Man Utd have won the premiership

[Balbi]

How can U75's biggest troll and john the gimp (JTG) find themselves in agreement. Well it is a strange one, but you'll find if you look closely enough they're indeed one and the same poster.
Check your answer.

delusional: check
schizophrenic: check
unable to 'contribute' to a thread: check
inappropriate use of words: check
swearing in place of intelligible english: check



so which of you two disagree that man utd haven't already won the title?

p.s. tangerine - meaning chelsea have forfeited the title due their nonsensical acquisitions (gloat mode on/ said that at the time of their arrival /gloat mode off)

Or the common sense which you are so, so badly lacking might have them agreeing with each other? Because you're wrong. As usual.

You stupid fucking child.

 

[JTG]

 

[Termite Man]

Or the common sense which you are so, so badly lacking might have them agreeing with each other? Because you're wrong. As usual.

You stupid fucking child.

 

[JTG]

And anyway, swearing is intelligible English

'muser is a fucking twat' - nothing unintelligible about that

 

[tangerinedream]

I recall myself and others saying that the EPL and the old division one were never really competitive in the manner you suggest.
Liverpool, aston villa, nottingham forest and leeds were the title winning, european cup winning sides of the last 40 years.
compare that to now where arsenal, man utd, leeds, chelsea and blackburn have all won the title in last 16 years.

When I say man utd have won the premiership I mean that taking all mishaps into consideration (i.e. man utd losing 2 more games and drawing 2 more, chelsea will lose another 3 and draw twice).

It amazes me that you feel bolton should be challenging for the title.
Heres a team thats mainly comprised of thugs, with a sprinkling of flair players. They play negative and in the recent past look to set plays for their goals. If a team like bolton can challenge for the league then the league is in a sorry state.
I could go through the others, but I think you see where I'm coming from.
This is what I stated in all my previous threads, even agreeing with you that the league isn't competitive in terms of the outcome (but then when has it ever been), but the fact that sunderland (last season) could go to old trafford and get a draw proves that a well prepared team can cause an upset.

Muser, we've done all this - I have already proved to you that the top 4 positions in the premier league are less diverse than at any other time in football history. It's not about what 'you and others' or about what I said, it's about what the league tables say. Oh and you've missed Derby, Everton, Manchester City from your title winners list of the last 40 yrs by the way. I think what would reveal much is to look at the gaps between 1st and 5th and see the way the league has declined in competitiveness.

I don't think Bolton per se should win the league, I believe that a side of their ilk should be able to at least come close, that someone unlikely should add a bit of excitement once in a while, just as Watford in 1983 or Southhampton in 84 or QPR in 75, for once someone should confound everyone's expectations and come close to winning the thing. - They never do because the top 4 from the previous year get shit loads of money which helps them ensure they will be top 4/5 again unless they competely waste it.

You just don't seem to be able to grasp that unpredictability is more interesting to me than 'quality'

 

[muser]

And anyway, swearing is intelligible English

'muser is a fucking twat' - nothing unintelligible about that

Swearing IN PLACE of intelligible english. get it right at least.

 

[JTG]

Swearing IN PLACE of intelligible english. get it right at least.

but I have demonstrated to you that in this case, swearing is intelligible English so it can hardly be said to have replaced it.

tange - Norwich in 1989(?) and 1993 as well

 

[tangerinedream]

but I have demonstrated to you that in this case, swearing is intelligible English so it can hardly be said to have replaced it.

tange - Norwich in 1989(?) and 1993 as well

QPR in 89, still up with Liverpool in April, Palace finishing 3rd in 90 or 91, West Brom top 3 early 80s, there are loads.

 

[muser]

Muser, we've done all this - I have already proved to you that the top 4 positions in the premier league are less diverse than at any other time in football history. It's not about what 'you and others' or about what I said, it's about what the league tables say. Oh and you've missed Derby, Everton, Manchester City from your title winners list of the last 40 yrs by the way. I think what would reveal much is to look at the gaps between 1st and 5th and see the way the league has declined in competitiveness.

I don't think Bolton per se should win the league, I believe that a side of their ilk should be able to at least come close, that someone unlikely should add a bit of excitement once in a while, just as Watford in 1983 or Southhampton in 84 or QPR in 75, for once someone should confound everyone's expectations and come close to winning the thing. - They never do because the top 4 from the previous year get shit loads of money which helps them ensure they will be top 4/5 again unless they competely waste it.

