Who do you want to win the league?

[wykikitoon 20129]

Hehe I love the BBC text commentry

 

1749: Cristiano Ronaldo gets a great standing ovation from the home fans as he comes off to be replaced by Gabriel Heinze. Actually, that's a lie. The Portugal winger is booed off, as expected.

[luckyluke 2]

As much as it pains me to say it, Man Utd. I can't stand Chelsea for a number of reasons:

 

1. Their manager is a whinging cock-end with a persecution complex

2. Their players are diving, cheating, mercenery gits who believe they have some kind of god-given right for descisons to go their way.

3. John Terry. I've never liked this racist shitbag, the trouble Emre is getting in is ridiculous when nothing was made of Terry's abuse towards Chimbonda.

4. Their bottomless pit of money means they have an enormous advantage over every team. And unlike Man Utd before them, this was not earnt throught their own success.

5. The fact that these millions rightfully belong to the Russian working class before Abramovich swindled them out of it.

6. They represent everything wrong with football in this country.

 

I hope for the day Abramovich leaves (or better still, is arrested) and this evil ridden club will fold into nothingness.

[Fop 1]

Arsenal or ManUre.

 

Just not Chelsea or Liverpool. I hate them both.

 

 

Anyone but those four....... but it'll never happen tbh, not this season, not next season, not any season for the next 10+ years IMO (and the way things are going ever maybe unless another team gets another Abramovich).

[wykikitoon 20129]

As much as it pains me to say it, Man Utd. I can't stand Chelsea for a number of reasons:

 

1. Their manager is a whinging cock-end with a persecution complex

2. Their players are diving, cheating, mercenery gits who believe they have some kind of god-given right for descisons to go their way.

3. John Terry. I've never liked this racist shitbag, the trouble Emre is getting in is ridiculous when nothing was made of Terry's abuse towards Chimbonda.

4. Their bottomless pit of money means they have an enormous advantage over every team. And unlike Man Utd before them, this was not earnt throught their own success.

5. The fact that these millions rightfully belong to the Russian working class before Abramovich swindled them out of it.

6. They represent everything wrong with football in this country.

 

I hope for the day Abramovich leaves (or better still, is arrested) and this evil ridden club will fold into nothingness.

 

 

Class Luke

[Shearergol 0]

As much as it pains me to say it, Man Utd. I can't stand Chelsea for a number of reasons:

 

1. Their manager is a whinging cock-end with a persecution complex

2. Their players are diving, cheating, mercenery gits who believe they have some kind of god-given right for descisons to go their way.

3. John Terry. I've never liked this racist shitbag, the trouble Emre is getting in is ridiculous when nothing was made of Terry's abuse towards Chimbonda.

4. Their bottomless pit of money means they have an enormous advantage over every team. And unlike Man Utd before them, this was not earnt throught their own success.

5. The fact that these millions rightfully belong to the Russian working class before Abramovich swindled them out of it.

6. They represent everything wrong with football in this country.

 

I hope for the day Abramovich leaves (or better still, is arrested) and this evil ridden club will fold into nothingness.

 

That's still being investigated.

[wykikitoon 20129]

As much as it pains me to say it, Man Utd. I can't stand Chelsea for a number of reasons:

 

1. Their manager is a whinging cock-end with a persecution complex

2. Their players are diving, cheating, mercenery gits who believe they have some kind of god-given right for descisons to go their way.

3. John Terry. I've never liked this racist shitbag, the trouble Emre is getting in is ridiculous when nothing was made of Terry's abuse towards Chimbonda.

4. Their bottomless pit of money means they have an enormous advantage over every team. And unlike Man Utd before them, this was not earnt throught their own success.

5. The fact that these millions rightfully belong to the Russian working class before Abramovich swindled them out of it.

6. They represent everything wrong with football in this country.

 

I hope for the day Abramovich leaves (or better still, is arrested) and this evil ridden club will fold into nothingness.

 

That's still being investigated.

 

Hmm is this why he is "injured"

[Shearergol 0]

As much as it pains me to say it, Man Utd. I can't stand Chelsea for a number of reasons:

 

1. Their manager is a whinging cock-end with a persecution complex

2. Their players are diving, cheating, mercenery gits who believe they have some kind of god-given right for descisons to go their way.

3. John Terry. I've never liked this racist shitbag, the trouble Emre is getting in is ridiculous when nothing was made of Terry's abuse towards Chimbonda.

