Shak Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 The Premiership has been more or less the exact same for the last 10 years, with the odd slight reshuffle of the middle clubs every so often. The emergence of Chelsea is pretty much the only thing that's changed since ten years ago. Man U the ongoing dominant force in contention every year. Arsenal sort of lurking about. Making a push every second or third year due to how good Wenger is, falling away in other years due to their inferior players compared to Man U. Liverpool being good, but not quite good enough to mount a worthwhile challenge. Yet comfortably consistantly better than other pretenders. They've not finished anywhere other than between 2nd and 5th since 98. Every so often a team comes along that looks like they might emerge as a contender before fading away. Leeds, Newcastle and now Villa. Same shit, different season every year tbh. Something needs to happen, but I've no idea what. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 to anyone who doesn't think they bought it - hate the idea that roman's dirty money isn't good enough but manu's worldwide exploitation tours and soulless marketing makes it OK for them to have 100m worth of players on the pitch at any given time fuck them when fergie leaves, i'm gonna prey to the gods for a plague on all their houses, cunts to a man every last one of them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 So it looks like the premiership is going to be bought by Man U again. Stupid comment tbf. They buy players with money they earn. What you want them to do, never sign anyone just to give other teams more of a chance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 So it looks like the premiership is going to be bought by Man U again. Stupid comment tbf. They buy players with money they earn. What you want them to do, never sign anyone just to give other teams more of a chance? spend cap, see how fuckin good they'd be then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 The reason its become predictable is that in the pre-premiership days a club like Forest could come through to win the title. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
olliemort Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Besides Man Utd going well so far this has being the least predictable season so far.Villa in third 5 pts off top,Hulls great start,the mighty spurs struggling,Arsenal fading well away from the top 4,Chelsea in fourth place and struggling Not to mention the f***ing bizzare goings on at Newcastle United. Dont want to get in to that shit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest quklaani Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Despite being outspent in recent years by five or six clubs (hilariously including Spurs, although we did give them a lot of the money they're wasting) we're totally buying the league, and we're the only club that has fans from outside our city limits who are soulless muppets. The league is only "predictable" because all the other big clubs have fucked up so much of late. Chelsea are run by an egomaniacal dickhead who knows nothing about football, Liverpool have owners and a manager who despise each other, Leeds collapsed under the weight of their own retardation, Spurs...lol, City...multi-lol, no need to explain Newcastle to you, Everton just don't have a pot to piss in for reasons I don't entirely understand, Arsenal are hamstrung by Wenger's bizarre myopia, and Villa spent about seven years toiling around in mid table. In the 90s it was much better, we won the league just as often but you can't pretend it was ever just two or three clubs competing. The reason we win isn't because we can outspend everyone else, because thats a myth. There's exactly one reason Manchester United have been so insanely successful in recent years, it's not sky, it's not essex fans, it's not marketing in South East Asia, it's not as the scouse would have you believe corrupt officials, it's the greatest manager in the history of British football. And I'll never apologise for the fact that we lucked in on him and those that have run the club were never stupid enough to sack him during the bad spells. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Despite being outspent in recent years by five or six clubs (hilariously including Spurs, although we did give them a lot of the money they're wasting) we're totally buying the league, and we're the only club that has fans from outside our city limits who are soulless muppets. The league is only "predictable" because all the other big clubs have fucked up so much of late. Chelsea are run by an egomaniacal dickhead who knows nothing about football, Liverpool have owners and a manager who despise each other, Leeds collapsed under the weight of their own retardation, Spurs...lol, City...multi-lol, no need to explain Newcastle to you, Everton just don't have a pot to piss in for reasons I don't entirely understand, Arsenal are hamstrung by Wenger's bizarre myopia, and Villa spent about seven years toiling around in mid table. In the 90s it was much better, we won the league just as often but you can't pretend it was ever just two or three clubs competing. The reason we win isn't because we can outspend everyone else, because thats a myth. There's exactly one reason Manchester United have been so insanely successful in recent years, it's not sky, it's not essex fans, it's not marketing in South East Asia, it's not as the scouse would have you believe corrupt officials, it's the greatest manager in the history of British football. And I'll never apologise for the fact that we lucked in on him and those that have run the club were never stupid enough to sack him during the bad spells. first point is shite basically, with the possible exception of chelski (& you've probably a more expensive squad than them tbf) you have far and away the most expensive and expansive squad...add it up, go on try it... second is of course also true, as many clubs including ourselves have proven spending the money isn't enough, it needs to be spent by the right man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest quklaani Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 One thing people don't mention when talking about our admittedly expensive squad is that it includes Rio, Ronaldo and Rooney (our 3 best players) who were bought for about 70 million five or more years ago. Our recent purchases, Berbatov aside, have all been in the tens. People mocked us for paying 16 million for Carrick, but compare his price to players like Keane, or Defoe, or