Beckham left out of Olympic Squad

The football at the Olympics is a novelty event.

................

it used to be, it isn't anymore. Teams like Brazil take it seriously to bed in their youngsters.
..............................................................

I should have clarified that people in the UK see it as a novelty event, we've never had a team before and probably won't do again, we've only got a team because it's in London. The south american teams have always taken it seriously, as you say blooding the youngsters, which is a good idea to be fair to them.

Do you not remember Sir Alex's legal battle with JP Mcmanus and John Magnier and how they sold their 28.7% stake in the club which led to the Glazers buying United?

................

I remeber SAF's legal battle. It had absolutely nothing to do with the paddys selling to the Glazers though did it?

You would have to be an utter pillock to think it did.

More the fact that the paddys stood to make 270 million pounds proffit from the sale.

comment by SgtBoscoBaracus (U11220)
posted 55 seconds ago
funrob - Carrickschin (U9808)

Are you that stupid that you`re pointing the finger of blame at Sir Alex for the glazers buying us?

................

I think he actually is.

The thing is, if the Paddys were trying to get at SAF by selling their shares to the Glazer's, then it has been a spectacular failure.

1. SAF has enjoyed the most successful period in his career, under the Glazer's.

2. SAF has often said how much easier it is to work with the Glazer's than it was with the shareholders.

OH NO! I accidentally insulted Sir Alex which is a major offence on this site..
What I meant was that by making an enemy of major shareholders of the club, when the Glazers came along, if Sir Alex had a problem with them taking over he had no influence at all with McManus/Magnier to stop them from selling (to the Glazers). They could have made a profit by selling to somebody else who Sir Alex would have been far better working under i.e someone who didn't have to borrow money and load the debt onto the club.

So I wasn't saying that Sir Alex was 100% responsible for the Glazers buying the club but his disastrous legal battle with the Irishmen may have in some small way not helped our situation in the long term. And i'm not the only person to have this opinion as i've read this countless times in the past. I'm not stating this opinion as fact, moreso sharing a thought that may or may not be true.

Vidicschin (U3584)

I despair then!

Where I agree with your points, you have to agree he`s undoubtedly had his wings clipped with regards to transfer funds, which can`t sit well with him.

funrob - Carrickschin (U9808)

I don`t think you actually DO know what you`re saying in honesty! I think you just type the first thing that comes into your head!

Bosco

Maybe, maybe not

comment by funrob - Carrickschin (U9808)
posted 7 minutes ago
OH NO! I accidentally insulted Sir Alex which is a major offence on this site..

...................

There was nothing accidental about it at all.

you have to agree he`s undoubtedly had his wings clipped with regards to transfer funds, which can`t sit well with him.

........................

I don't buy that really. He says he has always been given money when he has asked for it, and I belive him. It isn't in SAF's nature to be a yes man to anyone.

What I do belive is that the way we buy players under the Glazers has changed.

Vidicschin (U3584)

Without trying to open up an age old debate that will never be answered or solved, especially on here, do you not think it`s a bit more than coincidental that our lack of big spending, and when i say big i don`t mean ridiculously like the berties and cheatski, has been curbed since they came along and the debt pile was built?

I just think "value" is a byword for skint, in comparrison to how it used to be when we were a plc and self funded by our own profit.