4. Their bottomless pit of money means they have an enormous advantage over every team. And unlike Man Utd before them, this was not earnt throught their own success.

5. The fact that these millions rightfully belong to the Russian working class before Abramovich swindled them out of it.

6. They represent everything wrong with football in this country.

 

I hope for the day Abramovich leaves (or better still, is arrested) and this evil ridden club will fold into nothingness.

 

That's still being investigated.

 

Hmm is this why he is "injured"

 

No.

[wykikitoon 20129]

As much as it pains me to say it, Man Utd. I can't stand Chelsea for a number of reasons:

 

1. Their manager is a whinging cock-end with a persecution complex

2. Their players are diving, cheating, mercenery gits who believe they have some kind of god-given right for descisons to go their way.

3. John Terry. I've never liked this racist shitbag, the trouble Emre is getting in is ridiculous when nothing was made of Terry's abuse towards Chimbonda.

4. Their bottomless pit of money means they have an enormous advantage over every team. And unlike Man Utd before them, this was not earnt throught their own success.

5. The fact that these millions rightfully belong to the Russian working class before Abramovich swindled them out of it.

6. They represent everything wrong with football in this country.

 

I hope for the day Abramovich leaves (or better still, is arrested) and this evil ridden club will fold into nothingness.

 

That's still being investigated.

 

Hmm is this why he is "injured"

 

No.

 

[Fop 1]

 

4. Their bottomless pit of money means they have an enormous advantage over every team. And unlike Man Utd before them, this was not earnt throught their own success.

 

 

 

Man U's money (historically) comes from a global market presence and awareness of them that comes as much from the publicity from the Munich air crash as much as anything.

 

Yes they've done some sensible things like appoint Ferguson and stick with him, but Man U have often had a HUGE revenue advantage over their domestic rivals that wasn't really "earnt", at least not on the football pitch only.

 

 

 

 

It's just a shame that for a while there with Keegan and our "the entertainers" football we came close to them in revenue... but that's gone now and we've probably missed our chance to rival them and tbh ever win a title (at least in the next 30 years).

[luckyluke 2]

 

4. Their bottomless pit of money means they have an enormous advantage over every team. And unlike Man Utd before them, this was not earnt throught their own success.

 

 

 

Man U's money (historically) comes from a global market presence and awareness of them that comes as much from the publicity from the Munich air crash as much as anything.

 

Yes they've done some sensible things like appoint Ferguson and stick with him, but Man U have often had a HUGE revenue advantage over their domestic rivals that wasn't really "earnt", at least not on the football pitch only.

 

 

Maybe I phrased that badly - it's money they've earnt themselves, be it through footballing success, marketing or on account of their history. Whereas Chelsea were being managed disasterously, were about to go under and then some Russian crook came along and decided to spunk his wealth on them.

 

I realise that other teams are guilty of the reasons I listed above (for example divers and cheats are by no means confined to Chelsea) but none are so objectionable in every field as the wankers from Stamford Bridge.

[Magma 0]

ManU can't stand Chelsea winning it again.

[Howaythetoon 0]

They are a very good side still but this Man Utd team outside of one or two individuals is nothing special and I'd say their position at the top says an awful lot about our league, Arsenal are a far better side, with better players and they play the better football. On their day you can't stop them, all their big guns had an off day today (except the magnificent Fabregas) but they can still turn it on and win a game in the blink of an eye. This Man Utd side isn't a patch on their previous greats and you feel for them to be so potent the vast majority of their big guns have to be on fire. Ronaldo, Scholes and and Vidic have carried them at times over the Xmas period. Its just a shame that Arsenal are a mile behind, if they were just a few points off, I'd fancy them to take the league. With the addition of one or two new players next season, they should be very very strong.

[Howaythetoon 0]

 

4. Their bottomless pit of money means they have an enormous advantage over every team. And unlike Man Utd before them, this was not earnt throught their own success.

 

 

 

Man U's money (historically) comes from a global market presence and awareness of them that comes as much from the publicity from the Munich air crash as much as anything.

 

Yes they've done some sensible things like appoint Ferguson and stick with him, but Man U have often had a HUGE revenue advantage over their domestic rivals that wasn't really "earnt", at least not on the football pitch only.

 

 

Maybe I phrased that badly - it's money they've earnt themselves, be it through footballing success, marketing or on account of their history. Whereas Chelsea were being managed disasterously, were about to go under and then some Russian crook came along and decided to spunk his wealth on them.

