Carlos Tevez, no shame

the same paper and the mail have said of city's turnout last night, and i quote, "12,000 at the official victory parade (in albert square), UP TO 50,000 on the streets". not bad, but considering the achievement not great either. you could have just rented out the nort stand at old trafford...

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2015/5764653068_6a0454b90d_z.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3023/5764080123_b069c488e5_z.jpg

look at those pictures. and like i said, that's just deansgate...the sheer scale of that parade was one of the main reasons why the council were wary of granting us another one, such were the health and safety risks. they grant city one at hardly any notice. what does that tell you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4582069.stm

if liverpool can cope with that number of people, then surely manchester, a bigger city can?

i think they may be more in the know than one as bitter as yourself to be honest.

-----------------

Good one.
We know one thing - numerous estimates for United's parade have been quoted. They all can't be correct. In all probability none of them are. Hence why they are estimates. The question is however, which estimate is the more realistic?

And 1 million people is certainly not realistic. At least, not from a logistical perspective. Think about it. Double the entire population of Manchester all crammed into a seven mile stretch of road? Including 50,000 (sic) people inside a 21,000 capacity arena?

Let's not be silly now.

"look at those pictures. and like i said, that's just deansgate."

Yeah, they're impressive. Tell you what - count em. Then get back to me.

"the sheer scale of that parade was one of the main reasons why the council were wary of granting us another one"

Quote: "Manchester and Trafford councils, who were involved in talks with police, have said they would support a parade.
Writing on his blog, the leader of Manchester City Council Richard Leese said they had made it clear that it was a decision for Manchester United and Greater Manchester Police. He said: "If Manchester United wants a parade, then we are quite happy to do our bit.
"We will do whatever we need to do.""

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7414342.stm)

The council doesn't seem wary to me.

i've already apologised for that, 50,000 actually surrounded old trafford. given 76,000 now fill the area fortnightly i reckon that's feasible. the facts are united flled manchester in 1999 in a way which will never be seen again. ever. tonight was supposed to be city's equivalent and they barely scraped a sixth? of the crowd? despite the fact that everyone living in the city supports them? and they finished the night piecing together their shattered reputation and grovelling to the most successful manager in football. says it all. good night.

if liverpool can cope with that number of people, then surely manchester, a bigger city can?

----------------------

Another BBC article estimates 300k gathered around St George's Hall.

300k? That's 4 times the amount of people who were in Wembley Stadium in 1985 for Live Aid

http://orangemercury.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/rocks-iconic-live-performance-freddie.html

tonight was supposed to be city's equivalent and they barely scraped a sixth?

-------------------------

City's equivalent? What, of United's treble in 1999? The blue moon may be rising, but we've some way to go before our success yesterday can be regarded as an equivalent to United's success in 1999.

And a sixth of what exactly Ole? You earlier quoted upto 50,000 on the streets for City's parade. If that's a sixth of United's parade in 1999, well in the space of a few posts you've just reduced your own understanding of the number of people who attended United's victory parade in 1999 by 700,000.

comment by BusbysBabes (U9083)

posted 8 hours, 30 minutes ago

Fergy and the Utd squad showed the country how to lose

----

Tevez the Merc suits City cos they are all Vile.