Rival Fans: Why are Utd so unpopular?

Kraftwerker said:
I personally have no problem with clubs spending their own money. I respect Arsenal for self-funding their success.

I just find it odd to have a go at United for similary spending their own money. Especially when that spending was typically supplemented with a healthy dose of organic youth development, rather than simply buying an entire side. Spending your own money and bringing through youth players. If you hate a club for that, it comes across as incredibly bitter.

But then it's not that which people hate, it's the success it led too. If we'd been doing the same thing but plodding along 'doing a Spurs', no one would've passed any remarks.
Click to expand...

Most non-united fans won't care about that. I haven't looked, but during the premier league era I imagine United have outspent any other club.
I agree with your point though, I personally prefer to see clubs spend their own money rather than some sugar daddy inflating the club with cash. Still, I don't like to see clubs spending massive amounts of money, and United certainly do that.
 
Cascarino said:
Most non-united fans won't care about that. I haven't looked, but during the premier league era I imagine United have outspent any other club.
I agree with your point though, I personally prefer to see clubs spend their own money rather than some sugar daddy inflating the club with cash. Still, I don't like to see clubs spending massive amounts of money, and United certainly do that.
Click to expand...

Man City and Chelsea have higher net spends in the Premier League era. Up until a few years ago, Liverpool had a higher net spend than United, with far less success. What never seems to get mentioned as well is that United were very prudent, and had the vision in increasing the capacity of Old Trafford incrementally to over 75,000, with work being finished over 10 years ago. At the time the club had some years where relatively little was spent, e.g. with the new North Stand in 1995 being built, United sold Ince, Kanchelskis and Hughes and spent pretty much nothing. The construction costs and associated costs etc were very prudent, and very good value in comparison to how much Arsenal have spent, and Chelsea and Tottenham are spending on new stadiums. Liverpool spent an awful lot to increase their capacity recently, and its still nowhere near the capacity of Old Trafford. West Ham and Man City benifitted from stadiums originally built for the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games. United have spent an awful lot in the last few years, but with different managers, with different philosophies from the Fergie era. When Wenger leaves Arsenal their new managers might be looking for major overhauls and want to spend a shit load of money.
 
thoward said:
Man City and Chelsea have higher net spends in the Premier League era. Up until a few years ago, Liverpool had a higher net spend than United, with far less success. What never seems to get mentioned as well is that United were very prudent, and had the vision in increasing the capacity of Old Trafford incrementally to over 75,000, with work being finished over 10 years ago. At the time the club had some years where relatively little was spent, e.g. with the new North Stand in 1995 being built, United sold Ince, Kanchelskis and Hughes and spent pretty much nothing. The construction costs and associated costs etc were very prudent, and very good value in comparison to how much Arsenal have spent, and Chelsea and Tottenham are spending on new stadiums. Liverpool spent an awful lot to increase their capacity recently, and its still nowhere near the capacity of Old Trafford. West Ham and Man City benifitted from stadiums originally built for the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games. United have spent an awful lot in the last few years, but with different managers, with different philosophies from the Fergie era. When Wenger leaves Arsenal their new managers might be looking for major overhauls and want to spend a shit load of money.
Click to expand...

This is a really good post, informative to boot as I'd never looked at it that way.
I still don't like major spending regardless of context, but I can't disagree with anything you've said.
 
OnlyTwoDaSilvas said:
On-topic bump. An actual human being wrote this for an actual reputable Football magazine:

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/15-reasons-why-everyone-hates-manchester-united

Accused of "killing" the FA Cup.

The article is written by a City fan, but reason #5 is 'Buying Success'

Chortle.
Click to expand...

Calm down, they've just published one about City as well, written by the guy from Republik of Mancunia.

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/12-reasons-why-everybody-hates-manchester-city
 
I don't think Utd fans in general are any more unpopular than supporters of any other club. Utd have come out of a long period of success and perhaps supporters of all their rivals have joined together in enjoying that. If you think Utd fans are unpopular try being a Chelsea fan.

The issue thrown at me by other fans is the belief that their money is "clean" and Chelsea's isn't. In many fans eye's Chelsea are trading in the transfer market on unfair terms and shouldn't be allowed to do so. This makes anything I say toxic. My defense of Chelsea while being unpopular is bound to be biased but here goes.

