitterness seems to be rapidly migrating across to the red side of town. Well, I say side of town, I mean Cheshire, Surrey and Taipei. 😛
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/
Lots of information on here about who has spent what..........
Utd ave per season - £7.5m approx since Glazers
City ave per season - £66m approx since Abbu Dhabi
Liverpool ave per season - £16 m approx since Hicks Gillett
Liverpool ave per season - £25m approx since Henry