A bit of a rant from the Championship
Dave G
i don't expect many to last the course on this one but there's a few
laughs in it.
"I write for a local newspaper every now and then. I have been given two
pages and have decided to devote it to the subject of the problems in
the English game led by Man U and Chelsea.
I was just wondering what you guys thought about it and if you had any
constructive criticism bearing in mind that I havent finished it just yet.
Introduction
Of the three, Arsenal are the only ones I respect because they've built
it up slowly and without spending shocking amounts of money in the
tradition of the game and the way its supposed to be done, again the
same with Barca, Milan etc, etc.... the way its supposed to be done. At
the moment, I have to grudgingly say they deserve to be where they are
and it's an absolute travesty that the other two are on level terms with
them. The Arse, Barca’s, Milan’s have always been able to attract the
top players, of course they have - but that ability and their "wealth"
was founded on years of struggle that with prudent management eventually
resulted in success.
This is not to say that I am a fan of the G14 and their monopolistic
hold they have over the modern game.
Man Ure
I really don't mind the way that Man Utd play, and the players they
have. I do however mind that their marketing department insists on
destroying a game of football. The decision to pull out of the FA Cup
was a disgrace! Man U represents the most powerful symptom of the
disease of overexpansion and non-regulation of the game at the expense
of the poorer clubs.
They are successful which does lead to a small bit of envy but then that
is compounded by being utterly graceless winners and even worse losers.
They moan about having too many games to play which is merely a form of
boasting how well they are doing. They show disdain for the smaller of
the cup competitions and arrogance for pulling out of the larger. They
have a manager who continually overplays the 'everyone is against us'
card and whinges about everything. They have an obsequious media telling
everyone how wonderful they are and are made out to be a source of pride
for the nation which is patently not the case.
They attract a huge number of celebrity fans and glory hunters who see
following them as fashionable when it is obvious that most of them have
very little interest in football. A significant majority of their fans
couldn't even find Manchester on a map let alone be willing to live
there. The dominant media coverage is extremely bad for the sport and
whilst only partly Man U's fault, serves to further increase the gap
between rich and poor which has the potential to ruin football as we
know it. There's nothing worse than going into a sports shop, or even
Debenham’s, and seeing Man U stuff saturating every shelf. Why would a
kid support anyone else in this climate?
I've been a Palace fan since I was able to gurgle "Red and Blue Army"
and I have lost count of the amount of Utd fans have asked me "Palace
aren't doing very well, how come you support them? Would you not choose
a better team?" These are "fans" who have maybe been to see Utd play
once in some crappy pre-season friendly, if at all! Utd are not even the
most popular team in Manchester. Man Utd fans don't understand what
being a fan is all about.... It's about supporting you're team through
good and bad not just hopping on the bandwagon. I personally don't have
a problem with anyone who goes and watches their team play, but when
glory hunters suggest that you support a decent team it really winds me
up. Ever heard of loyalty? I find it impossible to have a sensible
football discussion with any of their followers. They're so keen to be
seen as 'big, big, United fans" that it clouds their judgment.
Man United are as much about the name as the football, they get the huge
income, players flocking to the academy, big name transfers etc because
they are Manchester United. Their fans are morons, their manager is a
cheat and their players are the kind of big money superegos football
could do without. In the past they've probably warranted it more because
of the 'homegrown' stars but they've dried up in recent years and
they're just like Chelsea....spending lots of money to stay near the
summit. They get that money off the back of an outdated notion that
they're the best club in the world, shared by their terminally stupid
'fans', lots of whom have never even been to watch them.
As for Malcolm Glazier, I truly hope it happens and he strips all the
assets away, Moan U and Glazier are made for each other. What better
chairman for a club whose majority of fans have never been to the
stadium, than one who has never been either. It's perfect. In 2005, it
is a plc, an artificial entity that does not fit, has alienated
thousands of real fans, isn't really a football club in the true sense
and has capitalized on all that is bad about the 'game'. It is now
likely to take a further step away from football and, should
asset-stripping take place on any significant scale, it could mean the
end of an era for Man U: there could be very difficult times ahead. It
seems to me that the only form of control that works in football is the
'benevolent owner' type who genuinely has the club at heart, has lots of
dosh and refuses to sell up to consortia/individuals whose aims are less
than 100% transparent and not as genuine as his/her own. It may be that
we need to look to the past for a way out of this mess - at least to
learn how certain things should be done.
I am sure there are those who will shrug and mutter something about
market forces and 'that's the way the game is today'. Fine. But it's not
the game I grew up with and it's turning me off. If football is a
business and entertainment more than it is a sport, then the plot has
been lost. One thing to mention, Glazer is effectively using the Man U
supporters own money to buy the club. He borrows from the bank the many
hundreds of millions required, and then pays it back using the revenues
generated and as I understand it the guarantees for the loan will be
provided by future season ticket sales. So an asset rich club is
instantly turned into a massively indebted club. It'll be interesting to
see if they can actually stop money doing the talking. From what I've
observed from United's business dealings in recent years, they'll bowl
tradition, heritage and moral stance over in an instant over a few quid.
What the Manc fans that are protesting about this takeover also need to
realise is that Man U used the PLC system to become the most successful
football entity in Britain, Europe and perhaps the world, what makes me
laugh is when someone from the outside wishes to use this for their
advantage they are called all sorts by the Manc sc*m. You can’t have it
both ways.
You have to feel sorry for anyone who supports Man Utd. The majority of
their 'fans' don't know what it's like to go to a real football ground
or feel real passion. The McDonalds of football and what can happen when
big business has taken over - the stadium has lost it soul… Old Trafford
is not a proper football ground anymore; in fact I’d say it's more like
the old Vic these days. They come from all over the country (many of
which have no affiliation with Manchester or even the North-West) and
wait for their team to win. When United score, they clap, then with 10
minutes to go they get up and leave. It occurred to me that many of them
have probably never stayed to the final whistle to applaud their team
off. Of course I want Palace to do well and prosper, but if we go down
then at least we will be rid of these so called football clubs. Give me
Millmoor over Old Trafford any day, at least there is some real passion
there. If I were a genuine Man Utd fan who'd watched them through the
dark times, then I'd look around and wonder quite what my club has
become. It's not football anymore, its light entertainment, not really
any different to taking the family to the cinema on Saturday afternoon.
We may not have their support or success, but they will never come close
to what we had when we beat Sunderland, West Ham or drew with Arsenal.
They are missing out on what football is all about.
About Old Trafford….
“Really weird sort of atmosphere. Walking around the ground before the
match I got the feeling it was like we were at some huge 'entertainment'
complex, rather than being at a football ground. When I got there, there
were loads of people in Man U shirts having their picture taken, like
they had never been there before. The vast majority of their fans were
awful. We were losing at half time, yet our players were rapturously
applauded off, most Man U 'fans' didn't even get out of their seat, let
alone clap their players off. They barely celebrated scoring, so much so
that the Palace fans were making more noise after they scored.
Old Trafford epitomises everything that is wrong with the game. A
business where people pay their money to be entertained, then they go
home. At least I can say I’ve been to Old Trafford more times than 99%
of Man U fans now. When I got to work today, people said, I bet you wish
you hadn't gone...... no way I had a fantastic day, we scored two goals
and sang for the whole match, making the Man U support look pathetic. If
that is what being successful means, I’ll leave it thanks. Old Trafford
felt like something produced by Walt Disney to me - a 'family day out'
where the 'fans' go to be entertained rather than be actively involved.
The "Old T" experience is a strangely soulless thing largely because of
the nature of their support. I would like Palace to be more successful
but never at the expense of the club's soul; and that soul IS the fans.
We stopped off at the services on the M1, we started talking to some
people who turned out to be man u fans who came from Somerset. I asked
them do you do this every week - they said no this is our first time.
Says it all really.
How many Man u fans would be on the terraces on a freezing February
night away to some obscure club, having just lost their last 3 games. I
think a lot of Palace fans have been there done that for over many
years. I certainly have. And the same goes for a large number of
'unfashionable' clubs. They have a hard core of genuine supporters who
follow them through thick and thin. It really grieves me to hear about
all those fair weather fans from all over the country putting money (but
no passion) into Man u's coffers.
Long live the true football fan.
Sibneft & Yukos Oil FC
Chelsea.... exactly the same but they're nearer the start of the cycle.
Money money money. They're not going to win the league... they are going
to buy it. There's no honour or glory in it. The real Chelsea fans know
it, the plastic majority don't. I suppose for anyone who can remember
what Chelsea used to be, it's perhaps a cause for pity. How anyone can
find it interesting to watch someone assembling a squad by buying almost
everyone’s best players (often to have them sit on the bench) is beyond
me. Savaging the careers of promising footballers by paying millions for
them then never using them and as a knock-on, cheapening the English
game. Showing that anyone can buy their way to it. It's so flat, so dry,
so passionless. Pointless. The problem now will be Chelsea will probably
walk the league every year; they are just warming up at the moment. They
are already talking about bidding 60 million for Ronaldinho. They have
the money to buy the world and will take a monopoly on football which
shouldn’t be allowed. That aside perhaps you will also agree with the
many Russian people who feel that Baron (Sorry 'Mr') Abramovich has very
little right to the billions of Russian oil dollars that should be
paying for their schools, hospitals, transport systems, industry and
agriculture... rather than it being wasted on a bunch of overpaid
footballers who are only at Chelsea for the money. Not to mention that
it is common knowledge that every major deal in Russia during the 1990’s
is thought to have had to go through the Russian Mafia meaning that the
man could have as much blood on his hands as someone like Gaddafi.