When Roman Abramovich (RA) bought the club he invested large sums of money in the club. There were no rules against that. It should also be noted that Chelsea were improving at the time, winning silverware and were already in the Champions League. We will never know if the same level of success would have been achieved without that investment. Obviously. What we do know is that Chelsea have operated within the rules at all times which is more than can be said for Utd's noisy neighbours. We also know RA is a genuine football fan who attends a lot of games which is also more than can be said for the owners of some clubs. He is in football because he loves football and not because he wants to make money. He is now investing in a landmark new stadium that will raise the profile of football in this country. The quality of stadiums in this country will make it impossible for FIFA to ignore a world cup and RA is a part of that.

So Chelsea get England the world cup and everybody hates us.

Why are we so unpopular?
 
The FA, United... United, the FA. What's the difference? :smirk:
 
thoward said:
Man City and Chelsea have higher net spends in the Premier League era. Up until a few years ago, Liverpool had a higher net spend than United, with far less success. What never seems to get mentioned as well is that United were very prudent, and had the vision in increasing the capacity of Old Trafford incrementally to over 75,000, with work being finished over 10 years ago. At the time the club had some years where relatively little was spent, e.g. with the new North Stand in 1995 being built, United sold Ince, Kanchelskis and Hughes and spent pretty much nothing. The construction costs and associated costs etc were very prudent, and very good value in comparison to how much Arsenal have spent, and Chelsea and Tottenham are spending on new stadiums. Liverpool spent an awful lot to increase their capacity recently, and its still nowhere near the capacity of Old Trafford. West Ham and Man City benifitted from stadiums originally built for the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games. United have spent an awful lot in the last few years, but with different managers, with different philosophies from the Fergie era. When Wenger leaves Arsenal their new managers might be looking for major overhauls and want to spend a shit load of money.
Click to expand...

With reference to the stadiums situation - it's unfair to judge the necessary expense of upgrading an existing stadium that is capable of being upgraded vs having to demolish and completely rebuild a stadium that is unable to be extended. It's obvious that the likes of Spurs will have to spend a ton of money to do all that work because of the nature of White Hart Lane, there was no other way to do it. Also, you have to count in the impact of inflation, etc. when comparing costs from 10+ years ago to today.
 
blue blue said:
I don't think Utd fans in general are any more unpopular than supporters of any other club. Utd have come out of a long period of success and perhaps supporters of all their rivals have joined together in enjoying that. If you think Utd fans are unpopular try being a Chelsea fan.

The issue thrown at me by other fans is the belief that their money is "clean" and Chelsea's isn't. In many fans eye's Chelsea are trading in the transfer market on unfair terms and shouldn't be allowed to do so. This makes anything I say toxic. My defense of Chelsea while being unpopular is bound to be biased but here goes.

When Roman Abramovich (RA) bought the club he invested large sums of money in the club. There were no rules against that. It should also be noted that Chelsea were improving at the time, winning silverware and were already in the Champions League. We will never know if the same level of success would have been achieved without that investment. Obviously. What we do know is that Chelsea have operated within the rules at all times which is more than can be said for Utd's noisy neighbours. We also know RA is a genuine football fan who attends a lot of games which is also more than can be said for the owners of some clubs. He is in football because he loves football and not because he wants to make money. He is now investing in a landmark new stadium that will raise the profile of football in this country. The quality of stadiums in this country will make it impossible for FIFA to ignore a world cup and RA is a part of that.

So Chelsea get England the world cup and everybody hates us.

Why are we so unpopular?
Click to expand...

Because you are Chelsea.
 
balaks said:
Also, you have to count in the impact of inflation, etc. when comparing costs from 10+ years ago to today.
Click to expand...

You also have to count in the impact of inflation on tickets prices and TV money.

Utd were lucky in that OT has a large footprint and this allowed them to develop the ground and carry on playing at the same time. Having said this the stadium does feel a bit mix and match whereas the new stadiums at AFC, THFC & CFC are bespoke stadiums built in one go and all the better for that. OT will probably be sorted out at some point.
 
blue blue said:
I don't think Utd fans in general are any more unpopular than supporters of any other club. Utd have come out of a long period of success and perhaps supporters of all their rivals have joined together in enjoying that. If you think Utd fans are unpopular try being a Chelsea fan.

