Nothing personal I know you were criticising him.

junction8, I didn't read your 'pop' at me before it was deleted, but if you thought I was using the Munich air disaster to be offensive then you've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm against any blue using it in that respect and if you go on facebook and search 'MCFC Supporters Against Munich Chants' you'll find a page I set up to voice this. However, that doesn't mean that United as a club themselves have handled the situation with dignity in many respects, that's all I am saying and if the OP doesn't want this on his thread that's fair enough, we go no further, just want to set that straight.

So now you admit United have been successful due to financial power, but suggest that teams like City and Chelsea won't have the worldwide respect that United do, for essentially doing the same thing but in a shorter space of time. Interesting.

Grated, that wasn't how it read at the time. The word 'exploitation' was used.

So many bitter glory hunters trying to patronise City fans on here with the old "my club is more respected" boring routine!

I'm sure Ronaldo was playing for nothing when he won you all them titles on his own !

No need to go further with it now man, you know where I stand on the issue, just don't want people on here thinking I'm one of the minority of blues who are completely ignorant with regards to this issue.

fair enough

Your original post wasn't fair or impartial, it made little sense.

You started off saying following "example of Chelsea shows that it is something that we are going to have to deal with eventually. Money talks!!" Which gives the impression that you think mass spending to bring success was originally thought up by Abramovic in 2003.

You then went on to say both City and Chelsea's achievements are down to sheer luck.

You then say we are both small clubs resented worldwide and will recieve no credit for our achievements.

You also state that United are a club which have done things 'the right way'. Well I'm sorry but you're wrong, you didn't have the highest gates in the country in the 1950s at all, and you clearly have little knowledge of the history of your club other than the standard plastic awareness of "19" or you would know that your club were saved from bankrupcy by an olden day 'sugar daddy' if you like and then floated on the stock market in the early 90s.

Redknapps coat, i think he is happy to join us because dear old 'arry never gave him a call, he was so upset he took his ball home and said i'm joining city, and boo hoo to you lot

John,

Don't mention the War, or the 200k

just one thing, how do you get spurs players to play for free, is it the number of trophies, your world reputation of winning the double in 1961.

Wish we didnt have to pay our players like spurs, wish i supported a club that doesnt do its business in the press and had a manager who never ever mentions another player like wot Uncle 'arry doesnt.

Us bitter....the whole article stinks of it.

We shall wallow in our good fortune while you can all wallow in your bitterness
I've watched 30 odd years of dross so I'm sorry if you think we should in some way be ashamed of having the opportunity to "buy" the title because quite frankly we don't give a toss

No you said following the example of Chelsea, if you meant to say 'clubs who have spent money have always done well' you should have said 'following the example of Liverpool in the 1950s' or whoever it was that started the whole trend!

P.S. I advise you don't write everything you say in capitals, it doesn't make you look very bright.

Funny how when a player joins City, there simply has to be an "ulterior motive" (i.e. money). Despite him joining when we are now in the Champions League, having won a trophy in the last season, and to all intents and purposes look to be on the "up" from that.

Yet when a player joins, say, Spurs, he does so only for the love of the club.

Funny how the "money" argument is only trotted out when a player signs for a club on a contract that is arbitrarily valued by fans on a message board as being worth too much

What, pray tell, is this arbitrary cut-off figure? £60,000 per week too much - nah, these people, who won't earn £60,000 a year, let alone a week, think that is a "
cheap wage". Is it £100k per week? £150k per week? £200k per week?

Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Funny how there are many Spurs fans seemingly disillusioned with their clubs lack of transfer activity this summer. And if Spurs made a decision to break the bank to get a top-class player, they would put to one-side any concern as to what he was earning and merely celebrate his signing. That one moment they absolute adore Modric, the next they are calling him names (simply because he has the audacity to want to better himself (and his chances of obtaining success) by moving to a club that has bigger ambition than the one he is currently playing for).

Funny how the world's best players are playing for the world's biggest clubs, while earning the world's biggest wages. Why is that? Surely they should feel priviledged to play for such clubs, so why do they need (and receive) such a big wage before they do so?

He liked the Balti pies.

Didnt Chelsea finish 3rd BEFORE (yes capitals) the large injection of cash, and win the cup and your calling them mediocre

What is your definition of "mediocre"? An established Premier League team (that plays in the so-called best league in the world), or, say, an average Championship/League One club?

People band around this idea of mediocre without any idea what it actually means. If the Premier League is made up of a majority of mediocre clubs (which is what you felt Chelsea were a few years back), then that means that United are nothing but Champions of a mediocre league.

Talk about (inadvertantly) putting down your own clubs sucesses.

Football is a business (Thank Spurs and then United for that when they floated on the stock-exchange). Any injection of cash will help a business become successful. There is a reason why such mega-rich people are attracted to clubs in the Premier League, and that's because it is a cash-rich, cash-orientated. The very same reason why such people buy such clubs is the very same reason why fans (of such clubs) take pride in the club they support generating so much financial revenue.

This is boring me now. Intelligent people use the most recent examples? I think most historians would beg to differ with you on that front, then again most of them are probably just uneducated neanderthals...

is because intelligent people tend to use the most recent and direct examples when making a point

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

Which is such people's downfall. There are a myriad of comparisons that can be made, and time should never be used as some kind of restraint before doing so. Football is littered with examples of clubs benefitting from investment. United being one of them. If you want to limit your knowledge and understanding to the contemporary only, then, well, you are only limiting your own knowledge of the game overall.

Knowledge and understanding comes from history, comes from understanding what has "gone on before". Citing an example that happened in the game 20, 30, 50, 100 years ago is as relevent as it is citing an example today. It is all relative - the common ground being the game itself. Only someone ignorant of the game's history (and thus ignorant of the facts) would claim otherwise.