Another point to look at is what happens when Chelsea have won
everything? Will Abramovich be interested if they do it every season? He
will get bored and will be wasting money hand over fist. Chelsea will
one day have absolutely nightmare problems, we’ve seen whats happened to
Leeds, the problems Chelsea would face would make Leeds look like a well
run business, their players will walk on frees because the club wont be
able to pay their wages, they will have 10 points deducted for going
into instant administration and i'd be surprised if they managed to get
out of it, you could see the type of problems developing whereby the
club would have to fold and start again a few divisions down. It just
depends when that day is, he may even get arrested before that happens,
as it currently stands the EU, the serious fraud squad and the London
stock exchange are currently investigating him and that is just within
the UK. If it wasn’t for his friend, Mr Putin being the current
president in Russia I am sure he would have a warrant for his arrest in
his homeland as well.
Conclusions
The first thing people are going to talk about with this essay is
jealousy, especially Manc fans, they think everyone who dislikes the
club is jealous. Well think back to Liverpool in the 80’s… I think most
people got fed up with Liverpool winning everything and usually
supported whoever they were playing in the cup final. But they didn't
inspire the same level of outright hatred that Man Utd generates - they
were simply deemed a good team. You can't really compare Bob Paisley and
Alex Ferguson can you? Furthermore people liked to see Liverpool do well
in the European Cup and felt some sense of pride when they won it.
Whereas everyone just wants Man Utd to lose whoever they are playing,
even if they opposition club is german! For Utd the joy of seeing them
come unstuck in Europe is as great, if not greater than seeing them lose
at home.
That the respective managements and the majority of supporters of Man
Utd and Chelsea seem to believe that their dominance represents any kind
of 'achievement' is laughable. When they 'win' things what do they think
that means to the rest of us? Let 'em have it. So what? If they collect
the championship it will be to the sound of their own applause, nobody's
else’s.
The premiership is a depressing place at the moment. That's why I'm far
more interested in the relegation battle than the title 'race'. Give me
proper fans, proper passion, proper players who enjoy playing football.
The top three or four might be almost 'too good' at the moment, but at
the same time at least two of them also represent everything that's
wrong with the sport. Who remembers the days when anyone could finish in
the top 3, the likes of Palace, Forest & Norwich all at some point in
the 90’s earned their right to be there? Those were great days and that
is what football should be about. Now it is whoever has the most money
wins, devalues the sport as a whole and turns the game into a farce.
Only 3 or 4 clubs can challenge for the top spaces, the next 10 have
little to play for little more than a mid table spot and the remainder
fight to hold on to their place. If we go on at this rate we'll become
another Scottish League. It used to be about 22 teams!!! Finishing 3rd.
barely 14 years ago...do you honestly believe this league will allow
events like that again? If you do then I want whatever you're taking!!!
Truth is people argue that English clubs doing well in Europe is good
for the English game. Truth is that this is total rubbish. The Champions
league is to the complete detriment of all except a handful of elite
teams, it has devalued the national game and the national team. As
supporters of a club like Palace we should be willing all teams in this
competition to fail. Naturally it goes without saying anyway, that I
will always want Chelsea and Man Yoo to lose every game they play anyway.
Corporate United and Chelski followers aren't real football fans they
just say those clubs are their teams because they are brainwashed by the
media. And I fuckin hate it when a pseudo Manc living in London says "I
support them because my uncle comes from Manchester!" What a pile of
bollox! I don't understand how every Man Utd fan I know, had family who
lived in Manchester. I don't see that many Mancunians around London! To
say family lived near Manchester...I could say the same. Manchester is
near to London, as the moon is to the earth. Not very near, but near.
Would I want someone of dubious character taking over Palace and
ploughing 300,000,000+ in so that the stadium is full of the prawn
sandwich brigade paying £40+ per ticket whilst the people that stuck
with the club through thick and thin couldn't afford to go anymore? Easy
question - no I wouldn't - that's not football. I wouldn't swap Palace
for the world, and I won't give two hoots if we go don’t go up either."
--
"i'm just a soul whose intentions are good, Oh Lord, please don't let me
be misunderstood"
61/66
news:dqh7f1$ct1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
"again the same with Barca, Milan"
FFS!
LOL!
Ian Harvey
"61/66" <bi...@thefridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:432m35F...@individual.net...
Refute with illustration.
Norman
>
> i don't expect many to last the course on this one but there's a few
> laughs in it.
This one line sums up the whole deluded, inaccurate and blinkered piece:
> They are successful which does lead to a small bit of envy ...
Get over it Dave.
SteveH
> from fbtz.com
>
> i don't expect many to last the course on this one but there's a few
> laughs in it.
>
>
> "I write for a local newspaper every now and then. I have been given two
> pages and have decided to devote it to the subject of the problems in
> the English game led by Man U and Chelsea.
>
> I was just wondering what you guys thought about it and if you had any
> constructive criticism bearing in mind that I havent finished it just yet.
>
> Introduction
> Of the three, Arsenal are the only ones I respect because they've built
> it up slowly and without spending shocking amounts of money in the
> tradition of the game and the way its supposed to be done, again the
> same with Barca, Milan etc, etc
What utter bollocks.
The *only* reason United have been able to spend money is that they've
made it through winning stuff.....
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Fiat Marea 20v HLX - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
61/66
news:rP2dnVactvu...@pipex.net...
Ok, Barca and Milan have *never* spent 'shocking amounts of money'
never, never never....
Did you write this bollox?
As for Belersconi....
>
>
Ian Harvey
> "Ian Harvey" <ianeh...@whateveridontreadit.com> wrote in message
> news:rP2dnVactvu...@pipex.net...
>>
>> "61/66" <bi...@thefridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:432m35F...@individual.net...
>>> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dqh7f1$ct1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "again the same with Barca, Milan"
>>>
>>> FFS!
>>> LOL!
>>
>> Refute with illustration.
>
> Ok, Barca and Milan have *never* spent 'shocking amounts of money'
> never, never never....
I think it's about periods of time. Inter were the real spenders.
> Did you write this bollox?
> As for Belersconi....
Go on, show us the most they spent in a season.
61/66
"SteveH" <st...@italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1h9a508.15qd6ld1rglx25N%st...@italiancar.co.uk...
> Dave G <DG@the_controls.com> wrote:
>
> The *only* reason United have been able to spend money is that they've
> made it through winning stuff.....
Of course it isn't.
They've smashed nearly every transfer record ever seen in this country.
There was a gap of 26 years between Leaguie titles. All paid for off of
the back of a few Cup wins was it?
61/66
what for? we all know it.
And me quoting transfer fees from the 60's 70's and in particular the 80's
is gonna
mean fuck all compared to the overinflated prices paid today. Rio ferdinand
was what?
£30m for example.
Seeing how much Milan spent in the 80's is only worthwhile if you can
compare it
with all the other clubs and sorry, I ain't that too bothered to go find
out.
>
>
Ian Harvey
It was paid for with money the club made, not some bloke who bribed (at
best) his way to a shady fortune.
Dave G
> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
> news:dqh7f1$ct1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> from fbtz.com
>> i don't expect many to last the course on this one but there's a few
>> laughs in it.
> This one line sums up the whole deluded, inaccurate and blinkered piece:
yet again, you HUMOURLESS gawp.
>> They are successful which does lead to a small bit of envy ...
> Get over it Dave.
it's just a rant norm, that i thought was funny and showed a bit of
"perspective" from the lower league.
you know, like this bit-
"Whereas everyone just wants Man Utd to lose whoever they are playing,
even if they opposition club is german!"
--
Norman
*When* was 'every transfer record in the country' smashed?
How do you think these players were paid for?
SteveH
Well, obviously the biggest club stadium in England has helped along the
way.
However, there were relatively few big money signings until the
Premiership wins started flooding in, along with 10 years out of 11
qualification from the group stage of the ECL.
If you look at Fergie's first EPL winning team, it was worth, relatively
speaking, peanuts.
Ian Harvey
It's bollocks, that's why. Chelsea's spending makes all others seem trivial.
61/66
YAWN Ian.
Read what he said before giving us another dose of bitterness ffs.
Otherwise go start another thread entitled 'RA is a crook, here is my
evidence'
pmsl
>
>
SteveH
> > Did you write this bollox?
> > As for Belersconi....
>
> Go on, show us the most they spent in a season.
'Less than Chelsea, but more than United' at a guess ;-)
DiXiE
remember Hansen "you'll never win anything with kids". Fergie has since,
failed to buy success.
The problem with football lies simply with club power. There shouldn't be
any, the FA needs to get a hold of football again as do UEFA. unfortunately
we are now finding that if the clubs really want to they can call the shots!
"Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
news:dqh7f1$ct1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
61/66
>
>
> It's bollocks, that's why. Chelsea's spending makes all others seem
> trivial.
well once again you fail completely to recognise what the OP was saying and
instead go
off on another tiresome bitter rant.
I'll make it simple for you.
