Please don't let it it be Chelsea-City final. Just awful. Hopefully Madrid will to the job tomorrow and then if there's anyone that can stop Pep in a final that would be Zidane.
Champions league Semi Finals 2020-21 - April 27-28 and May 4-5
- Thread starter roonster09
- Start date
Chelsea : Plastic wankers
Real Madrid : Perez wankers
ManCity : Oil wankers
Like deciding which shit pasta you'd like to eat.
Real Madrid : Perez wankers
ManCity : Oil wankers
Like deciding which shit pasta you'd like to eat.
Not sure thats true tbh. I dont remember a time when money wasn't the main factor in success but the early 90's felt ... maybe not perfect but a lot better than now. Not convinced there was a drastic difference between our spending vs. liverpool or arsenals (or newcastles or blackburns). With the benefit of hindsight I think its a fair argument to say that ferguson was just better than the equivalent managers elsewhere basically.
Our success has become entrenched since, and i guess our complaints are pretty muted overall but i think most would rather a competitive, open league than guaranteed success if they were forced to pick.
Before the oil clubs took over, there wasn't so much money in football that noone else had a chance. It wasn't very long ago that Leeds and Blackburn had won the title, and while United and Arsenal dominated throughout the 90s and early 00s, that had a lot to do with the fact that Fergie and Wenger were leading these two clubs. Anyone who says that it always came down to nothing but money is full of it. While, yes, Leicester won the league in 2016, it was a freak occurence and a product of the fact that literally all other competitors were having a poor season at the same time, coupled with the peak career forms of several of their key players. If we set that one incredible exception aside, the changes made to football since oil clubs took over is plain for anyone to see. Noone can be taken seriously if they say that things weren't different before. It used to be a game where clubs could dominate if they were run well and managed by someone who had something special. Then it turned into a game where those with the most money won by default. The exceptions are too few to care about.
Man Utd are in an almost unique position to remain somewhat competitive without a sugar daddy, since the club is so popular and had been so succesful for the last twenty years that it has managed to stay more or less relevant even in an era where billionaire owners pump ridiculous amounts of money into their clubs. The likes of Arsenal and Milan did not have that, so they got fecked. Chelsea was the first big entrant with the oil money, and then City and PSG a while later, which took things to a level where the only ones who could compete were the ones who were already at the top when it happened. If all the oil money had arrived when Arsenal were flying high off their invincible season, that would be one thing. But since the bulk of it came five or ten years later, they had already waned, and only a select few clubs like United, Real, Barcelona and Bayern were still big enough to keep up with the financial arms race.
Man Utd are in an almost unique position to remain somewhat competitive without a sugar daddy, since the club is so popular and had been so succesful for the last twenty years that it has managed to stay more or less relevant even in an era where billionaire owners pump ridiculous amounts of money into their clubs. The likes of Arsenal and Milan did not have that, so they got fecked. Chelsea was the first big entrant with the oil money, and then City and PSG a while later, which took things to a level where the only ones who could compete were the ones who were already at the top when it happened. If all the oil money had arrived when Arsenal were flying high off their invincible season, that would be one thing. But since the bulk of it came five or ten years later, they had already waned, and only a select few clubs like United, Real, Barcelona and Bayern were still big enough to keep up with the financial arms race.
Last edited:
These past three seasons have really been extra shit on top of an already shit cake that we've had to eat since Fergie left. Liverpool have won the league and CL and now City have the chance to win the league and CL double. Come on you Madrid bastards.
We really need to take it out of the hands of the officials since they’re more interested in what the game needs rather than compensating for lost time. Just go to 30 minute halves and stop the time every time the ball goes out of play.
Oh yeah, Jenas is quite bad. I, however, was referring to the UEFA broadcast's commentator. It was getting so annoying for me that I was hoping ti look for a British broadcast to listen to. It's a good thing I didn't switch; I may have regretted that choice.
Not overly keen on Pep but if we were not to make it they have a few players who i'd happily see get their hands on the trophy for the first time. Biggest shame would be David Silva missing it by a year.
What a shit CL season where Chelsea seem like the best alternative 
But it's not happening. It's City's year.
But it's not happening. It's City's year.
Well City have a Supreme coach, I'm not sure if their players are that good. The system makes them look better.
Current City team has no Messi, Suarez, Neymar, Lewandowski etc. That's why it's so impressive for me.
Anyway, we haven't been far off in terms of spending recently compared to City, have we? That's why I don't quite "buy" this argument that they've bought the title.
You might be right, but Foden wasted some chances as well in the first leg. I think overall the luck has been with City this time, but again - fairly comfortable win over two games, and they didn't really look like playing to maximum capabilities. PSG didn't capitalize on City mistakes though, but overall I don't see this tie ending differently.
What a shit CL season where Chelsea seem like the best alternative
But it's not happening. It's City's year.
Hala Madrid all the way.
Arsenal's early Wenger success was funded by the deep pockets of a guy called Danny Fizsman who's investment allowed them to not only buy the likes of Bergkamp and Anelka who propelled them to the title but also hand the likes of Adams and Seaman better wages to fend of any potential interest.