You just don't seem to be able to grasp that unpredictability is more interesting to me than 'quality'

The only thing that has changed since the premiership's inception is the laws of the game. 'flair' players are protected, where in the past they weren't. The game has lost alot of its physical aspects as a result of the change.
The top 4 clubs are all in debt, debt that their overall revenue won't pay off for decades to come. The CL money wouldn't even make a dent in their operating profits let alone buy new players, so please refrain from making that argument.

Money doesn't equate success, a notable example is Arsenal and wenger's attitude of creating world class players and playing a brand of football he believes in. LFC have spent 150m + in the last ten years without ever winning the EPL.
Man Utd only ever won the title because of fergusson. It was fergie's desire to win and impliment changes in youth policy and work ethic, 100% commitment and emphasis on ability. Man Utd (since blooding the youngsters) play champagne football and buy players that will fit into their style of play.
All the best teams in the world have a visionary at the helm. A man whose relentlessly driven by winning and knows what measures to take in order to achieve it.
The premise of what your saying doesn't work in any other business so why should it apply to football. An example would be goldman sach, multi billion pound company with a diverse portfolio. If the board don't appoint the right CEO and his fiscal policies are erratic then they will soon become a corporate failure.
Its funny how england's failure to win the world cup is down to the manager, but at club level its due to financial resources.
It runs contrary to good sense.

 

[muser]

but I have demonstrated to you that in this case, swearing is intelligible English so it can hardly be said to have replaced it.

tange - Norwich in 1989(?) and 1993 as well

swearing is common, just like its user.

 

[Iam]

Muser, you really are a pointless, clueless git.

What a surprise to find you're a Liverpool fan...

Oh, as for the title, there's a LONG way to go yet, no one has won anything I don't reckon.

 

[muser]

Muser, you really are a pointless, clueless git.

What a surprise to find you're a Liverpool fan...

Oh, as for the title, there's a LONG way to go yet, no one has won anything I don't reckon.

call me all names under the sun, but when you're finished at least have the courtsey to constructively discredit my post.

 

[tangerinedream]

The only thing that has changed since the premiership's inception is the laws of the game. 'flair' players are protected, where in the past they weren't. The game has lost alot of its physical aspects as a result of the change.
The top 4 clubs are all in debt, debt that their overall revenue won't pay off for decades to come. The CL money wouldn't even make a dent in their operating profits let alone buy new players, so please refrain from making that argument.

Money doesn't equate success, a notable example is Arsenal and wenger's attitude of creating world class players and playing a brand of football he believes in. LFC have spent 150m + in the last ten years without ever winning the EPL.
Man Utd only ever won the title because of fergusson. It was fergie's desire to win and impliment changes in youth policy and work ethic, 100% commitment and emphasis on ability. Man Utd (since blooding the youngsters) play champagne football and buy players that will fit into their style of play.
All the best teams in the world have a visionary at the helm. A man whose relentlessly driven by winning and knows what measures to take in order to achieve it.
The premise of what your saying doesn't work in any other business so why should it apply to football. An example would be goldman sach, multi billion pound company with a diverse portfolio. If the board don't appoint the right CEO and his fiscal policies are erratic then they will soon become a corporate failure.
Its funny how england's failure to win the world cup is down to the manager, but at club level its due to financial resources.
It runs contrary to good sense.

An england manager can only pick english players finances don't come into it (unless you take into account things like training facilities and youth schemes) NO matter how 'good' the premier league is, it doesn't alter the players at Steve Maclaren's disposal.

I cannot believe you are still stuck in the rut of suggesting an extra £15m headstart doesn't help teams out, of course it is not a cast iron gaurentee of success, but it sure helps - as the stasis of recent years suggests. The facts back up my argument, not yours.

I agree with you that the manager is a factor, but I say that equally the money is too. Yes, Wenger is very, very good, but he has spent a large amount of money, yes he has spent very well, but also without the extra money every year, would he have been able to offer the contracts to retain Vierra, Overmars, Henry etc for the length of time he did/has? If you deduct say, £100million from Arsenal's outlay over the last ten years, what would they have had to do without? - New ground?, which key player(s)?

Would Liverpool have been able to carry such a large squad?, Would Utd have been able to absorb the slew of mediocre signings Fergie made over the last 5 years?