He said (and I'll paraphrase) That *Like Arsenal* Milan and barca have
*never* gone
out and spent shocking amounts of money.
see? No qoute about Chelsea in there is there? All the bitterness about that
comes
a mind numbingly 456 paragraphs on. Probably the bit you head for first.
>
61/66
> 61/66 <bi...@thefridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Well, obviously the biggest club stadium in England has helped along the
> way.
Biggest stadium, biggest support by a mile, best marketing etc etc etc
>
> However, there were relatively few big money signings until the
> Premiership wins started flooding in, along with 10 years out of 11
> qualification from the group stage of the ECL.
Believe me, in comparison to others Man U spent shedloads.
Ian Harvey
"61/66" <bi...@thefridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> see? No qoute about Chelsea in there is there? All the bitterness about
> that comes
> a mind numbingly 456 paragraphs on. Probably the bit you head for first.
So, this Crystal Palace fan is bitter? You deluded twat.
SteveH
Simply not true.
They've spent, but they've also sold.
The balance isn't a huge amount ahead of what other clubs have spent.
61/66
PMSL
You've made yourself look a twat 15 times already tonight with your
obsessiveness.
Do yourself a favour, go lie down.
>
>
61/66
"DiXiE" <davidfar...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:dqh8hf$58u$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> The problem with football lies simply with club power. There shouldn't be
> any, the FA needs to get a hold of football again as do UEFA.
> unfortunately we are now finding that if the clubs really want to they can
> call the shots!
Where are G14 when you need them eh?
<snigger>
Norman
And he was paid for by a couple of cup wins?
Or a sustained period of dominance that lasted over ten years?
Ian Harvey
lmao
From Mr. No it's not a booking to jump over the perimiter fence, oh unless
Jose says it is.
You make a twat of yourself every other sentence.
Ian Harvey
"Norman" <Norm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hJVyf.1106
>> mean fuck all compared to the overinflated prices paid today. Rio
>> ferdinand was what?
>> £30m for example.
>
>
> And he was paid for by a couple of cup wins?
No, a title 50 years ago.
> Or a sustained period of dominance that lasted over ten years?
To be honest, even with a ten year dominance Chelsea couldn't afford or
attract a player like Ferdinand without Roman's money.
Norman
I don't believe you. Prove it.
Norman
I have a unique take on 'humour', Dave.
For me, it has to be 'funny'.
Could you please highlight the funny bits for me so I can reappraise them.
The only funny thing I saw is your continued obsession with all things
United.
61/66
huh?
you're skipping decades. The Rio quote was an illustration of inflation
in the market, I never claimed he was bought on the back of a few cup wins.
You and Ian should go off to reading classes together.....
>
>
>
Dave G
can't you read or summat?
"I....have decided to devote it to the subject of the problems in the English
game led by Man U and Chelsea."
"Of the three,( Man U,Chelsea,Arsenal) Arsenal are the only ones I respect
because they've built it up slowly and without spending shocking amounts of
money in the tradition of the game and the way its supposed to be done, again
the same with Barca, Milan etc, etc.... the way its supposed to be done. At the
moment, I have to grudgingly say they deserve to be where they are and it's an
absolute travesty that the other two are on level terms with them. The Arse,
Barca’s, Milan’s have always been able to attract the top players, of course
they have - but that ability and their "wealth" was founded on years of struggle
that with prudent management eventually resulted in success."
the whole thing is about manure and "sibneft FC".... WTF do you think he means
when he compares Arsenal with clubs who have spent "shocking amounts of money"??
he ain't talking about palace is he?
ffs.
--
Ian Harvey
Shut up you bitter twat.
Ian Harvey
"61/66" <bi...@thefridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> you're skipping decades. The Rio quote was an illustration of inflation
> in the market, I never claimed he was bought on the back of a few cup
> wins.
> You and Ian should go off to reading classes together.....
With your style of writing, classes might just help.
61/66
whatever.
you are the master and font of all knowledge, we bow before thee.
>
>
Ian Harvey
"Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
> the whole thing is about manure and "sibneft FC".... WTF do you think he
> means when he compares Arsenal with clubs who have spent "shocking amounts
> of money"??
> he ain't talking about palace is he?
> ffs.
Shut up you bitter twat.
Norman
In that case could you point out the United transfers that 'smashed all the
records' that *were* financed by 'a couple of cup wins'.
Ta.
Ian Harvey
Fuck me, a sentence without bitter or twat in it. So was Jose wrong or were
you?
Norman
Charming.
61/66
We've got one twat on here tonight already, we don't need an impersonator
ta very much.
>
>
Ian Harvey
"61/66" <bi...@thefridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> Believe me, in comparison to others Man U spent shedloads.
>>
>>
>> I don't believe you. Prove it.
>
> We've got one twat on here tonight already, we don't need an impersonator
> ta very much.
A return to form.
You saying it, doesn't make it so. It's like the booking yesterday.
Dave G
> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
> news:dqh8m0$5ti$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Norman wrote:
>>> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dqh7f1$ct1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>> from fbtz.com
>>>> i don't expect many to last the course on this one but there's a few
>>>> laughs in it.
>>> This one line sums up the whole deluded, inaccurate and blinkered piece:
>> yet again, you HUMOURLESS gawp.
>>
>>>> They are successful which does lead to a small bit of envy ...
>>
>>> Get over it Dave.
>> it's just a rant norm, that i thought was funny and showed a bit of
>> "perspective" from the lower league.
>>
>> you know, like this bit-
>>
>> "Whereas everyone just wants Man Utd to lose whoever they are playing,
>> even if they opposition club is german!"
>
>
> I have a unique take on 'humour', Dave.
far from it, you are reknowned for being humourless.
> For me, it has to be 'funny'.
fine but do you know what that means?
Tommy Cooper,Benny Hill,Vic Reeves,Jimmy Carr- funny people.
Norman Le Poo manc character- not funny but sad smelly man.
> Could you please highlight the funny bits for me so I can reappraise them.
from the same article-
http://tinyurl.com/csl86
> The only funny thing I saw is your continued obsession with all things
> United.
it's not my article and it's as much about chelsea and money in football and
following the smaller clubs as anything, don't flatter yourself.
--
Norman
Oh, I get it now, parody.
Norman
> Norman wrote:
>> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
>> news:dqh8m0$5ti$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> Norman wrote:
>>>> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:dqh7f1$ct1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>> from fbtz.com
>>>>> i don't expect many to last the course on this one but there's a few
>>>>> laughs in it.
>>>> This one line sums up the whole deluded, inaccurate and blinkered
>>>> piece:
>>> yet again, you HUMOURLESS gawp.
>>>
>>>>> They are successful which does lead to a small bit of envy ...
>>>
>>>> Get over it Dave.
>>> it's just a rant norm, that i thought was funny and showed a bit of
>>> "perspective" from the lower league.
>>>
>>> you know, like this bit-
>>>
>>> "Whereas everyone just wants Man Utd to lose whoever they are playing,
>>> even if they opposition club is german!"
>>
>>
>> I have a unique take on 'humour', Dave.
>
> far from it, you are reknowned for being humourless.
Whereas everyone thinks your usenet's Ricky Gervais.
>
>> For me, it has to be 'funny'.
>
> fine but do you know what that means?
> Tommy Cooper,Benny Hill,Vic Reeves,Jimmy Carr- funny people.
You're funny too Dave, honest. Your obsession with United is hilarious.
Dave G
>> Charming.
exactly, you don't do humour...
DUH!!!
catch yerself on norm....
--
Ian Harvey
"Norman" <Norm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:BXVyf.7943
>>> Shut up you bitter twat.
>>
>>
>> Charming.
>
>
> Oh, I get it now, parody.
I needn't have bothered, he made the comment himself 3 seconds later.
61/66
> In that case could you point out the United transfers that 'smashed all
> the records' that *were* financed by 'a couple of cup wins'.
>
> Ta.
WHERE THE FUCK HAVE I SAID IT *WAS* PAID FOR
BY A COUPLE OF CUP WINS?
I WAS SUGGESTING THAT THERE WAS MORE TO IT THAN
THAT YOU FUCKING IDIOTIC KNOB!
>
>
Dave G
> You're funny too Dave, honest. Your obsession with United is hilarious.
yes but i'm not as "knowledgable" as you so i will always remain in awe of your
football expertise.
Like the "offside" thread.
LOL!!
--
Dave G
LMAO!
easy fella, norma forgot her thinking cap this evening, probably over concernd
with her armpits and what might occur later if her fella thinks she's a bit
whiffy round the clunge.
there seems to be a breakdown in communication in this thread.
i regret the whole thing now...
LOL!
--
61/66
>> We've got one twat on here tonight already, we don't need an impersonator
>> ta very much.
>
> A return to form.
>
> You saying it, doesn't make it so.
Believe me, in your case, it does.
61/66
> 61/66 wrote:
>> "Ian Harvey" <ianeh...@whateveridontreadit.com> wrote in message
>> news:-_idnUhzYqQ...@pipex.net...
> the whole thing is about manure and "sibneft FC".... WTF do you think he
> means when he compares Arsenal with clubs who have spent "shocking amounts
> of money"??
> he ain't talking about palace is he?
> ffs.
really Dave, so what the fuck does the following mean then?
"Arsenal are the only ones I respect because they've built
it up slowly and without spending shocking amounts of money in the
tradition of the game and the way its supposed to be done, again the
same with Barca, Milan etc, etc...."
Is he not lumping in Barca and Milan with Arsenal as *never*
"spending shocking amounts of money"
And who the fuck are etc etc?
And do you agree that Barca and Milan have never spent
'shocking amounts of money'?
Norman
Here:
SteveH said:
> The *only* reason United have been able to spend money is that they've
> made it through winning stuff.....
Then you said:
Of course it isn't.
They've smashed nearly every transfer record ever seen in this country.
There was a gap of 26 years between Leaguie titles. All paid for off of
the back of a few Cup wins was it?
Ian Harvey
Oh okay, then.
Twat.
61/66
Snipping the bits you don't like is fine, Ian is the king, but re-writing
the fucking thread and changing it?
FFS!
And you are a fucking knob for starting all this!
;-)
61/66
*was it?*
answer?
NO IT FUCKING WASN'T!
>
>
>
Norman
So, how did we fund our record breaking transfers?
Ian Harvey
fuck knows, largest crowds, stadium, marketing machine?
who fucking knows, maybe a fairy dumped £50m in Mr Edward's
back passage one morning?
>
>
Dave G
> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
> news:dqh9lb$vji$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> 61/66 wrote:
>>> "Ian Harvey" <ianeh...@whateveridontreadit.com> wrote in message
>>> news:-_idnUhzYqQ...@pipex.net...
>> the whole thing is about manure and "sibneft FC".... WTF do you think he
>> means when he compares Arsenal with clubs who have spent "shocking amounts
>> of money"??
>> he ain't talking about palace is he?
>> ffs.
> really Dave, so what the fuck does the following mean then?
> "Arsenal are the only ones I respect because they've built
> it up slowly and without spending shocking amounts of money in the
> tradition of the game and the way its supposed to be done, again the
> same with Barca, Milan etc, etc...."
> Is he not lumping in Barca and Milan with Arsenal as *never*
> "spending shocking amounts of money"
yes, they way i read the article, he is.
> And who the fuck are etc etc?
not manure or chelsea.
> And do you agree that Barca and Milan have never spent
> 'shocking amounts of money'?
i dunno, have they?
prove it?
;-)
Ł21m for ronaldhino
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/3079815.stm
Ł9m for Deco
http://www.rediff.com/sports/2004/jul/06deco.htm
iirc they got Larsson on a free?
eto- Ł16.65m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/low/football/africa/3559564.stm
spending $41m in one summer i think.
less than souness this season.
Arsenal paid ŁŁ17.5m for Reyes.
Ł10m up front.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/3434355.stm
it is acknowledged ( i would say) that Arsenal have not adopted a spend spend
spend policy.
--
Ian Harvey
"Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message news:dqhbgm$855
> it is acknowledged ( i would say) that Arsenal have not adopted a spend
> spend spend policy.
>
> --
Shut up you bitter twat, it wasn't over the fucking line, okay?
POD {铱觹
@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
> fine but do you know what that means?
> Tommy Cooper,Benny Hill,Vic Reeves,Jimmy Carr- funny people.
Sorry, Jimmy Carr is not funny, quite how you can put that talentless shit
along side the others is astounding.
--
Thank you kindly
POD {铱觹
"Girls, don't you wish your fella was hot like me?"
POD {铱觹
news:%uVyf.7934$C7....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net:
>
> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
> news:dqh7f1$ct1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> from fbtz.com
>>
>> i don't expect many to last the course on this one but there's a few
>> laughs in it.
>
>
> This one line sums up the whole deluded, inaccurate and blinkered
> piece:
>
>
>> They are successful which does lead to a small bit of envy ...
>
>
> Get over it Dave.
>
>
You're not a bright lad are you Norm? Dave didn't write it, a Palace
fan wrote it, Dave just copied it for people to read.
Dave G
>> fine but do you know what that means?
>> Tommy Cooper,Benny Hill,Vic Reeves,Jimmy Carr- funny people.
> Sorry, Jimmy Carr is not funny, quite how you can put that talentless shit
> along side the others is astounding.
shut up, you whining hermaphrodite.
--
Pope Pompous XVIII
> 61/66 <bi...@thefridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "SteveH" <st...@italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1h9a5bj.ktff801pgh8p1N%st...@italiancar.co.uk...
>> > 61/66 <bi...@thefridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, obviously the biggest club stadium in England has helped along
>> > the
>> > way.
>>
>> Biggest stadium, biggest support by a mile, best marketing etc etc etc
>> >
>> > However, there were relatively few big money signings until the
>> > Premiership wins started flooding in, along with 10 years out of 11
>> > qualification from the group stage of the ECL.
>>
>> Believe me, in comparison to others Man U spent shedloads.
>
>
> They've spent, but they've also sold.
>
> The balance isn't a huge amount ahead of what other clubs have spent.
Still a good bit more than Burton though
ROLL ME OWN!!
--
+ His Holiness Pope Pompous XVIII
POD {铱觹
st...@italiancar.co.uk:
> What utter bollocks.
>
> The *only* reason United have been able to spend money is that they've
> made it through winning stuff.....
I don't agree, United have gotten money outside of football, they have been
masters of marketing and merchandise. Exploiting foreign markets etc...
Dave G
> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message news:dqhbgm$855
>
>> it is acknowledged ( i would say) that Arsenal have not adopted a spend
>> spend spend policy.
> Shut up you bitter twat, it wasn't over the fucking line, okay?
rubles!!
pass the vodka.
--
Dave G
> "Norman" <Norm...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:%uVyf.7934$C7....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net:
>> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
>> news:dqh7f1$ct1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> from fbtz.com
>>> i don't expect many to last the course on this one but there's a few
>>> laughs in it.
>> This one line sums up the whole deluded, inaccurate and blinkered
>> piece:
>>> They are successful which does lead to a small bit of envy ...
>> Get over it Dave.
> You're not a bright lad are you Norm? Dave didn't write it, a Palace
> fan wrote it, Dave just copied it for people to read.
she's all flustered cos the deodorant has ran out and her clout is a bit stinky.
so normas back door is getting kicked in later.
--
SteveH
> st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote in news:1h9a508.15qd6ld1rglx25N%
> st...@italiancar.co.uk:
>
> > What utter bollocks.
> >
> > The *only* reason United have been able to spend money is that they've
> > made it through winning stuff.....
>
> I don't agree, United have gotten money outside of football, they have been
> masters of marketing and merchandise. Exploiting foreign markets etc...
And why have they been able to do that?
Could it be the dominance of the EPL in the 90s?
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Fiat Marea 20v HLX - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
Dave G
> "SteveH" <st...@italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1h9a5oe.oar4bm1x7pkggN%st...@italiancar.co.uk...
>> 61/66 <bi...@thefridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> "SteveH" <st...@italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:1h9a5bj.ktff801pgh8p1N%st...@italiancar.co.uk...
>>>> 61/66 <bi...@thefridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Well, obviously the biggest club stadium in England has helped along
>>>> the
>>>> way.
>>> Biggest stadium, biggest support by a mile, best marketing etc etc etc
>>>> However, there were relatively few big money signings until the
>>>> Premiership wins started flooding in, along with 10 years out of 11
>>>> qualification from the group stage of the ECL.
>>> Believe me, in comparison to others Man U spent shedloads.
>> Simply not true.
>>
>> They've spent, but they've also sold.
>>
>> The balance isn't a huge amount ahead of what other clubs have spent.
>
> Still a good bit more than Burton though
and, i'd wager, Lille, of France.
pass the croissants monsieur.
--
Pope Pompous XVIII
news:dqh7f1$ct1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> from fbtz.com
>
> i don't expect many to last the course on this one but there's a few
> laughs in it.
>
>
> pages and have decided to devote it to the subject of the problems in the
> English game led by Man U and Chelsea.
>
> I was just wondering what you guys thought about it and if you had any
> constructive criticism bearing in mind that I havent finished it just yet.
>
> Introduction
> Of the three, Arsenal are the only ones I respect because they've built it
> of the game and the way its supposed to be done, again the same with
> I have to grudgingly say they deserve to be where they are and it's an
> absolute travesty that the other two are on level terms with them. The
> Arse, Barca’s, Milan’s have always been able to attract the top players,
> of course they have - but that ability and their "wealth" was founded on
> years of struggle that with prudent management eventually resulted in
> success.
>
> This is not to say that I am a fan of the G14 and their monopolistic hold
> they have over the modern game.
>
> Man Ure
> I really don't mind the way that Man Utd play, and the players they have.
> I do however mind that their marketing department insists on destroying a
> game of football. The decision to pull out of the FA Cup was a disgrace!
> Man U represents the most powerful symptom of the disease of overexpansion
> and non-regulation of the game at the expense of the poorer clubs.
>
> They are successful which does lead to a small bit of envy but then that
> is compounded by being utterly graceless winners and even worse losers.
> They moan about having too many games to play which is merely a form of
> boasting how well they are doing. They show disdain for the smaller of the
> cup competitions and arrogance for pulling out of the larger. They have a
> manager who continually overplays the 'everyone is against us' card and
> whinges about everything. They have an obsequious media telling everyone
> how wonderful they are and are made out to be a source of pride for the
> nation which is patently not the case.
>
> They attract a huge number of celebrity fans and glory hunters who see
> following them as fashionable when it is obvious that most of them have
> very little interest in football. A significant majority of their fans
> couldn't even find Manchester on a map let alone be willing to live there.
> The dominant media coverage is extremely bad for the sport and whilst only
> partly Man U's fault, serves to further increase the gap between rich and
> poor which has the potential to ruin football as we know it. There's
> nothing worse than going into a sports shop, or even Debenham’s, and
> seeing Man U stuff saturating every shelf. Why would a kid support anyone
> else in this climate?
>
> I've been a Palace fan since I was able to gurgle "Red and Blue Army" and
> I have lost count of the amount of Utd fans have asked me "Palace aren't
> doing very well, how come you support them? Would you not choose a better
> team?" These are "fans" who have maybe been to see Utd play once in some
> crappy pre-season friendly, if at all! Utd are not even the most popular
> team in Manchester. Man Utd fans don't understand what being a fan is all
> about.... It's about supporting you're team through good and bad not just
> hopping on the bandwagon. I personally don't have a problem with anyone
> who goes and watches their team play, but when glory hunters suggest that
> you support a decent team it really winds me up. Ever heard of loyalty? I
> find it impossible to have a sensible football discussion with any of
> their followers. They're so keen to be seen as 'big, big, United fans"
> that it clouds their judgment.
>
> Man United are as much about the name as the football, they get the huge
> income, players flocking to the academy, big name transfers etc because
> they are Manchester United. Their fans are morons, their manager is a
> cheat and their players are the kind of big money superegos football could
> do without. In the past they've probably warranted it more because of the
> 'homegrown' stars but they've dried up in recent years and they're just
> like Chelsea....spending lots of money to stay near the summit. They get
> that money off the back of an outdated notion that they're the best club
> in the world, shared by their terminally stupid 'fans', lots of whom have
> never even been to watch them.
>
> As for Malcolm Glazier, I truly hope it happens and he strips all the
> assets away, Moan U and Glazier are made for each other. What better
> chairman for a club whose majority of fans have never been to the stadium,
> than one who has never been either. It's perfect. In 2005, it is a plc, an
> artificial entity that does not fit, has alienated thousands of real fans,
> isn't really a football club in the true sense and has capitalized on all
> that is bad about the 'game'. It is now likely to take a further step away
> from football and, should asset-stripping take place on any significant
> scale, it could mean the end of an era for Man U: there could be very
> difficult times ahead. It seems to me that the only form of control that
> works in football is the 'benevolent owner' type who genuinely has the
> club at heart, has lots of dosh and refuses to sell up to
> consortia/individuals whose aims are less than 100% transparent and not as
> genuine as his/her own. It may be that we need to look to the past for a
> way out of this mess - at least to learn how certain things should be
> done.
>
> I am sure there are those who will shrug and mutter something about market
> forces and 'that's the way the game is today'. Fine. But it's not the game
> I grew up with and it's turning me off. If football is a business and
> entertainment more than it is a sport, then the plot has been lost. One
> thing to mention, Glazer is effectively using the Man U supporters own
> money to buy the club. He borrows from the bank the many hundreds of
> millions required, and then pays it back using the revenues generated and
> as I understand it the guarantees for the loan will be provided by future
> season ticket sales. So an asset rich club is instantly turned into a
> massively indebted club. It'll be interesting to see if they can actually
> stop money doing the talking. From what I've observed from United's
> business dealings in recent years, they'll bowl tradition, heritage and
> moral stance over in an instant over a few quid. What the Manc fans that
> are protesting about this takeover also need to realise is that Man U used
> the PLC system to become the most successful football entity in Britain,
> Europe and perhaps the world, what makes me laugh is when someone from the
> outside wishes to use this for their advantage they are called all sorts
> by the Manc sc*m. You can’t have it both ways.
>
> You have to feel sorry for anyone who supports Man Utd. The majority of
> their 'fans' don't know what it's like to go to a real football ground or
> feel real passion. The McDonalds of football and what can happen when big
> business has taken over - the stadium has lost it soul… Old Trafford is
> not a proper football ground anymore; in fact I’d say it's more like the
> old Vic these days. They come from all over the country (many of which
> have no affiliation with Manchester or even the North-West) and wait for
> their team to win. When United score, they clap, then with 10 minutes to
> go they get up and leave. It occurred to me that many of them have
> probably never stayed to the final whistle to applaud their team off. Of
> course I want Palace to do well and prosper, but if we go down then at
> least we will be rid of these so called football clubs. Give me Millmoor
> over Old Trafford any day, at least there is some real passion there. If I
> were a genuine Man Utd fan who'd watched them through the dark times, then
> I'd look around and wonder quite what my club has become. It's not
> football anymore, its light entertainment, not really any different to
> taking the family to the cinema on Saturday afternoon. We may not have
> their support or success, but they will never come close to what we had
> when we beat Sunderland, West Ham or drew with Arsenal. They are missing
> out on what football is all about.
>
> About Old Trafford….
>
> “Really weird sort of atmosphere. Walking around the ground before the
> match I got the feeling it was like we were at some huge 'entertainment'
> complex, rather than being at a football ground. When I got there, there
> were loads of people in Man U shirts having their picture taken, like they
> had never been there before. The vast majority of their fans were awful.
> We were losing at half time, yet our players were rapturously applauded
> off, most Man U 'fans' didn't even get out of their seat, let alone clap
> their players off. They barely celebrated scoring, so much so that the
> Palace fans were making more noise after they scored.
>
> Old Trafford epitomises everything that is wrong with the game. A business
> where people pay their money to be entertained, then they go home. At
> least I can say I’ve been to Old Trafford more times than 99% of Man U
> fans now. When I got to work today, people said, I bet you wish you hadn't
> gone...... no way I had a fantastic day, we scored two goals and sang for
> the whole match, making the Man U support look pathetic. If that is what
> being successful means, I’ll leave it thanks. Old Trafford felt like
> something produced by Walt Disney to me - a 'family day out' where the
> 'fans' go to be entertained rather than be actively involved. The "Old T"
> experience is a strangely soulless thing largely because of the nature of
> their support. I would like Palace to be more successful but never at the
> expense of the club's soul; and that soul IS the fans.
>
> We stopped off at the services on the M1, we started talking to some
> people who turned out to be man u fans who came from Somerset. I asked
> them do you do this every week - they said no this is our first time. Says
> it all really.
>
> How many Man u fans would be on the terraces on a freezing February night
> away to some obscure club, having just lost their last 3 games. I think a
> lot of Palace fans have been there done that for over many years. I
> certainly have. And the same goes for a large number of 'unfashionable'
> clubs. They have a hard core of genuine supporters who follow them through
> thick and thin. It really grieves me to hear about all those fair weather
> fans from all over the country putting money (but no passion) into Man u's
> coffers.
>
> Long live the true football fan.
>
> Sibneft & Yukos Oil FC
> Chelsea.... exactly the same but they're nearer the start of the cycle.
> Money money money. They're not going to win the league... they are going
> to buy it. There's no honour or glory in it. The real Chelsea fans know
> it, the plastic majority don't. I suppose for anyone who can remember what
> Chelsea used to be, it's perhaps a cause for pity. How anyone can find it
> interesting to watch someone assembling a squad by buying almost everyone’s
> best players (often to have them sit on the bench) is beyond me. Savaging
> the careers of promising footballers by paying millions for them then
> never using them and as a knock-on, cheapening the English game. Showing
> that anyone can buy their way to it. It's so flat, so dry, so passionless.
> Pointless. The problem now will be Chelsea will probably walk the league
> every year; they are just warming up at the moment. They are already
> talking about bidding 60 million for Ronaldinho. They have the money to
> buy the world and will take a monopoly on football which shouldn’t be
> allowed. That aside perhaps you will also agree with the many Russian
> people who feel that Baron (Sorry 'Mr') Abramovich has very little right
> to the billions of Russian oil dollars that should be paying for their
> schools, hospitals, transport systems, industry and agriculture... rather
> than it being wasted on a bunch of overpaid footballers who are only at
> Chelsea for the money. Not to mention that it is common knowledge that
> every major deal in Russia during the 1990’s is thought to have had to go
> through the Russian Mafia meaning that the man could have as much blood on
> his hands as someone like Gaddafi.
>
> Another point to look at is what happens when Chelsea have won everything?
> Will Abramovich be interested if they do it every season? He will get
> bored and will be wasting money hand over fist. Chelsea will one day have
> absolutely nightmare problems, we’ve seen whats happened to Leeds, the
> problems Chelsea would face would make Leeds look like a well run
> business, their players will walk on frees because the club wont be able
> to pay their wages, they will have 10 points deducted for going into
> instant administration and i'd be surprised if they managed to get out of
> it, you could see the type of problems developing whereby the club would
> have to fold and start again a few divisions down. It just depends when
> that day is, he may even get arrested before that happens, as it currently
> stands the EU, the serious fraud squad and the London stock exchange are
> currently investigating him and that is just within the UK. If it wasn’t
> for his friend, Mr Putin being the current president in Russia I am sure
> he would have a warrant for his arrest in his homeland as well.
>
> Conclusions
> The first thing people are going to talk about with this essay is
> jealousy, especially Manc fans, they think everyone who dislikes the club
> is jealous. Well think back to Liverpool in the 80’s… I think most people
> got fed up with Liverpool winning everything and usually supported whoever
> they were playing in the cup final. But they didn't inspire the same level
> of outright hatred that Man Utd generates - they were simply deemed a good
> team. You can't really compare Bob Paisley and Alex Ferguson can you?
> Furthermore people liked to see Liverpool do well in the European Cup and
> felt some sense of pride when they won it. Whereas everyone just wants Man
> if not greater than seeing them lose at home.
>
> That the respective managements and the majority of supporters of Man Utd
> and Chelsea seem to believe that their dominance represents any kind of
> 'achievement' is laughable. When they 'win' things what do they think that
> means to the rest of us? Let 'em have it. So what? If they collect the
> championship it will be to the sound of their own applause, nobody's else’s.
>
> The premiership is a depressing place at the moment. That's why I'm far
> more interested in the relegation battle than the title 'race'. Give me
> proper fans, proper passion, proper players who enjoy playing football.
> The top three or four might be almost 'too good' at the moment, but at the
> same time at least two of them also represent everything that's wrong with
> the sport. Who remembers the days when anyone could finish in the top 3,
> the likes of Palace, Forest & Norwich all at some point in the 90’s earned
> their right to be there? Those were great days and that is what football
> should be about. Now it is whoever has the most money wins, devalues the
> sport as a whole and turns the game into a farce. Only 3 or 4 clubs can
> challenge for the top spaces, the next 10 have little to play for little
> more than a mid table spot and the remainder fight to hold on to their
> place. If we go on at this rate we'll become another Scottish League. It
> used to be about 22 teams!!! Finishing 3rd. barely 14 years ago...do you
> honestly believe this league will allow events like that again? If you do
> then I want whatever you're taking!!!
>
> Truth is people argue that English clubs doing well in Europe is good for
> the English game. Truth is that this is total rubbish. The Champions
> league is to the complete detriment of all except a handful of elite
> teams, it has devalued the national game and the national team. As
> supporters of a club like Palace we should be willing all teams in this
> competition to fail. Naturally it goes without saying anyway, that I will
> always want Chelsea and Man Yoo to lose every game they play anyway.
>
> Corporate United and Chelski followers aren't real football fans they just
> say those clubs are their teams because they are brainwashed by the media.
> And I fuckin hate it when a pseudo Manc living in London says "I support
> them because my uncle comes from Manchester!" What a pile of bollox! I
> don't understand how every Man Utd fan I know, had family who lived in
> Manchester. I don't see that many Mancunians around London! To say family
> lived near Manchester...I could say the same. Manchester is near to
> London, as the moon is to the earth. Not very near, but near.
>
> Would I want someone of dubious character taking over Palace and ploughing
> 300,000,000+ in so that the stadium is full of the prawn sandwich brigade
> paying £40+ per ticket whilst the people that stuck with the club through
> thick and thin couldn't afford to go anymore? Easy question - no I
> wouldn't - that's not football. I wouldn't swap Palace for the world, and
> I won't give two hoots if we go don’t go up either."
>
> --
> "i'm just a soul whose intentions are good, Oh Lord, please don't let me
> be misunderstood"
This is a really interesting thread but I'd just like to remind visitors to
Our newsgroup that We are Champions of Europe so like a bit more respect
please
thanks
you can get back to arguing now
Dave G
> POD {Ò¿Ó} <DONT.EVE...@DEADSPAM.COM> wrote:
>
>> st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote in news:1h9a508.15qd6ld1rglx25N%
>> st...@italiancar.co.uk:
>>
>>> What utter bollocks.
>>>
>>> The *only* reason United have been able to spend money is that they've
>>> made it through winning stuff.....
>> I don't agree, United have gotten money outside of football, they have been
>> masters of marketing and merchandise. Exploiting foreign markets etc...
>
> And why have they been able to do that?
>
> Could it be the dominance of the EPL in the 90s?
read the article.
money from PLC status.
"In 2005, it is a plc, an artificial entity that does not fit, has alienated
thousands of real fans, isn't really a football club in the true sense and has
capitalized on all that is bad about the 'game'."
"What the Manc fans that are protesting about this takeover also need to realise
is that Man U used the PLC system to become the most successful football entity
in Britain, Europe and perhaps the world, what makes me laugh is when someone
from the outside wishes to use this for their advantage they are called all
sorts by the Manc sc*m. You can’t have it both ways."
--
Pope Pompous XVIII
> POD {铱觹 <DONT.EVE...@DEADSPAM.COM> wrote:
>
>> st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote in news:1h9a508.15qd6ld1rglx25N%
>> st...@italiancar.co.uk:
>>
>> > What utter bollocks.
>> >
>> > The *only* reason United have been able to spend money is that they've
>> > made it through winning stuff.....
>>
>> I don't agree, United have gotten money outside of football, they have
>> been
>> masters of marketing and merchandise. Exploiting foreign markets etc...
>
> And why have they been able to do that?
>
> Could it be the dominance of the EPL in the 90s?
I notice you didn't add Europe there.
hehehehe
Fancy bein able to dominate all those great clubs in the nineties like
Norwich and Sunderland Forest Ipswich Aston Villa Everton Spurs Birmingham
Sheffield Wednesday an' not bein able to win more than one trophy in Europe
against the giants of European football??
It beggars belief???
LOONEY!!
Pope Pompous XVIII
left or right foot?
Dave G
> left or right foot?
on me 'ead son!
Oi!!
merde, i just realised, we're conversing with that manc biker freak.
i'm outta here.
--
POD {铱觹
news:1h9a83z.a86kpy129azrgN%st...@italiancar.co.uk:
>> > The *only* reason United have been able to spend money is that
>> > they've made it through winning stuff.....
>>
>> I don't agree, United have gotten money outside of football, they
>> have been masters of marketing and merchandise. Exploiting foreign
>> markets etc...
>
> And why have they been able to do that?
>
> Could it be the dominance of the EPL in the 90s?
Yes, but you said they made money through winning stuff, I was just saying
that actually winning stuff doesn't bring in that much money. My you get
defensive..time of the month??
POD {铱觹
Aye, that's about as shit and unfunny as Jimmy Carr
Dave G
> Dave G <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in
> news:dqhbuf$8f4$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
>> POD {铱觹 wrote:
>>> Dave G <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in news:dqh9tr$vp7$1
>>> @newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
>>>> fine but do you know what that means?
>>>> Tommy Cooper,Benny Hill,Vic Reeves,Jimmy Carr- funny people.
>>> Sorry, Jimmy Carr is not funny, quite how you can put that talentless
>>> shit along side the others is astounding.
>> shut up, you whining hermaphrodite.
> Aye, that's about as shit and unfunny as Jimmy Carr
no it's true, your sexuality is under serious question.
POD,says it all.
i saw Carr's stand up act on TV.... didn't see it all.
not that engaging.
he is witty though, albeit flavour of the month.
--
Dick Terrapin
> "Norman" <Norm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:iVVyf.7941$C7....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
>
>
>>In that case could you point out the United transfers that 'smashed all
>>the records' that *were* financed by 'a couple of cup wins'.
>>
>>Ta.
>
>
> WHERE THE FUCK HAVE I SAID IT *WAS* PAID FOR
> BY A COUPLE OF CUP WINS?
> I WAS SUGGESTING THAT THERE WAS MORE TO IT THAN
> THAT YOU FUCKING IDIOTIC KNOB!
>
TILT!
--
Sei andato ad Istanbul !
Sei andato ad Istanbul !
Volevi Vincere !
Volevi Vincere !
E invece l'hai preso nel culo, invece l'hai preso nel culo!!!
Dick Terrapin
> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
> news:dqh8m0$5ti$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>Norman wrote:
>>
>>>"Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dqh7f1$ct1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>>>from fbtz.com
>>
>>>>i don't expect many to last the course on this one but there's a few
>>>>laughs in it.
>>
>>>This one line sums up the whole deluded, inaccurate and blinkered piece:
>>
>>yet again, you HUMOURLESS gawp.
>>
>>
>>>>They are successful which does lead to a small bit of envy ...
>>
>>
>>>Get over it Dave.
>>
>>it's just a rant norm, that i thought was funny and showed a bit of
>>"perspective" from the lower league.
>>
>>you know, like this bit-
>>
>>"Whereas everyone just wants Man Utd to lose whoever they are playing,
>>even if they opposition club is german!"
>
>
>
> I have a unique take on 'humour', Dave.
>
> For me, it has to be 'funny'.
>
> Could you please highlight the funny bits for me so I can reappraise them.
>
> The only funny thing I saw is your continued obsession with all things
> United.
>
Are you constipated Norma? FFS!
Dick Terrapin
> Norman wrote:
>
>> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
>> news:dqh8m0$5ti$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>>> Norman wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:dqh7f1$ct1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>>> from fbtz.com
>>>>> i don't expect many to last the course on this one but there's a
>>>>> few laughs in it.
>>>>
>>>> This one line sums up the whole deluded, inaccurate and blinkered
>>>> piece:
>>>
>>> yet again, you HUMOURLESS gawp.
>>>
>>>>> They are successful which does lead to a small bit of envy ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Get over it Dave.
>>>
>>> it's just a rant norm, that i thought was funny and showed a bit of
>>> "perspective" from the lower league.
>>>
>>> you know, like this bit-
>>>
>>> "Whereas everyone just wants Man Utd to lose whoever they are
>>> playing, even if they opposition club is german!"
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a unique take on 'humour', Dave.
>
>
> far from it, you are reknowned for being humourless.
>
>> For me, it has to be 'funny'.
>
>
> fine but do you know what that means?
> Tommy Cooper,Benny Hill,Vic Reeves,Jimmy Carr- funny people.
> Norman Le Poo manc character- not funny but sad smelly man.
Hehehe :-D
Dick Terrapin
> Dave G <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in news:dqh9tr$vp7$1
> @newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
>
>>fine but do you know what that means?
>>Tommy Cooper,Benny Hill,Vic Reeves,Jimmy Carr- funny people.
>
>
> Sorry, Jimmy Carr is not funny, quite how you can put that talentless shit
> along side the others is astounding.
>
Vic Reeves thinks he's funny but he's actually a deluded twat.
Dave G
> POD {铱觹 wrote:
>> Dave G <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in news:dqh9tr$vp7$1
>> @newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
>>> fine but do you know what that means?
>>> Tommy Cooper,Benny Hill,Vic Reeves,Jimmy Carr- funny people.
>> Sorry, Jimmy Carr is not funny, quite how you can put that talentless
>> shit along side the others is astounding.
> Vic Reeves thinks he's funny but he's actually a deluded twat.
he was funny in the "big night out" days.
--
Dick Terrapin
He's an ugly twat though, so I can see why you like him.
Dick Terrapin
> Dave G <DG@the_controls.com> wrote:
>
>
>>from fbtz.com
>>
>>i don't expect many to last the course on this one but there's a few
>>laughs in it.
>>
>>
>>"I write for a local newspaper every now and then. I have been given two
>>pages and have decided to devote it to the subject of the problems in
>>the English game led by Man U and Chelsea.
>>
>>I was just wondering what you guys thought about it and if you had any
>>constructive criticism bearing in mind that I havent finished it just yet.
>>
>>Introduction
>>Of the three, Arsenal are the only ones I respect because they've built
>>it up slowly and without spending shocking amounts of money in the
>>tradition of the game and the way its supposed to be done, again the
>>same with Barca, Milan etc, etc
>
>
> What utter bollocks.
>
> The *only* reason United have been able to spend money is that they've
> made it through winning stuff.....
Nah, they pawned their club to the city, sold their soul to the devil
and now they'll suffer the consequences of greed.
Dick Terrapin
I could get dirty with his wife.
WWWWWWWWWW
"Dave G" <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in message
news:dqh7f1$ct1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
If only you knew mate, if only you knew....
Spadger
Moog
alt.sports.soccer.everton:
> We stopped off at the services on the M1, we started talking to some
> people who turned out to be man u fans who came from Somerset.
They'd got lost too. ;-)
On a serious note, this guy has some fairly major issues. Instead of just
getting on, supporting his side and wanting the best for them, he seems
to be looking for reasons why people who aren't him aren't as good as
him. What's the word the Kopites use? Bitter?
There is no harm in "casual" football support - whichever side the
individual chooses. Let's remember that most clubs have people that like
or look out for their results (Everton included, believe it or not).
There is no crime in it. It can be conversely argued that Man Utd and
Chelsea (currently - previously you could have replaced them with names
like Leeds, Blackburn, Liverpool, Spurs, Notts Forest and even Everton -
believe it or not - to name but a few) are increasing the appeal of
football. They do things that "casual" supporters want to know about. How
can this be a bad thing? Anything that increases the popularity of this
great sport is good.
Like it or not, Football is now a business. The sides that play the
business game well will generally rise. Look at sides like Wigan, Luton,
Bolton etc. etc. would anyone out there like to deny these clubs the
opportunity to do what they've done? I suggest that the author of the
piece you posted would.
Don't get me wrong. There is something irksome about clubs who can afford
£30m and £40m transfer fees, but this isn't the end of the world.
Sunderland played fairly well against Chelsea and were unlucky not to get
a point, for instance. Luton's great FA Cup tie with Liverpool, Burton's
against United as two more
The good thing is, football is a great leveller. However much a side
generate or get donated this will *always* be the case. That's why the
business side of football has generally been reserved for the football
enthusiasts. Don't believe me? Look at Gibson, Kenwright, Moores, Whelan,
Gold, Ellis and even the OP's own mate Simon Jordan. NONE of these people
are in it for money. They'd be better off putting their money into an
ISA.
I may have drivelled a bit, but the reasons above are why the guys
"attack" on Utd and Chelsea is an utter crock.
--
Moog
"I once had a large gay following,
but I ducked into an alleyway and lost him."
Dave G
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:41:36 GMT, Dave G wrote in
> alt.sports.soccer.everton:
>> We stopped off at the services on the M1, we started talking to some
>> people who turned out to be man u fans who came from Somerset.
> They'd got lost too. ;-)
> On a serious note, this guy has some fairly major issues.
i did post it under the subject of "rant", tbf ;-)
> Instead of just
> getting on, supporting his side and wanting the best for them, he seems
> to be looking for reasons why people who aren't him aren't as good as
> him. What's the word the Kopites use? Bitter?
i don't read that into it at all, yes he rants on a bit.
he even goes onto say that promotion isn't an issue for him so i hardly think
he's envious of manure or chavski.
> There is no harm in "casual" football support - whichever side the
> individual chooses. Let's remember that most clubs have people that like
> or look out for their results (Everton included, believe it or not).
yes well point taken, but considering the abuse people get on here for "casual"
support i hardly think that point stands moog tbh.
> There is no crime in it. It can be conversely argued that Man Utd and
> Chelsea (currently - previously you could have replaced them with names
> like Leeds, Blackburn, Liverpool, Spurs, Notts Forest and even Everton -
> believe it or not - to name but a few) are increasing the appeal of
> football. They do things that "casual" supporters want to know about. How
> can this be a bad thing? Anything that increases the popularity of this
> great sport is good.
you really mean that?
anything?
not sure i agree at all.
you sound a bit "Sepp Blatter" there if you don't mind me saying so.
> Like it or not, Football is now a business. The sides that play the
> business game well will generally rise. Look at sides like Wigan, Luton,
> Bolton etc. etc. would anyone out there like to deny these clubs the
> opportunity to do what they've done? I suggest that the author of the
> piece you posted would.
supposition.
and wigan have a sugar daddy btw.
> Don't get me wrong. There is something irksome about clubs who can afford
> £30m and £40m transfer fees, but this isn't the end of the world.
> Sunderland played fairly well against Chelsea and were unlucky not to get
> a point, for instance. Luton's great FA Cup tie with Liverpool, Burton's
> against United as two more
i don't think the bloke has a problem with that, his opinion seems to be that he
wouldn't want Chavskis money because of the damage he believes it would do to
his club.
And if you want to take it a stage further the damage it does to the careers of
budding English talent, SWP, Scott Parker for example.
I think that is a fair point here though whether people are THAT bothered about
Englands fortunes i don't know.
> The good thing is, football is a great leveller. However much a side
> generate or get donated this will *always* be the case. That's why the
> business side of football has generally been reserved for the football
> enthusiasts. Don't believe me? Look at Gibson, Kenwright, Moores, Whelan,
> Gold, Ellis and even the OP's own mate Simon Jordan. NONE of these people
> are in it for money. They'd be better off putting their money into an
> ISA.
the more i read about and hear about whelan the more apparent it is that he is
sports greatest hypocrite.
> I may have drivelled a bit, but the reasons above are why the guys
> "attack" on Utd and Chelsea is an utter crock.
I think he's reasonably justified, he's saying he believes the heart has been
torn out of these clubs because their identity has gone AWOL as fans from all
corners of the country and beyond are supporting what was once a provincially
supported club.
It's only what Roy Keane was saying a few seasons back.
--
Spadger
to get to the new text, I try myself to reply but delete the used text so
that all that appears is the new text in the reply!
And yes I made sure I did it this time, I'm not that stupid er?
Google Beta User
dislike the Mancs. However....
<< Of the three, Arsenal are the only ones I respect because they've
built
it up slowly and without spending shocking amounts of money in the
tradition of the game and the way its supposed to be done, again the
same with Barca, Milan etc, etc.... the way its supposed to be done >>
....eh? Haven't spent money like Milan and BARCA???????
Dave G
> I lose interest when the post is to long as I cant be arsed scrolling down
> to get to the new text, I try myself to reply but delete the used text so
> that all that appears is the new text in the reply!
so this is the sum total of your opinion on the article.
thanks.
you are dumbing down usenet.
"too many words", ffs.
> And yes I made sure I did it this time, I'm not that stupid er?
really?
can you burn an AVI to DVD yet?
;-)
--
Dave G
go on then, break it down for us.
--
Moog
alt.sports.soccer.everton:
> I think he's reasonably justified, he's saying he believes the heart
> has been torn out of these clubs because their identity has gone AWOL
> as fans from all corners of the country and beyond are supporting what
> was once a provincially supported club.
> It's only what Roy Keane was saying a few seasons back.
The way football is structured, leagues, prizes for finishing first etc.
etc. has not changed. If people want to invest large sums of money into
it, then they may see "short term" satisfaction, but not much else. A bi
product of success is attracting support from areas you wouldn't normally
get it from. There are examples of Liverpool's support being spread
worldwide due to their great side of the '70's and '80s. I sat near a
gang of Danish Evertonian Season Ticket holders after our cup win in the
mid '90s. This is simply the nature of supporters and nothing can change
it. Travel is easier to accomplish than it was in the old "walk up" days.
You can get to major European Cities far quicker than it takes a train to
get to London, and it's certainly far cheaper.
Let's look again at the "business side". Sides like Charlton and Bolton
for instance are playing this game well and sitting in the top flight "by
right". When the arse falls out of Chelsea (it has arguably already
fallen out of United) and the money is no longer there, then these "well
run" clubs will benefit. Short term finances cannot replace long term
strategies.
I've seen the failure of my own club after some "mismanagement" you know.
We are only now starting to get back on track some 15 years too late.
Back to the OP. I can understand why he wouldn't want Abramovich's
millions in at Crystal Palace, but I doubt, if it came to the crunch, he
would be as upset as he claims he would be.
Dave G
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:35:09 GMT, Dave G wrote in
> alt.sports.soccer.everton:
>> I think he's reasonably justified, he's saying he believes the heart
>> has been torn out of these clubs because their identity has gone AWOL
>> as fans from all corners of the country and beyond are supporting what
>> was once a provincially supported club.
>> It's only what Roy Keane was saying a few seasons back.
> The way football is structured, leagues, prizes for finishing first etc.
> etc. has not changed. If people want to invest large sums of money into
> it, then they may see "short term" satisfaction, but not much else. A bi
> product of success is attracting support from areas you wouldn't normally
> get it from.
i accept that but the down side IS the diluting of the fan base and so to the
detriment of the club in some ways.
imo.
> There are examples of Liverpool's support being spread
> worldwide due to their great side of the '70's and '80s. I sat near a
> gang of Danish Evertonian Season Ticket holders after our cup win in the
> mid '90s. This is simply the nature of supporters and nothing can change
> it. Travel is easier to accomplish than it was in the old "walk up" days.
> You can get to major European Cities far quicker than it takes a train to
> get to London, and it's certainly far cheaper.
yes, again you are right of course, but look at Istanbul for example, what's the
point of living in Slough if you couldn't be in Liverpool on the 25,26th(or
thereabouts) May 2005, this is the other side of it.
I take your points though and must say that it's fantastic really that global
support in the truest sense of the word is now so possible.
we're all probably people that wouldn't move away from the area(or certainly
emigrate) because of football or at least would put that obstacle in the way.
> Let's look again at the "business side". Sides like Charlton and Bolton
> for instance are playing this game well and sitting in the top flight "by
> right". When the arse falls out of Chelsea (it has arguably already
> fallen out of United) and the money is no longer there, then these "well
> run" clubs will benefit. Short term finances cannot replace long term
> strategies.
ok but listen to their supporters, they're all(some of them, on balance)
hankering after being the next big fish in the pond because the media has done a
job on manure/chavski to the extent that nothing exists outside of 3 clubs in
the league.
no wonder the bloke doesn't want any part of it.
there is little worse than green eyed lust and while the bloke has the honesty
to say he is a little jealous if he is true to his word then he simply enjoys
what he has.
anything else is a bonus.
it's a bit like that "teenage" phenonemon when you find a new band and don't
want to share them
with the rest of the world cos they'll spoil your little community.
a bit ;-)
> I've seen the failure of my own club after some "mismanagement" you know.
> We are only now starting to get back on track some 15 years too late.
it's all cyclic Moog, that's what i believe anyway, rest assured, i'm sure
you'll see a highly successful EFC once again.
> Back to the OP. I can understand why he wouldn't want Abramovich's
> millions in at Crystal Palace, but I doubt, if it came to the crunch, he
> would be as upset as he claims he would be.
maybe.
--
Geonet
wrote:
>Chelsea.... exactly the same but they're nearer the start of the cycle.
>Money money money. They're not going to win the league... they are going
>to buy it.
How dare you write about football when you ignore footbal basic facts
for sucess ? Yes it is also about money but the main factors are:
character, team spirit, organisation, discipline and the right
mentality. Real Madrid is one of the richest clubs in the world yet
they lack character, team spirit, organisation, discipline and right
mentality. Chelsea with Ranieri lacked all that too and they had so
much money and bought so many players. Yet they won nothing.
In Portugal, Mourinho took a small club "Leiria" that had no money
and not many good players, from the bottom of the ladder to a place
in the UEFA Cup and he only replaced a sacked coach in mid season.
Some people say that, had he started at the beginning of the
portuguese championship, he would have won the title with Leiria. So
what did he do ? He instilled character, team spirit, organisation,
discipline and the right mentality in a club that did not have much
money, not many star players and was in extreme danger of going down
to second division.
Geonet
---------------------------------------------------------
Remove OMEN from email address to reply
Dave G
>> Chelsea.... exactly the same but they're nearer the start of the cycle.
>> Money money money. They're not going to win the league... they are going
>> to buy it.
> How dare you write about football when you ignore footbal basic facts
> for sucess ? Yes it is also about money but the main factors are:
> character, team spirit, organisation, discipline and the right
> mentality. Real Madrid is one of the richest clubs in the world yet
> they lack character, team spirit, organisation, discipline and right
> mentality. Chelsea with Ranieri lacked all that too and they had so
> much money and bought so many players. Yet they won nothing.
rant rant rant, all very well but it's not my article so i don't take
responsibility for it other than to say, i think you're building a very good
case for the article author.
> In Portugal, Mourinho took a small club "Leiria" that had no money
> and not many good players, from the bottom of the ladder to a place
> in the UEFA Cup and he only replaced a sacked coach in mid season.
> Some people say that, had he started at the beginning of the
> portuguese championship, he would have won the title with Leiria. So
> what did he do ? He instilled character, team spirit, organisation,
> discipline and the right mentality in a club that did not have much
> money, not many star players and was in extreme danger of going down
> to second division.
probably the same characteristics that Dowie built his Palace team on and iirc
he took charge mid season and saw his side promoted.
see the author.
--
JAB
> laughs in it.
>
>
> "I write for a local newspaper every now and then. I have been given two
> pages and have decided to devote it to the subject of the problems in
> the English game led by Man U and Chelsea.
>
> I was just wondering what you guys thought about it and if you had any
> constructive criticism bearing in mind that I havent finished it just yet.
>
Well the only advice I can offer the author is not to drink 8 pints of
Stella and then act like Richard Little John. This article makes these
NGs seem measured.
Darth Simian
> read the article.
> money from PLC status.
>
> "In 2005, it is a plc, an artificial entity that does not fit, has
> alienated thousands of real fans, isn't really a football club in the true
> sense and has capitalized on all that is bad about the 'game'."
Utter crap. PL club owners and shareholders are all in it for the
dividends, and always have been. I know the chairman of Castleton Gabriels
who play at semi pro level, and he told me he is doing it for that reason as
well. That's the way it is, was, and always will be, no matter how "real"
some fans think they are.
--
Every single SU and FCUM member is now an enemy of Manchester United,
and the Conservative Party.
Do what must be done. Do not hesitate. Show no mercy.
Diablos Rojos
>> POD {ŇżÓ} <DONT.EVE...@DEADSPAM.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote in news:1h9a508.15qd6ld1rglx25N%
>>> st...@italiancar.co.uk:
>>>
>>>> What utter bollocks.
>>>>
>>>> The *only* reason United have been able to spend money is that they've
>>>> made it through winning stuff.....
>>> been
>>> masters of marketing and merchandise. Exploiting foreign markets etc...
>>
>> And why have they been able to do that?
>>
>> Could it be the dominance of the EPL in the 90s?
>
> money from PLC status.
>
> "In 2005, it is a plc, an artificial entity that does not fit, has
> alienated thousands of real fans, isn't really a football club in the true
> sense and has capitalized on all that is bad about the 'game'."
>
> realise is that Man U used the PLC system to become the most successful
> football entity in Britain, Europe and perhaps the world, what makes me
> laugh is when someone from the outside wishes to use this for their
> advantage they are called all sorts by the Manc sc*m. You can’t have it
> both ways."
>
> --
Obviously the poster of this long winded garbled piece of whiny bollocks has
no axe to grind against Man Utd, continually using the term Manc scum etc
shows his deep love for us. It wasn't penned by a certain Matthew Simmonds
was it?
POD {铱觹
Pity I first saw him over 3 years ago, so that flavour of the month is
no 35 months stale. He's as 'bout as funny as that Joe Pasqualie.
POD {铱觹
nntp-reader02.plus.net:
> He's an ugly twat though, so I can see why you like him.
LOL (and I did)
POD {铱觹
> POD {铱觹 wrote:
>
>> Dave G <DG@the_controls.com> wrote in news:dqh9tr$vp7$1
>> @newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
>>
>>
>>>fine but do you know what that means?
>>>Tommy Cooper,Benny Hill,Vic Reeves,Jimmy Carr- funny people.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, Jimmy Carr is not funny, quite how you can put that talentless
>> shit along side the others is astounding.
>>
>
> Vic Reeves thinks he's funny but he's actually a deluded twat.
>
I find him hit and miss, but when you're trying to be out there on the
edge, that must be the case with most people, bit like Python, I just
never got some of there stuff either.