Palacios, or De Jong, or Bellamy, or Milner, or Bosingwa...need I go on? We spend big money on players sure, but we tend to keep them (Seba being the notable "failure" and he was still a fine player who we recouped half the money on) and we tend to get our money's worth. We can't afford not to be prudent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Every penny Man Utd spend on players comes from the fans' pockets who spend all that money to watch their club in the same way our rise from the old second division to top of the Premier League was funded by us lot and not as the media have often quoted by Sir John Hall. For that alone I'd rather see them win the league than Chelsea who had to have a helping hand from a rich benefactor to win the league as Blackburn did under Jack Walker. Man Utd's success is down to their (self financed) spending power, their great manager and their ability to develop players into world-class stars and have them playing as a team. Man Utd have very rarely signed the finished product, for such a big club they have never bought a Zidane, a genuine world-class player as Real Madrid did and do, they just make them - see Giggs, Scholes, Ronaldo, Rooney, Beckham and a host of others for example. 90% down to Fergie really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 One thing people don't mention when talking about our admittedly expensive squad is that it includes Rio, Ronaldo and Rooney (our 3 best players) who were bought for about 70 million five or more years ago. Our recent purchases, Berbatov aside, have all been in the tens. People mocked us for paying 16 million for Carrick, but compare his price to players like Keane, or Defoe, or Palacios, or De Jong, or Bellamy, or Milner, or Bosingwa...need I go on? We spend big money on players sure, but we tend to keep them (Seba being the notable "failure" and he was still a fine player who we recouped half the money on) and we tend to get our money's worth. We can't afford not to be prudent. nani, anderson, hargreaves, carrick, ferdinand, rooney, ronaldo, berbatov, tevez if he signs or if he doesn't then whoever they sign instead 100m there, not including your <10m signings of which there are shitloads too you've the best manager and players by far, just don't try and deny the money factor mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest quklaani Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 What am I denying, that we've got a fair bit of cash and we've spent it? How could I, we spent 30 million quid on one player last summer. No, Im pointing out that we've actually spent less money of late (meaning the last three years since we became the best again) than several other clubs. We spend it much more wisely, and our academy and youth scouting means we can afford to pay big for the odd star. Our future back four is probably Rafael, Vidic, Evans and Evra, an average of 3 million per player. Not too shabby hey? Liverpool spent a fair bit more than us last summer. Berbatov, or Riera, Keane, N'gog, Degen, Dossena, and Cavlieri? Who came out better there? Of course you can argue Liverpool needed that many reinforcements, but whose fault was that then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 One thing people don't mention when talking about our admittedly expensive squad is that it includes Rio, Ronaldo and Rooney (our 3 best players) who were bought for about 70 million five or more years ago. Our recent purchases, Berbatov aside, have all been in the tens. People mocked us for paying 16 million for Carrick, but compare his price to players like Keane, or Defoe, or Palacios, or De Jong, or Bellamy, or Milner, or Bosingwa...need I go on? We spend big money on players sure, but we tend to keep them (Seba being the notable "failure" and he was still a fine player who we recouped half the money on) and we tend to get our money's worth. We can't afford not to be prudent. Hang on, you're trying to claim that Man United don't buy expensive players? You spent £75m 18 months ago!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest quklaani Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 No, I'm saying, and probably labouring the point, that we spend less than several other teams, so the charge that we "bought" the league is farcical. This isn't even taking into account how much of the money comes from players we sell. Smith for six million, Pique for seven, Silvestre for five, Richardson for five and a half, Rossi for seven, Heinze for six, Howard for four, thats the last two seasons just off the top of my head. Considering the massive amount of money we bring in we really don't spend all that much on transfers, largely because it's going back out in interest payments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Every penny Man Utd spend on players comes from the fans' pockets who spend all that money to watch their club in the same way our rise from the old second division to top of the Premier League was funded by us lot and not as the media have often quoted by Sir John Hall. For that alone I'd rather see them win the league than Chelsea who had to have a helping hand from a rich benefactor to win the league as Blackburn did under Jack Walker. Man Utd's success is down to their (self financed) spending power, their great manager and their ability to develop players into world-class stars and have them playing as a team. Man Utd have very rarely signed the finished product, for such a big club they have never bought a Zidane, a genuine world-class player as Real Madrid did and do, they just make them - see Giggs, Scholes, Ronaldo, Rooney, Beckham and a host of others for example. 90% down to Fergie really. There have always been clubs of different support bases, obviously. But the big clubs in Europe (including Manure) threatened to walk away from eufa competitions unless there were changes made to the European cup which led to the formation of the champions league. The knock-out aspect was ditched in the early stages. The structure of the CL was designed to make sure the big clubs would always be guaranteed to progress as far as possible in the competition at the expense of other clubs. That way they were making sure they were getting their grasping hands on the lions share of the TV money, sponsorship etc. The same applies to the premiership, the financial aspect has ground out real competition. An odd team will have a good season and may even break into the top 4 now and then. but it will happen less and less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 i do get sick of hearing on 606 "jon on the m25" "im a man u supporter and im just getting home from the game" in the cockney accent. Even worse when someone says I am a united fan and we are all supposed to know its Man united we are talking about. The last time I looked there were quite a few clubs in the league with the word united in their title. Including one pretty close to home. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey_C_73 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 No, I'm saying, and probably labouring the point, that we spend less than several other teams, so the charge that we "bought" the league is farcical. This isn't even taking into account how much of the money comes from players we sell. Smith for six million, Pique for seven, Silvestre for five, Richardson for five and a half, Rossi for seven, Heinze for six, Howard for four, thats the last two seasons just off the top of my head. Considering the massive amount of money we bring in we really don't spend all that much on transfers, largely because it's going back out in interest payments. Don't rub it in. Admitedly you have spent (what's appears to be) fairly well recently, but it's a lot easier for a good player to slot in to a great team. I bet spiderman or Collo could do a good job in your team. Christ even Smith used to do a job in your team! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 The difference with Chelsea is that they were a pisspot club with zero history until Harding came in and waved his money around, and subsequently RA did the same. I'll admit, I don't like Man United, but that's more about things like Steve cunting Bruce and seven minutes of extra time than it is the club itself. I don't mind Man United fans from the area. But what I really absolutely fucking loathe are gloryhunters. I don't just mean Man United gloryhunters, but the lot, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool. Once I hear someone with a west country accent talking about how they're a Chelsea fan, I just turn off, they're dead to me, they are the absolute lowest of the low. I would rather my son became a Birmingham City supporter than supported Liverpool or Man United. People (in Britain) who just "choose" a successful club from a city they have no connection with - they're really the lowest of the low, they are the modern day equivalents of quislings, treacherous weasels whose opinion on football matters not one fucking jot to me, because it is a false one. What do they know about being a real football supporter? It'd be like me suddenly latching on to Pittsburgh Steelers or whoever it is that wins that funny American sport all the time. *rant ends* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustynrg Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 The difference with Chelsea is that they were a pisspot club with zero history until Harding came in and waved his money around, and subsequently RA did the same. I'll admit, I don't like Man United, but that's more about things like Steve c***ing Bruce and seven minutes of extra time than it is the club itself. I don't mind Man United fans from the area. But what I really absolutely f***ing loathe are gloryhunters. I don't just mean Man United gloryhunters, but the lot, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool. Once I hear someone with a west country accent talking about how they're a Chelsea fan, I just turn off, they're dead to me, they are the absolute lowest of the low. I would rather my son became a Birmingham City supporter than supported Liverpool or Man United. People (in Britain) who just "choose" a successful club from a city they have no connection with - they're really the lowest of the low, they are the modern day equivalents of quislings, treacherous weasels whose opinion on football matters not one f***ing jot to me, because it is a false one. What do they know about being a real football supporter? It'd be like me suddenly latching on to Pittsburgh Steelers or whoever it is that wins that funny American sport all the time. *rant ends* This may be your best ever post, I absolutely wholeheartedly agree with every sentiment. And on another note, how anyone can argue that Man U haven't bought the League (but Chelsea have) is such complete bollocks. Ferdinand, Rooney and Ronaldo cost about 70 million but that was YEARS ago, so that doesn't count? Even Nani cost a reported cool 16 million, Berbatov 33 million, - looking at the team on Saturday the cost must be around 100 million at least, but they haven't bought the league? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest quklaani Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Ok then, give an example of champions who didn't "buy the league" by your standards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Ok then, name a football team which hasn't "bought the league." That's the point, isn't it, they always do to one degree or another, it is just a question of degrees. Chelsea being the obvious worst. PS - Villa in 1981? No expensive players there and only 14 used all season (however, that kind of reinforces your point, as it was so long ago) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I disagree. I don't think the Premiership is too predictable... Based on league positions..yeah maybe, fair enough. But there is always games that the complete underdog beat the top dog and thats what makes it so entertaining. Villa are breaking itno the supposed "big four", Hull have been loitering around the European spots for the first half of the season and big clubs like us and 'Spurs have both been bottom and in and around there for most the season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shayno Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 This has been one of the beter seasons imo. Just wish we were on the other side of the table. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakka Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I think this year has been far better than others, much more unpredictable. Hull's start for example? Liverpool setting the pace for a bit? Villa up there? Spurs being mega shit? Keegan leaving and Kinnear coming in? Man City being bought out by mega rich? Robinho? Chelsea fucking up a bit and sacking Big Phil? Some interesting suprises there, not all good ones like. It's because we've been shit and were once again in the bad half of the table which is making the year seem poo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 This season has been the absolute antithesis of predictable tbh. The cream will always rise to the top though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now