The issue thrown at me by other fans is the belief that their money is "clean" and Chelsea's isn't. In many fans eye's Chelsea are trading in the transfer market on unfair terms and shouldn't be allowed to do so. This makes anything I say toxic. My defense of Chelsea while being unpopular is bound to be biased but here goes.

When Roman Abramovich (RA) bought the club he invested large sums of money in the club. There were no rules against that. It should also be noted that Chelsea were improving at the time, winning silverware and were already in the Champions League. We will never know if the same level of success would have been achieved without that investment. Obviously. What we do know is that Chelsea have operated within the rules at all times which is more than can be said for Utd's noisy neighbours. We also know RA is a genuine football fan who attends a lot of games which is also more than can be said for the owners of some clubs. He is in football because he loves football and not because he wants to make money. He is now investing in a landmark new stadium that will raise the profile of football in this country. The quality of stadiums in this country will make it impossible for FIFA to ignore a world cup and RA is a part of that.

So Chelsea get England the world cup and everybody hates us.

Why are we so unpopular?
Click to expand...

You are the embodiment of buying success. A sugar daddy club.

Trying to apply the same argument to United doesn't work because our money is earned through sponsorship and revenue, yours was funnelled in by a Russian oligarch.

Chelsea were improving but you wouldn't have won the title 4? times and FA Cup and CL and Europa in that amount of time, so your success is bought.
 
balaks said:
With reference to the stadiums situation - it's unfair to judge the necessary expense of upgrading an existing stadium that is capable of being upgraded vs having to demolish and completely rebuild a stadium that is unable to be extended. It's obvious that the likes of Spurs will have to spend a ton of money to do all that work because of the nature of White Hart Lane, there was no other way to do it. Also, you have to count in the impact of inflation, etc. when comparing costs from 10+ years ago to today.
Click to expand...

But United still had the foresight to incrementally increase the capacity of Old Trafford in the way that someone like Liverpool were less clever, they had been considering either increasing the capacity of Anfield, or building a new stadium, and wasted a lot of time in doing things. The point I was making (responding to the other poster) that United had to be modest in the transfer market for many years, with the increasing the capacity of the ground being a factor. Now that the club is spending more money in recent years, they should not be made feel guilty when they sorted the stadium years ago, with other clubs in the process of sorting it out. Of course inflation is a factor, but that should also be considered in transfer fees, wages etc from years ago. The fact is that if money being spent on transfer fees and wages is brought up, then money spent on stadiums etc should be brought into account as well, and United shouldn't be criticised when they haven't relied on a sugar daddy or being presented with a stadium that was originally built for an Olympics or Commonwealth Games.
 
Im glad that we're hated so much. Things could be worse, we could be complete no marks like...(insert team here)
 
JASR said:
there is no difference between that and a club saved from bankruptcy by sugar daddies?

The actions of financial input both lead to the possibility of success, whether it be in the living memory past or the dim distant.
Click to expand...

Comparing a local businessman giving selflessly to keep his club afloat 100 years ago with a middle-eastern consortium pumping in billions of pounds to buy success all with the intention of promoting themselves. :lol:

OK mate whatever makes you feel better.
 
JASR said:
there is no difference between that and a club saved from bankruptcy by sugar daddies?

The actions of financial input both lead to the possibility of success, whether it be in the living memory past or the dim distant.
Click to expand...

Two different scenarios.
The money invested to save a club from bankruptcy is to help balance the books, and often times pay the staff including players who may have been working unpaid for a period of time. Once saved from bankruptcy the club in question still has to operate within a constrained budget for a long period of time before even regaining the level of success they enjoyed before (see: Portsmouth for example)

The money invested by a sugar daddy is done to give a clear and distinct advantage that the club would otherwise not have had access to at that particular time but for the money given to them by the Sugar Daddy. That advantage being money in order to attract players who otherwise would not have wanted to play for the club due to lack of money/lack of success/low profile etc. Once you have a group of good players together, you increase your chances of success.
 
thoward said:
But United still had the foresight to incrementally increase the capacity of Old Trafford in the way that someone like Liverpool were less clever, they had been considering either increasing the capacity of Anfield, or building a new stadium, and wasted a lot of time in doing things. The point I was making (responding to the other poster) that United had to be modest in the transfer market for many years, with the increasing the capacity of the ground being a factor. Now that the club is spending more money in recent years, they should not be made feel guilty when they sorted the stadium years ago, with other clubs in the process of sorting it out. Of course inflation is a factor, but that should also be considered in transfer fees, wages etc from years ago. The fact is that if money being spent on transfer fees and wages is brought up, then money spent on stadiums etc should be brought into account as well, and United shouldn't be criticised when they haven't relied on a sugar daddy or being presented with a stadium that was originally built for an Olympics or Commonwealth Games.
Click to expand...


