LVG.....

Going, going.....

Shoddy treatment from United IMO.

AstiSpumante wrote:

Shoddy treatment from United IMO.

Yeah they haven't handled it well. It's even worse if there are any truth in the rumours that Mourinho was paid about £4m NOT to sign for anyone else in recent months.

That said, having Jose on one side of Manchester and Pep on the other will make for some great theatre.

Horrible club that think and behave like a monarchy. They'll be second best for years now, just as they were with Macdougall/Docherty etc.
I don't think the outgoing manager could care two hoots. He knows the score. Get in, make your mark and your money. Get out, with a trophy in the record books.
While I believe the manager is THE most important person at a football club, and the only one that can actually turn base metal into gold, Ferguson overachieved purely down to the golden youngsters he inherited. Nothing like the same as Clough and Taylor, who actually built a team out of nothing and a Plymouth buuuuy.

Lord Biro wrote:

Horrible club that think and behave like a monarchy. They'll be second best for years now, just as they were with Macdougall/Docherty etc.
I don't think the outgoing manager could care two hoots. He knows the score. Get in, make your mark and your money. Get out, with a trophy in the record books.
While I believe the manager is THE most important person at a football club, and the only one that can actually turn base metal into gold, Ferguson overachieved purely down to the golden youngsters he inherited. Nothing like the same as Clough and Taylor, who actually built a team out of nothing and a Plymouth buuuuy.

A trifle harsh.Scholes, Beckham, Gillespie, Butt, the Nevilles et al were products of the youth scheme set up by Ferguson who was appalled at the mediocre scouting and coaching set up that he inherited and even before those players [Giggs excepted] came through, United had already won the premier league. Clough and Taylor inherited some under achieving players at Forest like Woodcock, Robertson ,Anderson etc and shook the hell out of some of them while building around them with people like Shilton, Gemmill, Burns and Francis who didn't come cheap.It sure didn't last as long as the Ferguson dynasty though.

Not sure about Mourinho at Old Trafford or indeed Guardiola at Man City. Expectations will be very high and immediate success demanded at two clubs whose current set up's are by no means guaranteed to bring the results that some of their supporters will deem to be their right. Maybe the mighty Leicester will upset the apple cart again-certainly hope so.

Czarcasm wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

Shoddy treatment from United IMO.

Yeah they haven't handled it well. It's even worse if there are any truth in the rumours that Mourinho was paid about £4m NOT to sign for anyone else in recent months.

That said, having Jose on one side of Manchester and Pep on the other will make for some great theatre.

Also shows the level of contempt Man U have for the FA Cup. I know this has been done deal since JM left Chelsea but Man U won't be concerned this looks like only winning the FA Cup after 2 years in charge (and Europa League qualification) is a sackable offence.

I really don't care who manages them. They ceased to be a football club years ago, they're now a money making opportunity for Americans, who will rip off their supporters for as long as they can. As most of them come from the Home Counties they can probably afford it. Lordy is right when he calls them a horrible club. That's exactly what they are.

I just want them to lose every game they play. Along with Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea and Arsenal. They've all tried to buy success at the expense of football's soul.

How deep is that?

Agree with most of what you say but shorely Spurs should be on your list too? It wouldn't surprise me if they'd spent more than Arsenal chasing the dream, in actual fact the entire premier league is awash with money and even clubs like Stoke and Southampton spend obscene amounts on fairly average players. It's football Jim, but not as we know it.

Les Miserable wrote:

Agree with most of what you say but shorely Spurs should be on your list too? It wouldn't surprise me if they'd spent more than Arsenal chasing the dream, in actual fact the entire premier league is awash with money and even clubs like Stoke and Southampton spend obscene amounts on fairly average players. It's football Jim, but not as we know it.

There could be any number of clubs on the list. I chose those 4 because they have billionaire foreign owners who have pumped in obscene amounts of money on top of what's already there from Sky.

Would we be saying this if Argo were in the Prem, spending £10m on a player?

Never happen with Lord James in charge obviously.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

I really don't care who manages them. They ceased to be a football club years ago, they're now a money making opportunity for Americans, who will rip off their supporters for as long as they can. As most of them come from the Home Counties they can probably afford it. Lordy is right when he calls them a horrible club. That's exactly what they are.

I just want them to lose every game they play. Along with Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea and Arsenal. They've all tried to buy success at the expense of football's soul.

How deep is that?

But All clubs try and buy success don't they? big or small heck even Argyle strangely enough do too in a small brentish kind of way.

Angry wrote:

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

I really don't care who manages them. They ceased to be a football club years ago, they're now a money making opportunity for Americans, who will rip off their supporters for as long as they can. As most of them come from the Home Counties they can probably afford it. Lordy is right when he calls them a horrible club. That's exactly what they are.

I just want them to lose every game they play. Along with Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea and Arsenal. They've all tried to buy success at the expense of football's soul.

How deep is that?

But All clubs try and buy success don't they? big or small heck even Argyle strangely enough do too in a small brentish kind of way.

But Lord James does it sustainably. Which means he gets other people to pay for it.

