mentality to United?
Or is he just doing what Fergie used to do?
Just seen Roy Keane's comments and i agree with him, but I am not a United fan, so interested to learn your thoughts.
I don't recall LVG making so many excuses when he was in charge.
Do you think Jose's comments are befitting for a club the size of United?
Is Mourinho bringing a small club
posted on 17/3/17
comment by Mr Chelsea. (U3579)
posted 33 seconds ago
We've spent money though. Money helps along with getting lucky with player signings (some work out and some dont) and hiring a good manager. Money alone won't win you anything. Don't think any Chelsea fan would say money hasn't helped but that's why i think Utd fans thought it would be easy as flashing the cash and going back to the top. But they've recruited poor both in terms of players and managers. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if we win the league this season a return of 5PL titles in 13years will actually look quite decent.
posted on 17/3/17
I think the reason for this could due to a number of factors. The PL physical demand being one of them, it doesn't mean PL better than La Liga or even Bundesliga for that matter.
posted on 17/3/17
Man City have been a force for the last ten years now. Still nowhere near dominating the league as they should've done considering Sheikh's Mansour nvestment in that club. Also, they've been pretty average in Europe. That said, Man Utd haven't been that far from matching in terms of investments in attempt to rebuild their squad since Fergie left. So there shouldn't be any excuses from.both clubs.
____________
TBH I think this paragraph is quite telling in some ways. It highlights the expectation that spending loads of money should equate to winning the league, or even dominating it.
But what happens when 3, 4 or 5 clubs all spend obscene amounts of money? They can't all win/dominate yet they are all expected to do so and that's why so many fans are always left disappointed and so many managers get sacked.
If Chelsea, City and United all spend hundreds of millions, all have world class players and world class managers then what happens? Only one can win while the others are said to have failed and have no excuses. Which is illogical really!
posted on 17/3/17
Agreed biggish. 5 in 13 is very good.
posted on 17/3/17
United will have the same 5 in 13,
The rest of the spoils are between City and Leicester
posted on 17/3/17
The reality is that neither of you have been, that's the problem. Chelsea have not spent the huge sums, both Mancs have easily outspent Chelsea in the last 4-5 years.
Mr C touched briefly on this earlier which I agree with. Money alone doesn't always equal success but it does help. Your problem is that most of that investment has been wasted on recruiting crap players recently. Now you probably need to invests as much (assuming that you buy the right players this time) in order to compete for the title.
posted on 17/3/17
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 5 minutes ago
United will have the same 5 in 13,
The rest of the spoils are between City and Leicester
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It works out a title every two and a half season. That's pretty decent tbf
posted on 17/3/17
The reality is that neither of you have been, that's the problem. Chelsea have not spent the huge sums, both Mancs have easily outspent Chelsea in the last 4-5 years.
______________
I agree but this is slightly misleading though. Our poor business in the transfer market goes back much further than 4-5 years. It's just more noticeable in recent years since players like Rio, Vidic, Scholes, Evra etc. all retired/left, Rooney became crap etc.
While other clubs were spending loads, SAF complained about "no value" in the market. That's where our problems started. More recently we started panic buying and overspending in order to try to bounce back from the horrific Moyes season and Fergie's under-spending in previous years (those two things are linked btw). Until the last few years, even Liverpool had outspent United in the PL era!
Some Chelsea fans may believe that players like Hazard joined solely because they liked the Chelsea "project" but many people feel that SAF's reluctance to spend big (particularly on agents' fees) had a big part to play in that.
It's easy to forget that, not so long ago, Chelsea and City were outspending United and we still see the ramifications of that to this day. Money has a big impact but it is not always an immediate impact. E.g. can we really expect to see a £90m return on Pogba within 10 months?
The amount that clubs have spent in the last 5 years will, in part, be evaluated over the *next* five years. Equally, in order to evaluate club success over the last 5 years you have to look at spending over the last 10 years, not 5.
posted on 17/3/17
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 2 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 16 minutes ago
You are the biggest club in England, I have no idea who said you were mid table, but clearly you can't take them seriously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*biggest club in the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 17/3/17
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 4 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 16 minutes ago
You are the biggest club in England, I have no idea who said you were mid table, but clearly you can't take them seriously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*biggest club in the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS get over yourself. He says something positive about your club and you still feel the need to snipe in with your sad little comment filled with a superiority complex