Liverpool did try to extend the Kemlyn Road in the early 80s. The houses all got demolished apart from three as two arl girls refused to move. They eventually moved out but it was just left as wasteland. Any lads on here that went back then will tell you. Just before the old away end as you were escorted on the left.

Not sure why it took until 1993 to complete though.
 
vi1lain said:
You are the embodiment of buying success. A sugar daddy club.

Trying to apply the same argument to United doesn't work because our money is earned through sponsorship and revenue, yours was funnelled in by a Russian oligarch.

Chelsea were improving but you wouldn't have won the title 4? times and FA Cup and CL and Europa in that amount of time, so your success is bought.
Click to expand...
you dont know whether they would have won anything or not?
But as long as I can remember( which goes back many years) football clubs have always been influenced by money and how much they have .... just on different scales for different eras.
Eg: would Utd survived several take overs without new money and brand awareness coming in?
I dont think Utd are as disliked as much as they like to think.....more disliked clubs are Liverpool for example and that has nothing to do with money....even though their success of 30 years plus back was built on it
 
SkeppyRed said:
Comparing a local businessman giving selflessly to keep his club afloat 100 years ago with a middle-eastern consortium pumping in billions of pounds to buy success all with the intention of promoting themselves. :lol:

OK mate whatever makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

It's all relative to different eras though. And if you think Davies (and latterly Gibson) were just putting money in to keep United afloat rather than elevating the club then you need to brush up on your history. Both were sugar daddy owners and without them, United might well not exist today.

It's also worth noting the helping hand City gave United at various points back then. From making a donation to Newton Heath FC when they held a bazaar to raise much needed funds just before Davies came riding to your rescue, to allowing arguably our 4 best players to join United rather than other clubs (following the illegal payments saga that saw 17 of our players and our manager banned from our club for life - a ridiculously over the top punishment that almost put us out of business whereas other acts of skulduggery went unpunished) which formed the backbone of your first trophy-winning side.

Fast forward nearly 3 decades and United are in serious financial trouble again, newly relegated to Division 2, and pulling in sub-4000 crowds on some occasions. There's a new club in town called Manchester Central and they're doing well for a non-league club. Another league club goes out of business and the football league allows Central to take their place in the 3rd division North. United don't like this as they fear it could further impact their own precarious situation so plead with City - who are in a far better position than United - to launch a joint protest against the decision to allow Central into the league. The protest is successful, Central are thrown out, and not long after they go out of business. Now I think it's fair to say that as United were struggling and City weren't then it was United who had far more to lose if the league had thrown out that joint protest. If I'm not mistaken, after one round of fixtures when Central were still a non-league club, they pulled in more fans than United did for a 2nd division game at Old Trafford so it's not inconceivable that if Central continued to thrive, United might well have gone out of business altogether.

Incidentally, on a general note and leaving aside the fact that City helped United out regarding the Manchester Central saga, personally I think it was an utterly shameful act from both clubs to get them thrown out of the league which in turn signalled the death knell for Central. It was hugely immoral, not to mention devoid of any sentiment considering the fact that Central's coach was none other than Billy Meredith who had served both City and United with such distinction as a player for so many years.
 
Last edited:
M18CTID said:
It's all relative to different eras though. And if you think Davies (and latterly Gibson) were just putting money in to keep United afloat rather than elevating the club then you need to brush up on your history. Both were sugar daddy owners and without them, United might well not exist today.

It's also worth noting the helping hand City gave United at various points back then. From making a donation to Newton Heath FC when they held a bazaar to raise much needed funds just before Davies came riding to your rescue, to allowing arguably our 4 best players to join United rather than other clubs (following the illegal payments saga that saw 17 of our players and our manager banned from our club for life - a ridiculously over the top punishment that almost put us out of business whereas other acts of skulduggery went unpunished) which formed the backbone of your first trophy-winning side.