It's all relative I guess. Leicester spent quite a few million but nowhere near the so called 'big 4, or 5 or 6'. Argo have a budget (allegedly), and they keep within that. The top clubs don't have a budget they just throw money at players.

As Les said, it's football Jim but not as we know it.

Angry wrote:

But All clubs try and buy success don't they? big or small heck even Argyle strangely enough do too in a small brentish kind of way.

That's just a lazy lob ..... the "we're all guilty" routine, which by the way some have always had an interest in promoting.
It doesn't address the systemic problem. Football is a competitive physical sport, mainly for men. If it's going to be properly competitive in a football sense, then outside fiscal enhancements should be banned, or else it's just a finance exercise.

No one has a problem with, say, one team having twice the budget of another, if they have twice the gates. That's how it always was, and isn't really the problem. The problem has arisen from single individuals, or in Madrid's case, the local city government, skewing the ratios out of all recognition. That isn't healthy as a headline industry in the public eye. It breeds bad blood and spills over into other areas of society. I believe in cultural disease. It spreads as surely as the medical sort.
Again, the flawed American NFL has surprisingly taken some of the inevitable disease out of the system better than most.

What the American model has ingrained into its DNA and English football, in particular but others too, has forgotten is that competitive sport is pointless unless it is between near equals. The US model removes advantage from those who thrive and decrees advantage to those who struggle - in many ways it is as Marxist as could be which is deeply ironic when you think about it.

And it hasn't always been the case that the team with twice the attendance had twice the budget. It wasn't so long ago that attendances at league matches were shared 50/50 (after the league took its cut) between the protagonists.

It was the abolition of this, driven through by Martin Edwards when he was Man Utd chairman, that set the ball rolling towards the monster we have today where inequality is deeply entrenched into the game's structure.

Next to go was the TV money. There never used to be much but what there was was split equally between the clubs in each division with Div 1 taking half of the pot, Div 2 a quarter and Divs 3 & 4 an eighth each.

Man Utd were pretty much at the forefront of getting that scrapped too.

It's no wonder everybody hates them.

LVG is just not photogenic enough to front a club like that.

Lord Biro wrote:

Horrible club that think and behave like a monarchy. They'll be second best for years now, just as they were with Macdougall/Docherty etc.
I don't think the outgoing manager could care two hoots. He knows the score. Get in, make your mark and your money. Get out, with a trophy in the record books.
While I believe the manager is THE most important person at a football club, and the only one that can actually turn base metal into gold, Ferguson overachieved purely down to the golden youngsters he inherited. Nothing like the same as Clough and Taylor, who actually built a team out of nothing and a Plymouth buuuuy.

Great example of someone who A) is completly clueless about football but B) is so anti-Man united they cant discuss them rationally, however A) will always limit them to the intelligence of fly

Lord Biro wrote:

Angry wrote:

But All clubs try and buy success don't they? big or small heck even Argyle strangely enough do too in a small brentish kind of way.

That's just a lazy lob ..... the "we're all guilty" routine, which by the way some have always had an interest in promoting.
It doesn't address the systemic problem. Football is a competitive physical sport, mainly for men. If it's going to be properly competitive in a football sense, then outside fiscal enhancements should be banned, or else it's just a finance exercise.

No one has a problem with, say, one team having twice the budget of another, if they have twice the gates. That's how it always was, and isn't really the problem. The problem has arisen from single individuals, or in Madrid's case, the local city government,  skewing the ratios out of all recognition. That isn't  healthy as a headline industry in the public eye. It breeds bad blood and spills over into other areas of society. I believe in cultural disease. It spreads as surely as the medical sort.
Again, the flawed American NFL has surprisingly taken some of the inevitable disease out of the system better than most.

United were spending big bucks before the glazers turned up, Infact its well know about the debt they brang with them. United dont have a sugar daddy like chelsea or city

all united's wealth comes from corporate and sponsorship deals, No different to your local non-league club relying on sponsorship and bar takings it just so happens that united are the biggest brand in the world.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

Angry wrote:

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

I really don't care who manages them. They ceased to be a football club years ago, they're now a money making opportunity for Americans, who will rip off their supporters for as long as they can. As most of them come from the Home Counties they can probably afford it. Lordy is right when he calls them a horrible club. That's exactly what they are.

I just want them to lose every game they play. Along with Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea and Arsenal. They've all tried to buy success at the expense of football's soul.

How deep is that?

But All clubs try and buy success don't they? big or small heck even Argyle strangely enough do too in a small brentish kind of way.

But Lord James does it sustainably. Which means he gets other people to pay for it.

It's all relative I guess. Leicester spent quite a few million but nowhere near the so called 'big 4, or 5 or 6'. Argo have a budget (allegedly), and they keep within that. The top clubs don't have a budget they just throw money at players.

As Les said, it's football Jim but not as we know it.

All top clubs are bound by the FFP so have to keep within those guidelines

AstiSpumante wrote:

Shoddy treatment from United IMO.

What did united do wrong? it was the jose camp that leaked it !