I'm not critisising them for it obviously I'm in no position too but the narrative that Wenger was successful on a shoestring doing it the "right way" is hilarious, they weren't much better than they currently are until Fizsman got his wallet out.
Tony Adams himself believes their early Wenger success was 90% down to him.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...n-arsenal-did-so-well-says-adams-2319483.html
Have no time for Madrid. Certainly don't understand the Hala Madrid crowd here. Then reaching 14 ECs would be rubbish.
Better than City winning their first or Chelsea their second.
Whatever happens, there is no way any team is beating Madrid CL count in my lifetime.
Anelka cost pennies.
Bergkamp although relatively expensive wasn't realky all that much. Baggio cost more in 1990. Shearer cost double a year later. I don't think it was Wenger who signed him either but could be wrong on that.
You didn't need deep pockets for those two.
Then throw in some of the other bargains and for sure he did it the right way.
Last edited:
Possibly, nor sure about Chelsea. Maybe so. Either way I can't bring myself to cheer them on that's for sure.
It's not about beating them it's about them taking the piss with their EC count.
This. It just is that simple
But you're right that RM affect us the least so they're the lesser of all evils. Chelsea become champions and it makes them even more attractive and maybe gives them the edge over us in the transfer market.
What about the others like Overmars and Vieira? Then the likes of Henry and Pires that they got in-between their 98 and 02 titles? And more importantly how much is it when adjusted to modern day inflation?
According to those quotes from Adams £50m was his initial investment, how much would that equivalent be today? Probably around £200-250m if not more, imagine the outrage if a team in midtable (like they were in the mid 90s) do that today and win the title within three years.
Chelsea is the only way out. Less money for Perez, less glory for City. Don't think they'll ever reach another final anyway.
Who?
That surely cannot be true. So you're saying Pogba would have cost less than half of that when he was the world record fee at that time!
We haven’t spent anywhere near...
Nonsense. Why on earth do you support Utd?
Tuchel just seems like one of those managers who can do well against Pep, however I thought the same thing about Poch before last two games. Still, rather Real than Chelsea in the final.
And it was the same in italian football. Now most experts would rate Sacchi's Milan as Top3 or Top5 greatest football teams ever but they were funded by their sugar daddy Berlusconi but people like to forget it now and simply point at City or Chelsea like this is something new.
Because my family always have. I loved the youth system.
I won't lie I was being a little basic in my train of thought and thinking of the transfer fees for the likes of Fat Ronaldo and comparing it to similar transfers of that level of player (ala Mbappe) in the present day but I'd hazard a guess I'm not a million miles off whatever the accurate figure is.
Either way the main point is a £50m lump sum from a man's pocket to put straight into the playing squad wasn't exactly chump change back then.
Which has always been what Utd are about rather than obscene spending so saying the only thing we used to have is a funicular advantage is a load of rubbish.
Overmars was about £5 million. Vieira was a steal at around £2.5 million.
Pires was £6 million. He replaced Overmars who they sold for £25 million.
Henry was £11 million. They got Pires and Henry using the Overmars money and still had £8million left over.
For reference we bought Rio soon after for £30 million.
Henry cost a third of Rio.
You're miles off on this one.
Last edited:
You got to have your head in the sand if you think we haven't been about big spending. That 2008 squad must have been close to the most expensive squad in the world.
If you care about money buying trophies you would have tried and stopped it decades ago when we were spending like that.
If there ever was a game where Hazard needed to remind himself he could be a great footballer...
Again if you don’t see what City, PSG and Chelsea as completely different then that’s on you. One club organically grew building up a fan base based on history tradition and proper values. The others used corrupt, tainted money to immediately jump straight to the head of the queue. I don’t see how that’s fair sportsmanship.
Do you genuinely think that’s the same thing?
It's next season
I don't think anyone's really saying that City bought the title this year. It's just that the entire club is built on a foundation of financial doping. They didn't do anything to earn it, they just became the arbitrary vessel for an Arab state's desire to whitewash their global image through football. In that sense, they've bought everything they have. None of it was earned through growth, integrity and hard-won success, it was just granted to them.
Can't believe in 2021 and there's supposed Utd fans who still don't see the clear difference in us spending our money that was earned to clubs spending money given to them by their owners. It couldn't be further away from rocket science, and yet some still seem confused.
You realise other clubs complained about us as well, said that clubs like United have ruined football with our money.
If you cared about teams winning by spending you would have complained when it was working for us.
I don't like City or the way their money affects football but I understand it when fans from other clubs don't care about our whining.
And how much is that adjusted for modern day inflation?
I wasn't using Adams as a transfer fee example I've brought him up because according to him the early Wenger success was 90% Fizsman's doing and his investment also allowed the likes of him and Seaman to get a really good wage for the first time.
And City's record signing costs around a third of Neymar and Mbappe.
So basically from money got from players that were initially signed due to Fizsman's investment? Those players were still a byproduct of him getting his wallet out in the first place.
Most of our big spending windows in the last decade and a half have come largely through money gained from player sales, we keep getting the "£250m spent last summer" line thrown at us despite Hazard and Morata technically paying for most of it.
It can't work both ways!