Fast forward nearly 3 decades and United are in serious financial trouble again, newly relegated to Division 2, and pulling in sub-4000 crowds on some occasions. There's a new club in town called Manchester Central and they're doing well for a non-league club. Another league club goes out of business and the football league allows Central to take their place in the 3rd division North. United don't like this as they fear it could further impact their own precarious situation so plead with City - who are in a far better position than United - to launch a joint protest against the decision to allow Central into the league. The protest is successful, Central are thrown out, and not long after they go out of business. Now I think it's fair to say that as United were struggling and City weren't then it was United who had far more to lose if the league had thrown out that joint protest. If I'm not mistaken, after one round of fixtures when Central were still a non-league club, they pulled in more fans than United did for a 2nd division game at Old Trafford so it's not inconceivable that if Central continued to thrive, United might well have gone out of business altogether.

Incidentally, on a general note and leaving aside the fact that City helped United out regarding the Manchester Central saga, personally I think it was an utterly shameful act from both clubs to get them thrown out of the league which in turn signalled the death knell for Central. It was hugely immoral, not to mention devoid of any sentiment considering the fact that Central's coach was none other than Billy Meredith who had served both City and United with such distinction as a player for so many years.
Click to expand...
Ah...but those are historical accurate facts, they don't count these days, to the blinkered and biased.
Come on, wake up and get with the new Trump world order of alternative facts, you snowflake!
 
vi1lain said:
You are the embodiment of buying success. A sugar daddy club.

Trying to apply the same argument to United doesn't work because our money is earned through sponsorship and revenue, yours was funnelled in by a Russian oligarch.

Chelsea were improving but you wouldn't have won the title 4? times and FA Cup and CL and Europa in that amount of time, so your success is bought.
Click to expand...
Utd are trying to buy success so I don't see what your issue is with Chelsea other than pure bias. Are you saying Chelsea don't abide by FFP rules? I think you'll find Chelsea do earn their own revenue these days so your prejudice against RA is a bit out dated. You seem to be proud of the fact that your owners run the club as a business and take money out of the club. Isn't it better to be owned by somebody who loves football, attends games and is prepared to invest in the infrastructure of the club.

Your comments about Chelsea's level of success after RA's arrival are purely speculative and unsubstantiated. You could just as easily say the success increased after the arrival of Jose. Who's to say that Jose wouldn't have come to Chelsea anyway. Or does he just go to clubs with huge bank accounts?
 
BonkersIam said:
you dont know whether they would have won anything or not?
But as long as I can remember( which goes back many years) football clubs have always been influenced by money and how much they have .... just on different scales for different eras.
Eg: would Utd survived several take overs without new money and brand awareness coming in?
I dont think Utd are as disliked as much as they like to think.....more disliked clubs are Liverpool for example and that has nothing to do with money....even though their success of 30 years plus back was built on it
Click to expand...

Before Abramovich came Chelsea won a total of about 9 trophies in their entire history. Since he came they've won about 11? My numbers may be slightly off, but the premise remains the same.
So you're right, I and anybody else don't know whether they would have won anything without his influence, Chelsea were a good side, they even finished ahead of United in one of the seasons.
But past performance has some influence on future results, so looking at their history it was much more likely that they would not have won anywhere near as many trophies, so soon and so quickly as they did when Abramovich came in. Arsenal and United were the dominant teams in English football, and Liverpool was there then you had other teams like Newcastle, Everton and even Leeds. So what elevated Chelsea to the same level, even propelled them above Arsenal? Abramovich's money. I don't see how you can argue against that.
Liverpool aren't hated, they're ridiculed and laughed at mostly.

blue blue said:
Utd are trying to buy success so I don't see what your issue is with Chelsea other than pure bias. Are you saying Chelsea don't abide by FFP rules? I think you'll find Chelsea do earn their own revenue these days so your prejudice against RA is a bit out dated. You seem to be proud of the fact that your owners run the club as a business and take money out of the club. Isn't it better to be owned by somebody who loves football, attends games and is prepared to invest in the infrastructure of the club.

Your comments about Chelsea's level of success after RA's arrival are purely speculative and unsubstantiated. You could just as easily say the success increased after the arrival of Jose. Who's to say that Jose wouldn't have come to Chelsea anyway. Or does he just go to clubs with huge bank accounts?
Click to expand...