If everybody started from an even fiscal position in terms of TV revenue the league would be more exciting - surely you can see that? You would still have big clubs and small clubs, but I cannot see why you argue in favour of maintaining disproportionate reward for the top 4

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

The only thing that has changed since the premiership's inception is the laws of the game. 'flair' players are protected, where in the past they weren't. The game has lost alot of its physical aspects as a result of the change.
The top 4 clubs are all in debt, debt that their overall revenue won't pay off for decades to come. The CL money wouldn't even make a dent in their operating profits let alone buy new players, so please refrain from making that argument.

Money doesn't equate success, a notable example is Arsenal and wenger's attitude of creating world class players and playing a brand of football he believes in. LFC have spent 150m + in the last ten years without ever winning the EPL.
Man Utd only ever won the title because of fergusson. It was fergie's desire to win and impliment changes in youth policy and work ethic, 100% commitment and emphasis on ability. Man Utd (since blooding the youngsters) play champagne football and buy players that will fit into their style of play.
All the best teams in the world have a visionary at the helm. A man whose relentlessly driven by winning and knows what measures to take in order to achieve it.
The premise of what your saying doesn't work in any other business so why should it apply to football. An example would be goldman sach, multi billion pound company with a diverse portfolio. If the board don't appoint the right CEO and his fiscal policies are erratic then they will soon become a corporate failure.
Its funny how england's failure to win the world cup is down to the manager, but at club level its due to financial resources.
It runs contrary to good sense.

Fucking hell, I've never come across this clown before, but it's some poster being a parody isn't it?

 

[muser]

An england manager can only pick english players finances don't come into it (unless you take into account things like training facilities and youth schemes) NO matter how 'good' the premier league is, it doesn't alter the players at Steve Maclaren's disposal.

I was being sarcastic, in the hopes of illustrating my point.

I cannot believe you are still stuck in the rut of suggesting an extra £15m headstart doesn't help teams out, of course it is not a cast iron gaurentee of success, but it sure helps - as the stasis of recent years suggests. The facts back up my argument, not yours.

Newcastle, Ipswich (didn't make it to the big money round, but YSWIM) and leeds had the benefit of CL money. Where are they now?

I agree with you that the manager is a factor, but I say that equally the money is too. Yes, Wenger is very, very good, but he has spent a large amount of money, yes he has spent very well, but also without the extra money every year, would he have been able to offer the contracts to retain Vierra, Overmars, Henry etc for the length of time he did/has? If you deduct say, £100million from Arsenal's outlay over the last ten years, what would they have had to do without? - New ground?, which key player(s)?

viera wanted to quit arsenal long before they sold him. ashley cole left because he felt he wasn't getting paid what he's worth. Overmars and petit were sold quickly and for a huge profit, neither of them set barcelona alight. Arsenal have a strict wage structure, as did man Utd.

Would Liverpool have been able to carry such a large squad?, Would Utd have been able to absorb the slew of mediocre signings Fergie made over the last 5 years?

the success fergie engineered enabled him to purchase his duds.
Gill and fergie are the reason utd are a global brand.

If everybody started from an even fiscal position in terms of TV revenue the league would be more exciting - surely you can see that? You would still have big clubs and small clubs, but I cannot see why you argue in favour of maintaining disproportionate reward for the top 4

I read that Man Utd's operating profit is 100m a season, their loan repayments are 46m a season. Their gross profit is 240m (estimated figure, due to the fact that real madrid's is 285m, and they are the biggest grossing club in the world). the gross figure is liable for tax.
Man Utd also had to restructure their debt, which I feel is unsustainable at its present amount.
Compare this with the 26m CL prize winner money, and the 10m for qualifying and you'd realise why the top 4 are looking for rich sponsors\owners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982-83_in_English_football

is it right that a team (albeit an illustrous one ) can win the title having lost 8 games, and its nearest rival can lose 15 and finish second (11 points from the title winners).

tangerine I got a feeling that simon grayson is serving caviar at the seasiders, while all some of its supporters want is banger n mash.

 

[Balbi]

Fucking hell, I've never come across this clown before, but it's some poster being a parody isn't it?

No, muser honestly is like this. All the time. On all forums.

He's an excellent troll, I have tested the durability of a metaphorical wall with my head many a time against muser.

His sum argument is 'I am right - if you do not agree then you are just hiding the fact that you agree with me, therefore you are worse than wrong'



Fuckin' pearly attitude I have to say. I still wouldn't mind tattooing a picture of my bollocks on his forehead.