Dane. wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Horrible club that think and behave like a monarchy. They'll be second best for years now, just as they were with Macdougall/Docherty etc.
I don't think the outgoing manager could care two hoots. He knows the score. Get in, make your mark and your money. Get out, with a trophy in the record books.
While I believe the manager is THE most important person at a football club, and the only one that can actually turn base metal into gold, Ferguson overachieved purely down to the golden youngsters he inherited. Nothing like the same as Clough and Taylor, who actually built a team out of nothing and a Plymouth buuuuy.

Great example of someone who A) is completly clueless about football but B) is so anti-Man united they cant discuss them rationally, however A) will always limit them to the intelligence of fly

I was never one of the Man U haters, and actually I'm still not, if only it could rid itself of it's present owners. I loved what they gave football with Best Law and Charlton.
But now, just as with Abramovich, and the other Manchester club, the club itself has changed. And bought by  god forsaken owners with the club's own money. I feel sorry for the real fans, including the green and yellows, having to put up with the day trippers from all over the world. They want their club back, just as I want my club back. Giggs is the only good hearted thing there at the moment.
You know diddly about most things. Full of chirp and not much else. Too busy being what you think is cool. Old fashioned even.

Lord Biro wrote:

Dane. wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Horrible club that think and behave like a monarchy. They'll be second best for years now, just as they were with Macdougall/Docherty etc.
I don't think the outgoing manager could care two hoots. He knows the score. Get in, make your mark and your money. Get out, with a trophy in the record books.
While I believe the manager is THE most important person at a football club, and the only one that can actually turn base metal into gold, Ferguson overachieved purely down to the golden youngsters he inherited. Nothing like the same as Clough and Taylor, who actually built a team out of nothing and a Plymouth buuuuy.

Great example of someone who A) is completly clueless about football but B) is so anti-Man united they cant discuss them rationally, however A) will always limit them to the intelligence of fly

I was never one of the Man U haters, and actually I'm still not, if only it could rid itself of it's present owners. I loved what they gave football with Best Law and Charlton.
But now, just as with Abramovich, and the other Manchester club, the club itself has changed. And bought by  god forsaken owners with the club's own money. I feel sorry for the real fans, including the green and yellows, having to put up with the day trippers from all over the world. They want their club back, just as I want my club back. Giggs is the only good hearted thing there at the moment.
You know diddly about most things. Full of chirp and not much else. Too busy being what you think is cool. Old fashioned even.

Ive forgotten more then you know !

Than...

Dane. wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Dane. wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Horrible club that think and behave like a monarchy. They'll be second best for years now, just as they were with Macdougall/Docherty etc.
I don't think the outgoing manager could care two hoots. He knows the score. Get in, make your mark and your money. Get out, with a trophy in the record books.
While I believe the manager is THE most important person at a football club, and the only one that can actually turn base metal into gold, Ferguson overachieved purely down to the golden youngsters he inherited. Nothing like the same as Clough and Taylor, who actually built a team out of nothing and a Plymouth buuuuy.

Great example of someone who A) is completly clueless about football but B) is so anti-Man united they cant discuss them rationally, however A) will always limit them to the intelligence of fly

I was never one of the Man U haters, and actually I'm still not, if only it could rid itself of it's present owners. I loved what they gave football with Best Law and Charlton.
But now, just as with Abramovich, and the other Manchester club, the club itself has changed. And bought by  god forsaken owners with the club's own money. I feel sorry for the real fans, including the green and yellows, having to put up with the day trippers from all over the world. They want their club back, just as I want my club back. Giggs is the only good hearted thing there at the moment.
You know diddly about most things. Full of chirp and not much else. Too busy being what you think is cool. Old fashioned even.

Ive forgotten more then you know !

I'd wager LB has played at a higher level than you.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Dane. wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Dane. wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Horrible club that think and behave like a monarchy. They'll be second best for years now, just as they were with Macdougall/Docherty etc.
I don't think the outgoing manager could care two hoots. He knows the score. Get in, make your mark and your money. Get out, with a trophy in the record books.
While I believe the manager is THE most important person at a football club, and the only one that can actually turn base metal into gold, Ferguson overachieved purely down to the golden youngsters he inherited. Nothing like the same as Clough and Taylor, who actually built a team out of nothing and a Plymouth buuuuy.

Great example of someone who A) is completly clueless about football but B) is so anti-Man united they cant discuss them rationally, however A) will always limit them to the intelligence of fly

I was never one of the Man U haters, and actually I'm still not, if only it could rid itself of it's present owners. I loved what they gave football with Best Law and Charlton.
But now, just as with Abramovich, and the other Manchester club, the club itself has changed. And bought by  god forsaken owners with the club's own money. I feel sorry for the real fans, including http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/10293151/jose-mourinho-appointed-manchester-united-bossthe green and yellows, having to put up with the day trippers from all over the world. They want their club back, just as I want my club back. Giggs is the only good hearted thing there at the moment.
You know diddly about most things. Full of chirp and not much else. Too busy being what you think is cool. Old fashioned even.

Ive forgotten more then you know !

I'd wager LB has played at a higher level than you.

What next? My Dad's harder than your Dad?

In other news...

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/10293151/jose-mourinho-appointed-manchester-united-boss

Great news. Well done ed and the United board.