As I mentioned before, I'm not arguing against the commercialisation of football, i'm not even saying that spending money is unfair.
What I'm saying is that the money that Chelsea used came from an outside influence, and without that influence Chelsea wouldn't have improved as rapidly as they have.
The money that United use is generated from our own revenue and commercial streams - we've even had the hindrance of the Glazer takeover immobilising our spend for a number of years while Chelsea and City seemingly spent at will. United are one of, if not, the most valuable sporting clubs in the world - that's a fact.

Chelsea do turn a profit these days, I didn't disagree I think I even mentioned it in an earlier post, so I don't get why you think I have a prejudice against Abramovich? I didn't say anything negative about him, I just called him a sugar daddy because he is one.
Mourinho became the highest paid manager in football after coming to Chelsea in his first season, if you think money didn't have a big part to play in his decision then you're clearly blind, and we can agree to disagree.
 
blue blue said:
My apologies, you are the most hated.

I'm not sure why. It's probably because of the high level of success you have achieved over a long period of time.

If so this may change.

I'll leave it there.
Click to expand...

It's because of the fanbase. Nothing riles up "I support my local team" fans more than armchair United fans from London. Glory hunter is one of the most common insults thrown about. Let them be bitter, none of us actually care.
 
A strange topic but i did notice something the last few seasons.

Did any body else notice the shift in mentality towards the scousers in 2014 and the spuds and to lesser extent Leicester last season?

I was hearing from about December on ward, Oh they have not won it in so long it would be nice to see them win it or its goot to see them up there for a change.

Then with a few games to go I would hear or read. To hell with them shower, im sick of hearing them going on and on, i hope they dont win it now. It was like a full 180* in sentiment towards the supporters first and then by extent the teams.

Is it just when were winning that it got up peoples backs and they were sick of us winning. Makes us a soft target.
 
vi1lain said:
Before Abramovich came Chelsea won a total of about 9 trophies in their entire history. Since he came they've won about 11? My numbers may be slightly off, but the premise remains the same.
So you're right, I and anybody else don't know whether they would have won anything without his influence, Chelsea were a good side, they even finished ahead of United in one of the seasons.
But past performance has some influence on future results, so looking at their history it was much more likely that they would not have won anywhere near as many trophies, so soon and so quickly as they did when Abramovich came in. Arsenal and United were the dominant teams in English football, and Liverpool was there then you had other teams like Newcastle, Everton and even Leeds. So what elevated Chelsea to the same level, even propelled them above Arsenal? Abramovich's money. I don't see how you can argue against that.
Liverpool aren't hated, they're ridiculed and laughed at mostly.



As I mentioned before, I'm not arguing against the commercialisation of football, i'm not even saying that spending money is unfair.
What I'm saying is that the money that Chelsea used came from an outside influence, and without that influence Chelsea wouldn't have improved as rapidly as they have.
The money that United use is generated from our own revenue and commercial streams - we've even had the hindrance of the Glazer takeover immobilising our spend for a number of years while Chelsea and City seemingly spent at will. United are one of, if not, the most valuable sporting clubs in the world - that's a fact.

Chelsea do turn a profit these days, I didn't disagree I think I even mentioned it in an earlier post, so I don't get why you think I have a prejudice against Abramovich? I didn't say anything negative about him, I just called him a sugar daddy because he is one.
Mourinho became the highest paid manager in football after coming to Chelsea in his first season, if you think money didn't have a big part to play in his decision then you're clearly blind, and we can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
you still do not know for sure whether it would of happened or not as the club were already in a period of being more successful than before with FA cups, ECWC, top 6 finishes, signing big players so perhaps they were naturally improving anyway.
Sugar daddy is an awful and misleading term......we could quite easily use the term "sugar company" which piles loads of money into a club, and/or restructures finances so therefore releasing a load of capital.
Just about every successful club has had an outside influence financially whether its Chelsea, Liverpool, Utd that has set them up in a more secure way to compete so by you stating that Chelsea are different is misleading. Utd havent always generated their own money and have needed huge inputs in the past via restructering and loans.
No one is disputing the Utd brand commercially....but it hasnt always been like that for them like it hasnt for other major clubs worldwide.
 
As a spurs fan (and I only speak for myself) I am grateful for utd and the Fergurson era. Without utd winning everything it would have meant arse or Chelsea picking up a lot more trophies.
My brother is a utd fan too so maybe that helped.
I don't live in London therefore I am well removed from the ridicule most spurs fans must have received over the years from arse and chelsea fans; I totally understand that hatred.
For me though It's the dippers I hate most. They have had the cash and still not won anything, and yet it's always there God dam year. Winds me right up.
I am biased of course but since ENIC have taken over (around 2001) we have steadily climbed the table; albeit only adding one trophy in that time, and we have done it in the right way. Check any financial table you want spurs have barely spent anything and yet we still improve. I think only Burnley spent less one season recently.
In a world of sugar daddies (I don't class utd in that as they earned their cash) spurs must be the team that everyone looks to to see how a club should be run.
Levy has built a WC training ground, a year away from a WC stadium and we sit second in the table with a net spend of basically £0.
I can understand people hating the fans but not the club.
How you can hate a club that has done everything right over 17 years except on the silverware front. But that is the spurs' fans cross to bear, and we are a patient lot.
 
I always wonder how fans who support a team from the area they support, yet NEVER go to watch them, think they can abuse someone who lives miles from their club who does.
Or the simple minded refusal to accept that any vaguely successful team WILL pick up fans from outside the few miles of their local area.
 
Is it rocket science? Trophy after trophy, unprecedented success, two decades of everyone looking up at us. Jealousy is the sincerest form of flattery. City actually owe us everything they have as nobody in their right mind would have bought that club without United in the backdrop.
 
UDontMessWith24 said:
Is it rocket science? Trophy after trophy, unprecedented success, two decades of everyone looking up at us. Jealousy is the sincerest form of flattery. City actually owe us everything they have as nobody in their right mind would have bought that club without United in the backdrop.
Click to expand...
Well that's a load of blinkered hog wash.

As pointed out multiple times, City as a gentleman's club have saved United's club's ass multiple times, so yes... you're welcome - not quite a quid pro quo the other way round (Sky/G14 ungentlemans club's being the most recent).

As for the takeover being only because of the 'United backdrop' , yes of course, that's clearly the reason...

Nothing to do with the club's long history (yawn), the new stadium (lucky), the surrounding land potential (unbelievable), the city rising profile (since the bomb), the profit (golden goose tv), the fan base (30k in 3rd tier)...

Still think a Midlands club would have been a more likely choice, but I'm no successful billionaire businessman.

As to the reason, just arrogance and lack of any 'class' ... inevitable with 'trophy after trophy' and very different to the mindset prior to success.
 
It is no surprise. United have a ton of glory hunting "fans" that no almost nothing about football but support the team because "we the best!". Nowadays Barcelona and Bayern have the most fans of that sort. Chelsea gained many such fans during Mourinho's reign. United during the last two decades gained many such fans.

People interact with these glory hunters and start disliking the club.
 
JASR said:
Well that's a load of blinkered hog wash.

As pointed out multiple times, City as a gentleman's club have saved United's club's ass multiple times, so yes... you're welcome - not quite a quid pro quo the other way round (Sky/G14 ungentlemans club's being the most recent).

As for the takeover being only because of the 'United backdrop' , yes of course, that's clearly the reason...

Nothing to do with the club's long history (yawn), the new stadium (lucky), the surrounding land potential (unbelievable), the city rising profile (since the bomb), the profit (golden goose tv), the fan base (30k in 3rd tier)...

Still think a Midlands club would have been a more likely choice, but I'm no successful billionaire businessman.

As to the reason, just arrogance and lack of any 'class' ... inevitable with 'trophy after trophy' and very different to the mindset prior to success.
Click to expand...

Who hated United apart from City and Liverpool before the early 90s? Our club has been the unquestioned dominant force in English football (until SAF's retirement) for two decades and this is a cold, hard (and cruel in your case) fact. You can use any other reasoning you want if it makes you feel better but you know how annoying it has been to see those red shirts on that podium so many times while your club marred in mediocrity (at best). The takeover was between City and Everton. Owning a team in the city of Manchester was considered a better investment because what, they're big Oasis fans? Everton had pretty much the same things going for them but going up against United gives you more money, more recognition, more everything, than going after Liverpool. That RAWK thread would be pure gold if Everton won that lottery and turned into what City are now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.