 

[Iam]

call me all names under the sun, but when you're finished at least have the courtsey to constructively discredit my post.

The more you type, the more you discredit what you yourself have written before, thus neatly saving me the effort.

 

[muser]

No, muser honestly is like this. All the time. On all forums.

He's an excellent troll, I have tested the durability of a metaphorical wall with my head many a time against muser.

His sum argument is 'I am right - if you do not agree then you are just hiding the fact that you agree with me, therefore you are worse than wrong'



Fuckin' pearly attitude I have to say. I still wouldn't mind tattooing a picture of my bollocks on his forehead.

If you've read this thread you'll notice that I agree with tangerine (who is the only contributor of note) to a point. Tangerine's argument is that if all clubs had the same financial leverage, then all clubs could compete fairly for the title.
My perspective of that is that if you gave me and yourself 50 pounds, I bet I could turn mine into 150 pounds within a reasonable amount of time, while you would squander the lot. The point being a fool and his money are easily parted.

 

[Iam]

If you've read this thread you'll notice that I agree with tangerine (who is the only contributor of note) to a point. Tangerine's argument is that if all clubs had the same financial leverage, then all clubs could compete fairly for the title.
My perspective of that is that if you gave me and yourself 50 pounds, I bet I could turn mine into 150 pounds within a reasonable amount of time, while you would squander the lot. The point being a fool and his money are easily parted.

Oh, well that's swung it for me, guys. I'm a disciple now.

I'm SO fucking dazzled by your self-professed financial acumen, I'll admit you must now be right about football. And you know what, fuck it, music and films, too.

You're a genius!!

I apologise sincerely for ever doubting you.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

When did Ipswich reach the CL qualification stages?

 

[muser]

When did Ipswich reach the CL qualification stages?

usually get this wrong.

I even got it wrong the last time I brought it up.

Should have said newcastle... oh well

 

[tangerinedream]

tangerine I got a feeling that simon grayson is serving caviar at the seasiders, when all some of its supporters want is banger n mash.

I'm sorry muser, the efficacy of Larry's manegerial style has little or nothing to do with the debate in hand.

I am delighted with how we are doing, I am bored by the fact that 3rd and 4th place are out of the title race and it's the same old teams going for the league again. No matter what you say, it wasn't ever thus, I take your point about Leeds and Newcastle - first one overspent, second one, well Graemme Souness.... Ipswich never made it into the Champions League, they qualified for the Uefa Cup.

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1985-86.html

This season illustrates what I am talking about: west Ham, finish within a whisker of the two merseyside clubs (who dominated for 4/5 years I accept) - The season before, they were 16th, the season after 15th - When has anything as unlikely as that happened in the last 9/10 years - It simply doesn't happen anymore.

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1982-83.html

This year, Watford finish second, the year previous they weren't even in the top flight! - When is something like that going to happen again?

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1983-84.html

here we have Southhampton running liverpool close!, the year before finishing 11th.

In each of these seasons I cite, the title winners lost no more than two games, so I don't know where your thesis about the premier league winners being more dominant comes from.

Let's move on,

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1984-85.html

The balance of power switches, Everton win the league (with a then record 90 points, despite not finishing in the top 4 for the last 7 seasons, not likely to happen today.

You insist on saying things like 'anyone can beat anyone' but I'm sorry, the league tables support me and not you.

Let's just ram the point home again,

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1990-91.html - what's that finishing third, is it a monster no it's Crystal Palace! (15th the previous season)

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1991-92.html

A good year for yarkshire as Sheffiald Wednesday!!! finish 3rd, only 7 points from the top.

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1992-93.html

The first year of the prem and the money hasn't really hit home yet and look Norwich City??? 3rd?

So, there we go. In the recent history of the game, you can see over ten seasons (82-83 to 92-93) that although certain teams dominate (Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton), a variety of different (and oft unlikely) teams put up serious and sustained title challenges. I havn't even mentioned the fact Tottenham and Manchester United finished in the top 3 as well as the above. Oh, I have now.

So there we go.

 

[muser]

I'm sorry muser, the efficacy of Larry's manegerial style has little or nothing to do with the debate in hand.

I am delighted with how we are doing, I am bored by the fact that 3rd and 4th place are out of the title race and it's the same old teams going for the league again. No matter what you say, it wasn't ever thus, I take your point about Leeds and Newcastle - first one overspent, second one, well Graemme Souness.... Ipswich never made it into the Champions League, they qualified for the Uefa Cup.

