totally made up, Chelski 3 Scumbags 1

Couldn't care less who spends what.

What makes me dislike Man Utd is how there seems to be more United fans than Barnsley fans in Barnsley.

We're struggling for crowds & there's Man Utd shirts on kids every where you look in barnsley. It's all wrong.

Football should be about backing your local team, a town / City should be united behind there club.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes they buy players but buy youth players to make into future class players. Rather than spending 50 million on one player! A football club is a business, beckham scholes giggs Ronaldo Neville's York cole soljear schermicheal abet all these put together didn't cost 50million....stop been patronising

 

Man Utd have always bought players for lots of money, that is a fact.
None of those players you put there are still playing only Giggs and he is just about 40, so they are not comparable to todays players. What about Ferdinand? Rooney ? Cheap were they ?, So stop trying to bend the facts mate.
Thje Man Utd youth system had a golden period of about 3 years and since then only one or two have been in the side at any time.

Also is this not patronising?
"All of them near enough. There a club that do things the right way!...do some research"
When I asked you how many youth players they had in their team ?

 

Except for the 92 kids they haven't really brought that many through. People are fooled by that generation into thinking it's how manu do it. It isn't. They continually smashed transfer records throughout their reign. Isn't Ferdinand still the most expensive defender? