Another nail in the coffin of football.

I've Nothing Against Man Utd

I don't think they are killing football either.

 

Re: So if BFC were managed like Man U we would have the same finances? nt

The success Ferguson has brought to the club has obviously contributed a great deal to the clubs finances and put them on a different scale. That's why i have more respect for Manchester utd than Chelsea. Man U earned theirs on the pitch were as Chelsea have bought theirs

 

RE: I have and do n/t nt

 

Re: Rubish. Man Utd have been wealhy long before the jocks arrival nt

 

Re: Rubish. Man Utd have been wealhy long before the jocks arrival nt

Nowhere near like they are now.
Bit of a contridiction there though. You were going on about glory hunters and only supporting the club because of their success. Before Fergie came the club were average and still getting capacity crowds, that's how they got their money. So those fans from the 80's cannot be called glory hunters as there was no glory to seek.

 

Well, if you want a "level playing field"

Then you need a complete restructuring of football in this country, and that is one that would not see Barnsley involved in it because firstly you'd need to get rid of the threat of relegation from the top division, remove transfer fees etc, have teams in areas based upon population, so maybe 1 or 2 Yorkshire teams in it but those would have to be based in Leeds and Sheffield as the main population areas.
I think you'd have to look more at the model of the NFL and other American sports that, ironically, have a more socialist approach to the structure.

 

Re: So you don't think Man U have glory hunting fans then?? n/t nt

 

Re: So you don't think Man U have glory hunting fans then?? n/t nt

Course they do but so do Chelsea and Arsenal. At least Manchester United attendances have been consistent for many years, long before they won any silverware. The same cannot be said for Chelsea.
Manchester United seem to attract more shirt wearers who have probably never been to Old Trafford and probably never will do so.

 

RE: No Need to go that far.

Just take a few step back to how it was late 60's early 70's. alternatively leave it as it is and see what happens in 10/20 years time

 

Nostalgic as this is, I can remember the days when the Champions had one settled side for most of the season, and most lads could name them man for man because of that consistency. If they won the double, it was eleven men and one or two subs playing a part, winning the double. The achievement wasn't just that they were good, but that they were consistent, and they had that incredible endurance as well.

Now-a-days, you have Man United who could just about field two different sides of Championship winner. The same for Chelsea. They just buy two squads effectively. Could I name all the Man U or Chelsea players who have made a significant contribution this year? No way.

In the old days, your star player was basically your star player. I.E. John Barnes was a Liverpool player, Ian Rush was a Liverpool player. They'd give the club the best years of their lives. Now it's three years at Old Trafford, four years at Barca, three years at Milan etc - journey men superstar millionaires.

So yes - for me it is another nail in the coffin. It started in embrio when Blackburn won (sorry bought) the title - but now it's a disgraceful state of affairs when international money brokers and investors make all the difference. When we had our cup run, we gave fans from every background up and down the country some hope, but sadly that is something of a blip. The corporate machines will continue to make a cartel out of European football, and they will continue to grind the life out of struggling football clubs.

 

What about
Rooney
Van der Sar
Ferdinand
Tevez
Vidic
Hargreaves
et al...

did they come through the ranks or did Man Utd buy them and spend millions doing so??

 

Well said that man, couldn't have said it better myself nt

 

Cuckoo.

Put the keyboard down and step away from the computer.