 

I realise that other teams are guilty of the reasons I listed above (for example divers and cheats are by no means confined to Chelsea) but none are so objectionable in every field as the wankers from Stamford Bridge.

 

Every success Man Utd has had has come off their own sweat, all that money comes from the club's brand, Chelsea on the other hand have bought success like Blackburn did. You can't take anything away from Man Utd's success over the years and they are the team (on and off the pitch) to emulate. They point the way to other clubs with large fanbases and a good brand, like our own club. There is no reason why we can't enjoy success without an Abramovic because the fanbase is there and the brand, if not worldwide. Chelsea before Abramovic were just another Spurs, very centralised fanbase, small stadium and kidding no-one. Before Harding they were another West Ham, in fact probably below them in terms of size and brand.

[alwaysandforever 0]

i hate chelsea

 

despite us being crap and inept at the moment, would much rather follow nufc

 

haway the lads

 

[.../\......\o/... 0]

Couldn't give a shit tbh, which is very sad.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

I don't mind as long as it's not Chelsea. I used to hate ManU, now I hate Chelsea. The constant? That ringpiece Kenyon.

[FCUM 1]

Man U's money (historically) comes from a global market presence and awareness of them that comes as much from the publicity from the Munich air crash as much as anything.

 

What a load of shite. The Munich air crash happened in 1958. How long prior would you like to go? Let's take a decade before Munich say 1948. Manchester United average attendance in that season 54,890. Their 'global market presence' as you put it is largely down to being the dominant team in the 1990's when the TV export boom to Asia etc was at it's height. I wouldn't argue with you that they have been succesful in marketing their 'brand' (yuk) but that was 'earned' with back to back doubles and a treble when the export boom of football was at it's height.

[Fop 1]

Man U's money (historically) comes from a global market presence and awareness of them that comes as much from the publicity from the Munich air crash as much as anything.

 

What a load of shite. The Munich air crash happened in 1958. How long prior would you like to go? Let's take a decade before Munich say 1948. Manchester United average attendance in that season 54,890. Their 'global market presence' as you put it is largely down to being the dominant team in the 1990's when the TV export boom to Asia etc was at it's height. I wouldn't argue with you that they have been succesful in marketing their 'brand' (yuk) but that was 'earned' with back to back doubles and a treble when the export boom of football was at it's height.

 

 

Sorry but that's rubbish the Munich disaster had one "good" thing (nothing actually good of course, but purely in the context of publicity) which is it raised Man U's presence massively world wide, and they never really lost that.

 

Man U being probably the only British team that got that sort of coverage (often the only team people had even ever heard of) until maybe Liverpool in Europe or even the Premiership formation. Their global sales have gone from strength to strength ever since then.

 

Even in the very dry periods (cup/league wise) and before the 90's success Man U still had a very good global financial precence, of course in recent years it's gone ballistic in Asia and such (and yes Man U have take full advantage of that), but then before that there wasn't so much money availible to any teams, so realitively they still had a financial advantage.

 

They've never had the sort of financial might of Chelsea in recent years, but to suggest the finincial playing field was level is silly.

 

Newcastle came close for a season or so with Keegan and their style of entertaining football in the beginnings of what is the current massive global market in the mid 90's, but other than that really you're only talking about the likes of Real Madrid/barcelona etc. (and they get other finicial help often).

[alwaysandforever 0]

After watching Arsenal yesterday i'm fcuking jealous.

 

They play irresistable football, have fantastic technically gifted players all over the park and their youth team could probably finish in the top 6 of the prem.

 

They are a perfect example of how a football club should be run from top to bottom, absolute quality I think.

 

Wenger seems to find quality young players every season, then turns them into worldbeaters. Would love to see how their scouting system works.

 

They have had an inconsistent season and won't win the league but next season they'll be right up there hopefully to challange, it was only a couple of seasons ago they went unbeaten through the entire season for fcuks sake. A feat that probably will never be done again.

 

Compare all this to the shower we get served up at SJP week in week out, well there is absolutely no comparison.

[Guest alex]

Being realistic (i.e. Liverpool and Arsenal being too far behind) I want Chelsea to win it. I'd pick Arsenal though, ideally.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3892]

Man U's money (historically) comes from a global market presence and awareness of them that comes as much from the publicity from the Munich air crash as much as anything.

 

What a load of shite. The Munich air crash happened in 1958. How long prior would you like to go? Let's take a decade before Munich say 1948. Manchester United average attendance in that season 54,890. Their 'global market presence' as you put it is largely down to being the dominant team in the 1990's when the TV export boom to Asia etc was at it's height. I wouldn't argue with you that they have been succesful in marketing their 'brand' (yuk) but that was 'earned' with back to back doubles and a treble when the export boom of football was at it's height.

 

 

Newcastle United's average attendance in that self same season 56,283

[Gemmill 44850]

I want Man United to win. Hopefully as a result, Fergie will retire (he's not gonna win the CL again, so this is gonna be his best chance to go out on a high), Chelsea will bullet Mourinho, and both clubs will lose two very important factors in their successes, making for a more level playing field at least within the top 4, if not for anyone outside of the top 4.

 

Ideally I'd like to see a subsequent fall from grace for both of them.

[FCUM 1]

Man U's money (historically) comes from a global market presence and awareness of them that comes as much from the publicity from the Munich air crash as much as anything.

 

What a load of shite. The Munich air crash happened in 1958. How long prior would you like to go? Let's take a decade before Munich say 1948. Manchester United average attendance in that season 54,890. Their 'global market presence' as you put it is largely down to being the dominant team in the 1990's when the TV export boom to Asia etc was at it's height. I wouldn't argue with you that they have been succesful in marketing their 'brand' (yuk) but that was 'earned' with back to back doubles and a treble when the export boom of football was at it's height.

 

 

Newcastle United's average attendance in that self same season 56,283

 

The point I was trying to make was not to compare attendances with other clubs but to demonstrate that Man Utd's crowds pre the Munich disaster were every bit as good as (if not better) than in the aftermath. The vast majority of club's income in those days was through the gate and not through marketing hype. Ergo I don't think, as FOP was suggesting that Munich made a significant difference to the club's wealth.

 

FOP, you say they were the only English club many in Europe or the rest of the world knew prior to Liverpool's domination. Again I would say this was about timing. Liverpool's domination started in the 1970s, prior to that Football only got any real TV exposure in the late 1960s at the same time as Man Utd were the first English side to win the European Cup and Bestie became 'El Beatle' etc.

 

You can argue (and I wouldn't disagree) that it's not been a level playing field for some time regarding revenues but I'd still argue that their wealth (although £600 million in debt now) has still been self generated. You could say they were 'lucky' in being the dominant club in both the late 60s when football first started to get TV exposure and again in the 1990s when we saw the marketing boom to Asia etc but that 'luck' was still self generated.

[FCUM 1]

I want Man United to win. Hopefully as a result, Fergie will retire (he's not gonna win the CL again, so this is gonna be his best chance to go out on a high), Chelsea will bullet Mourinho, and both clubs will lose two very important factors in their successes, making for a more level playing field at least within the top 4, if not for anyone outside of the top 4.

 

Ideally I'd like to see a subsequent fall from grace for both of them.

 

I still think it is a fairly level playing field (within the top 4), Gemmill.

I think Arsenal are still capable of taking any of the other teams apart on their day and now have the benefit of increased gate revenues.

Even if Chelsea bullet Mourhino, Abramovich will still throw money at them (arguably more so to finance a new manager).

Man Utd still probably have the profile to replace Fergie with another top class manager.

[Gemmill 44850]

I want Man United to win. Hopefully as a result, Fergie will retire (he's not gonna win the CL again, so this is gonna be his best chance to go out on a high), Chelsea will bullet Mourinho, and both clubs will lose two very important factors in their successes, making for a more level playing field at least within the top 4, if not for anyone outside of the top 4.

 

Ideally I'd like to see a subsequent fall from grace for both of them.

 

I still think it is a fairly level playing field (within the top 4), Gemmill.

I think Arsenal are still capable of taking any of the other teams apart on their day and now have the benefit of increased gate revenues.

Even if Chelsea bullet Mourhino, Abramovich will still throw money at them (arguably more so to finance a new manager).

Man Utd still probably have the profile to replace Fergie with another top class manager.

 

You do, and you're right about Abramovich too, but there are no guarantees, are there? It's unlikely Chelsea will find a replacement of the calibre of Mourinho (the bloke is a one-off IMO), and it's very unlikely you'll find anyone as good as Fergie. Even managers that have won stuff on the continent are a gamble.

 

I think both of you are a little way ahead of Liverpool and Arsenal at the minute, who just drop too many points too regularly to win the league, but if both Chelsea and your lot fell away a bit it would open things up.