It's not Giggs or Scholes' fault that the Glazers bought the club (though you could argue in a way it was Sir Alex's) and we can't afford to bring in massive signings (on proven players) anymore.
And it's not their fault that Anderson, Cleverley and Fletcher can't stay fit/have an illness.
Rant over.
Beckham shouldn't of
Gone but neither should giggs. Nowhere near good
Enough anymore. But tbf it's only thenolympics so it don't really matter
funrob - Carrickschin (U9808)
Gonna have to disagree with most of that mate. It`s that kind of mentality that makes lfc the laughing stock they are nowadays and why they didn`t offload barnes, rush and grobelaar sooner in the early to mid 90`s which cost them.
Keep them both at the club, but don`t rely on them like we used to because they just aren`t up to it.
And suggesting you are willing to sacrifice success just to accomadate them is ludicrus.
though you could argue in a way it was Sir Alex's)
...................
You could argue that if you were a complete and utter idiot.
SgtBosco
I don't mean I wanna 'sacrifice' success but for the other reasons I mentioned (other players not being able to stay fit etc) I think that we're blessed to have these players still playing for us and giving their all when other circumstances have made their stay at United a necessity when with all the money they've earned they could be on a beach somewhere for most of the year.
The football at the Olympics is a novelty event, the championships that we've been enjoying at the moment is a bigger for football fans than the Olympics, it's more about the occasion rather than winning gold ,Becks would have raised the profile of the event that he helped bring to Britain in the first place, this smacks of stuart pearce flexing his muscles and trying to play the big man who makes his own decisions like he did to disastrous effect for England a few months ago.
funrob - Carrickschin (U9808)
"but for me I don't really care if we win the League or Champions League every year, because they were my childhood favourites and exemplify just what United is about.
I'd rather those two play than a team full of mercenaries."
That`s how i enterpreted it mate.
I don`t think you need to worry about them going anywhere or being discluded from anything when they do finally hang up their boots - Robbo, Phelan, Solskjaer, Scholesy, even the traitor kiddo all had roles to play. Then there`s Sir Bob etc.
But i think letting sentiment get in the way of continuity is suicide.
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.
Vidicschin
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?
funrob - Carrickschin (U9808)
Are you that stupid that you`re pointing the finger of blame at Sir Alex for the glazers buying us?
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!
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.
Sign in if you want to comment
Beckham left out of Olympic Squad
Page 3 of 3
posted on 28/6/12
It's not Giggs or Scholes' fault that the Glazers bought the club (though you could argue in a way it was Sir Alex's) and we can't afford to bring in massive signings (on proven players) anymore.
posted on 28/6/12
And it's not their fault that Anderson, Cleverley and Fletcher can't stay fit/have an illness.
Rant over.
posted on 28/6/12
Beckham shouldn't of
Gone but neither should giggs. Nowhere near good
Enough anymore. But tbf it's only thenolympics so it don't really matter
posted on 28/6/12
funrob - Carrickschin (U9808)
Gonna have to disagree with most of that mate. It`s that kind of mentality that makes lfc the laughing stock they are nowadays and why they didn`t offload barnes, rush and grobelaar sooner in the early to mid 90`s which cost them.
Keep them both at the club, but don`t rely on them like we used to because they just aren`t up to it.
And suggesting you are willing to sacrifice success just to accomadate them is ludicrus.
posted on 28/6/12
though you could argue in a way it was Sir Alex's)
...................
You could argue that if you were a complete and utter idiot.
posted on 28/6/12
SgtBosco
I don't mean I wanna 'sacrifice' success but for the other reasons I mentioned (other players not being able to stay fit etc) I think that we're blessed to have these players still playing for us and giving their all when other circumstances have made their stay at United a necessity when with all the money they've earned they could be on a beach somewhere for most of the year.
posted on 28/6/12
The football at the Olympics is a novelty event, the championships that we've been enjoying at the moment is a bigger for football fans than the Olympics, it's more about the occasion rather than winning gold ,Becks would have raised the profile of the event that he helped bring to Britain in the first place, this smacks of stuart pearce flexing his muscles and trying to play the big man who makes his own decisions like he did to disastrous effect for England a few months ago.
posted on 28/6/12
funrob - Carrickschin (U9808)
"but for me I don't really care if we win the League or Champions League every year, because they were my childhood favourites and exemplify just what United is about.
I'd rather those two play than a team full of mercenaries."
That`s how i enterpreted it mate.
I don`t think you need to worry about them going anywhere or being discluded from anything when they do finally hang up their boots - Robbo, Phelan, Solskjaer, Scholesy, even the traitor kiddo all had roles to play. Then there`s Sir Bob etc.
But i think letting sentiment get in the way of continuity is suicide.
posted on 28/6/12
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.
posted on 28/6/12
Vidicschin
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?
posted on 28/6/12
funrob - Carrickschin (U9808)
Are you that stupid that you`re pointing the finger of blame at Sir Alex for the glazers buying us?
posted on 28/6/12
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.
posted on 28/6/12
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.
posted on 28/6/12
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.
posted on 28/6/12
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.
posted on 28/6/12
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.
posted on 28/6/12
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!
posted on 28/6/12
Bosco
Maybe, maybe not
posted on 28/6/12
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.
posted on 28/6/12
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.
posted on 28/6/12
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.
Page 3 of 3