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1985-86.html

This season illustrates what I am talking about: west Ham, finish within a whisker of the two merseyside clubs (who dominated for 4/5 years I accept) - The season before, they were 16th, the season after 15th - When has anything as unlikely as that happened in the last 9/10 years - It simply doesn't happen anymore.

why? you are restricting the argument to the top 4, but if you widen the net you can see that west ham finished 5th in the 98-99.

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1982-83.html

This year, Watford finish second, the year previous they weren't even in the top flight! - When is something like that going to happen again?

mediocrity

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1983-84.html

here we have Southhampton running liverpool close!, the year before finishing 11th.

In each of these seasons I cite, the title winners lost no more than two games, so I don't know where your thesis about the premier league winners being more dominant comes from.

liverpool lose 1 home game, 7 away games.
liverpool lose 6 games while southampton lost 9 in respective seasons provided. Also man Utd are 4th in the 83-84 season, with Notts forest 3rd on goal difference. In the 94-95 season man utd occupy second place while forest are just below them. If you agree that premiership money had 'kicked' in by then, how do you explain forest's relegation years later?

Let's move on,

ok

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1984-85.html

The balance of power switches, Everton win the league (with a then record 90 points, despite not finishing in the top 4 for the last 7 seasons, not likely to happen today.

funny how everton seem do well when they appoint a good manager. They were in CL qualifying stages under moyes recently. Lets not overlook that they lost 8 games and played 42. My argument is that the premiership doesn't allow you to lose so many games and still win the title (at least not in the last 10 years).

You insist on saying things like 'anyone can beat anyone' but I'm sorry, the league tables support me and not you.

arsenal this season, add chelsea too.

Let's just ram the point home again,

lets

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1990-91.html -

what's that finishing third, is it a monster no it's Crystal Palace! (15th the previous season)

CP epitomises my view that if you run a club badly you'll soon be where you belong.

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1991-92.html

A good year for yarkshire as Sheffiald Wednesday!!! finish 3rd, only 7 points from the top.

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1992-93.html

see above

The first year of the prem and the money hasn't really hit home yet and look Norwich City??? 3rd?

So, there we go. In the recent history of the game, you can see over ten seasons (82-83 to 92-93) that although certain teams dominate (Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton), a variety of different (and oft unlikely) teams put up serious and sustained title challenges. I havn't even mentioned the fact Tottenham and Manchester United finished in the top 3 as well as the above. Oh, I have now.

Why are these teams dominating (in the periods you state), is it their financial status or is it the fact that they're well run.

So there we go.

indeed

 

[ZAMB]

even money bags Chelsea

Why does nobody ever mention the money-bags of Utd. in this sort of argument? Chelsea aren't the only team backed by big, big money, but the others never seem to get slammed for it.

I'd like to see Utd. cope with Chelsea's current injury list and still be where they are in the table. Joe Cole, one of their best players, won't be back this season, and I don't know when they'll get their 2nd choice goalie back - never mind getting Cech back. Until the goalkeeper crisis, they were both level - and losing Terry and Robben hasn't helped either.

I'm sick of Utd. fans gloating over Chelsea's misfortunes. I have too many of them in my family - never mind threads like this and the gloating media coverage.

 

[N_igma]

Newcastle won the league in 95/96 too. Anything is possible in the beautiful game.

 

[tangerinedream]

I'm sorry muser, the efficacy of Larry's manegerial style has little or nothing to do with the debate in hand.

I am delighted with how we are doing, I am bored by the fact that 3rd and 4th place are out of the title race and it's the same old teams going for the league again. No matter what you say, it wasn't ever thus, I take your point about Leeds and Newcastle - first one overspent, second one, well Graemme Souness.... Ipswich never made it into the Champions League, they qualified for the Uefa Cup.

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1985-86.html



why? you are restricting the argument to the top 4, but if you widen the net you can see that west ham finished 5th in the 98-99.

