thisisnottaken1
Full Member
That is a fantastic phrase.I agree lads to be fair, we did kind of ruin the league by waving our massive money cock around first too though
That is a fantastic phrase.I agree lads to be fair, we did kind of ruin the league by waving our massive money cock around first too though
We were the 6th highest PL spenders in the 90s. We spent a fair bit between 2001-02 but abramovich came in the year after and inflated it for everyone.I agree lads to be fair, we did kind of ruin the league by waving our massive money cock around first too though
Exactly. The notion that we outspent everyone under Fergie is a myth.We were the 6th highest PL spenders in the 90s. We spent a fair bit between 2001-02 but abramovich came in the year after and inflated it for everyone.
Yes because we had so many academy players. When we spent we often paid quite a bit.We were the 6th highest PL spenders in the 90s. We spent a fair bit between 2001-02 but abramovich came in the year after and inflated it for everyone.
We did, but it’s a myth that we had success because we had the most money.Yes because we had so many academy players. When we spent we often paid quite a bit.
Very true. But we did affect the market which I think was the original point.We did, but it’s a myth that we had success because we had the most money.
Very true. But we did affect the market which I think was the original point.
How much you spend in total isn't as important as how much you spend on individual players.When did we really affect the market during Sir Alex's time? We were outspent by other clubs in most of Sir Alex's Premier League seasons and most of the time when we spent big on a player it was because it was from another Premier League club so was always going to cost us more and was still less than what the Italian and Spanish clubs were trading players for.
Yes because we had so many academy players. When we spent we often paid quite a bit.
We broke the British record three times in that era with Cole, Veron and Ferdinand.Very true. But we did affect the market which I think was the original point.
Yea they all affected the market also.We broke the British record three times in that era with Cole, Veron and Ferdinand.
But i'd argue it was Blackburn who had moved the market up buying Sutton for 5m 6months before.
And after Cole, Collymore went for 8.5m
Newcastle took the world record to 15m for Shearer - that could have been us, but obviously wasn't.
But to me it feels like Chelsea and City were far more responsible for repeatedly warping the market.
Chelsea were dishing out repeated 20m + fees in the early 2000s and City escalated the price of a full back to 50m!
Plus 45m or whatever Tevez was suspected to be 15 years before the time that was the price for an average forward or midfield squaddie!
If it's just a fine then we can pack up the EPL as a serious league.
Sportwashing done right.It’s not though, why are you kidding yourself?
Take City out then you think the likes of Wolves, Aston Villa, West Ham, Brentford, have any chance of winning??
Of course they don’t!
Take City out, and it’ll be Liverpool, Arsenal, or Chelsea
Everyone’s version of a Competitive league has become blurred for too long, surely a competitive league is one where anyone has a chance of winning? Not just a select 3-4 clubs becuase of the size of their institution and finances
Competitive too me isn’t “in the premier league any team can beat anyone on a given day”
Winning is competition, not winning the odd game against a big club, or losing the odd game against a little club
It’s laughable
Yea they all affected the market also.
Chelsea had the biggest affect for me, they changed things quite rapidly.
Rooney was also the record for someone at that rage group. Pogba also broke the record. Obviously these 2 were later on.
Age :PRooney did have quite the temper.
Rooney did have quite the temper.