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1982-83.html



mediocrity

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1983-84.html

here we have Southhampton running liverpool close!, the year before finishing 11th.



liverpool lose 1 home game, 7 away games.
liverpool lose 6 games while southampton lost 9 in respective seasons provided. Also man Utd are 4th in the 83-84 season, with Notts forest 3rd on goal difference. In the 94-95 season man utd occupy second place while forest are just below them. If you agree that premiership money had 'kicked' in by then, how do you explain forest's relegation years later?



ok

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1984-85.html



funny how everton seem do well when they appoint a good manager. They were in CL qualifying stages under moyes recently. Lets not overlook that they lost 8 games and played 42. My argument is that the premiership doesn't allow you to lose so many games and still win the title (at least not in the last 10 years).



arsenal this season, add chelsea too.



lets

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1990-91.html -

CP epitomises my view that if you run a club badly you'll soon be where you belong.

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1991-92.html

http://www.rsssf.com/engpaul/FLA/1992-93.html

see above



Why are these teams dominating (in the periods you state), is it their financial status or is it the fact that they're well run.



indeed

I am restricting my argument to the top 4 because that's what matters currently in terms of financial remuneration. For what it's worth, I actually restricted my argument to the top 3, (yes, I take your point that I foolishly misread the tables in terms of wins per season!) but clearly, without any doubt it shows that there was a greater variety of teams challenging for the title. - Another reason for ignoring the 5th place team is that finishing fifth can't really be considered a challenge for the title can it? (West Ham 85/86 missed the title by 4 points, 98/99 model by 22)

You think it's an example of 'mediocrity' because a league is competitive? Therefore all your own sides triumphs are worth nothing because all you did was win a mediocre league? Shankly, Dalglish, Fagan, Souness, Keegan, Paisley et al, all 'a little bit better than mediocre'?

The reason teams dominated in the period prior to the Premier league was due to resources and management, just as now, but the emphasis has shifted away from management to resources - The fact that Liverpool didn't get 15 million quid, season on season on season makes their dominance all the more remarkable and much more easily credited to the management. If you follow my line of argument muser, it actually makes your side look better!

Of course, Ferguson, Wenger etc are good managers, they would be in any era but in my opinion, the success of the teams who have done well in the last ten years has been aided to a greater or lesser extent by the financial arrangements concerning the CL and EPL - whether it's a greater extent (as I argue) or lesser extent (as you argue) it still should be dealt with and then we can get back to a more level playing field where people recieve the credit for what they do. If as you say, the success of the top few teams is not down to TV money, then you couldn't object to it's withdrawing as it wouldn't effect your team at all would it? - To argue otherwise would defeat your assertation that the success of Arse, Utd and Liverpool isn't down to money at all.

Oh and I completely forgot Villa coming second in 89/90 after finishing one above relegation the year before and being in the 2nd division 2 years prior. Can you please explain why this and the other examples of sides creating excitement and unpredictability indicates mediocrity?

 

[tangerinedream]

Why does nobody ever mention the money-bags of Utd. in this sort of argument? Chelsea aren't the only team backed by big, big money, but the others never seem to get slammed for it.

I'd like to see Utd. cope with Chelsea's current injury list and still be where they are in the table. Joe Cole, one of their best players, won't be back this season, and I don't know when they'll get their 2nd choice goalie back - never mind getting Cech back. Until the goalkeeper crisis, they were both level - and losing Terry and Robben hasn't helped either.

I'm sick of Utd. fans gloating over Chelsea's misfortunes. I have too many of them in my family - never mind threads like this and the gloating media coverage.

course Utd are minted, they have been so for decades.

 

[jen_the_blonde]

Why does nobody ever mention the money-bags of Utd. in this sort of argument? Chelsea aren't the only team backed by big, big money, but the others never seem to get slammed for it.

I'd like to see Utd. cope with Chelsea's current injury list and still be where they are in the table. Joe Cole, one of their best players, won't be back this season, and I don't know when they'll get their 2nd choice goalie back - never mind getting Cech back. Until the goalkeeper crisis, they were both level - and losing Terry and Robben hasn't helped either.

I'm sick of Utd. fans gloating over Chelsea's misfortunes. I have too many of them in my family - never mind threads like this and the gloating media coverage.

I think the difference is that United don't ruin players' careers in the same way.
As chelsea have so much money they have two of the top 5 keepers in the premiership - one of whom doesn't normally get to play first team football.
I'm thinking more though of young players like Wright-Phillips and Parker who get bought, never get given football and it destroys, or at least harms their careers - for those two postponing and damaging their international futures. United seem more about long-term careers, and bringing players up through the academy. I have to call Switzerland on this one as I support neither united or chelsea, and have been dumped by fans of both this year, but that's just the way it looks to me.

 

[tangerinedream]

I think the difference is that United don't ruin players' careers in the same way.
As chelsea have so much money they have two of the top 5 keepers in the premiership - one of whom doesn't normally get to play first team football.
I'm thinking more though of young players like Wright-Phillips and Parker who get bought, never get given football and it destroys, or at least harms their careers - for those two postponing and damaging their international futures. United seem more about long-term careers, and bringing players up through the academy. I have to call Switzerland on this one as I support neither united or chelsea, and have been dumped by fans of both this year, but that's just the way it looks to me.

I have no sympathy for those players who knew full well that they were going to a side with an enourmous squad. Parker has got out and SWP should have insisted on a short contract with a clause to release him cheaply if he didn't get games.

Cudicini is a fine keeper, but lest we forget Chelsea paid about 20p for him and he's never been capped by his country and has stayed at the Bridge of his own volition. (he COULD have gone for free last year)

Utds much vaunted academy is as much about aggresively pursuing youngsters of other teams when young as anything else - it is a symptom of their size and wealth that they have attracted/found the best youngsters.

Of all the kids they brought through, only Butt and Scholes are actually local products - Giggs and Sharpe were pinched from other clubs, Beckham and O' Shea should by rights have developed elsewhere, but the size of united's reputation presumably attracted them.

Out of interest, who do you support?

 

[muser]

Another reason for ignoring the 5th place team is that finishing fifth can't really be considered a challenge for the title can it? (West Ham 85/86 missed the title by 4 points, 98/99 model by 22

If the managers of the teams above you raise the bar and you don't...

You think it's an example of 'mediocrity' because a league is competitive? Therefore all your own sides triumphs are worth nothing because all you did was win a mediocre league? Shankly, Dalglish, Fagan, Souness, Keegan, Paisley et al, all 'a little bit better than mediocre'?

The status quo at that time allowed for lapses. the EPL is mercilessly unforgiving these days. Fergie raised the bar to 4 loses a season, then came 3. Arsene met the challenge with his invincibles (kindly announcing to the press the season before hand) and chelsea raised it even further with a record haul.

The reason teams dominated in the period prior to the Premier league was due to resources and management, just as now, but the emphasis has shifted away from management to resources - The fact that Liverpool didn't get 15 million quid, season on season on season makes their dominance all the more remarkable and much more easily credited to the management. If you follow my line of argument muser, it actually makes your side look better!

this is debatable, but do you think carlo cudicini would have achieved the success mourniho has?
In regards to LFC, when we had a good squad, kenny dalgleish was happy to laud over the title, as soon as that team had to be disbanded he left sharpish and left his former colleague (sousness) to pick up the pieces. LFC have thrown money at the title, and even when we came second under houllier it was more through luck than design.

Of course, Ferguson, Wenger etc are good managers, they would be in any era but in my opinion, the success of the teams who have done well in the last ten years has been aided to a greater or lesser extent by the financial arrangements concerning the CL and EPL - whether it's a greater extent (as I argue) or lesser extent (as you argue) it still should be dealt with and then we can get back to a more level playing field where people recieve the credit for what they do. If as you say, the success of the top few teams is not down to TV money, then you couldn't object to it's withdrawing as it wouldn't effect your team at all would it? - To argue otherwise would defeat your assertation that the success of Arse, Utd and Liverpool isn't down to money at all.

arsene wenger 4.5m a season (we got the figure in another thread) = title,
anyone else + 4.5 a season = no title.
Fergie initially won the title with little outlay.

where I do agree with you is that chelsea can stop any club acquiring a player that they REALLY want.

Oh and I completely forgot Villa coming second in 89/90 after finishing one above relegation the year before and being in the 2nd division 2 years prior. Can you please explain why this and the other examples of sides creating excitement and unpredictability indicates mediocrity?

west ham and millwall in the FA cup, ispwich, everton finishing 5 and 4th respectively, but to you it doesn't count. Blackburn after winning the EPL finished 14th (haven't checked) the next season. Your argument hinges on the fact that the top team's success is perpetuated by their income. Explain blackburn's plight.

In response to the above, I believe that if some sets a standard it must be met by others to be afforded the same respect. Arsenal, man utd and chelsea have set those standards, its now for the rest to compete.
If villa win the premiership this season then they would've deserved it because of the nature of the competition. If the said same competition loses x amount of games and you lose less\draw less and win the title then all you can claim is that you avoided defeat more times than your rival (IYSWIM).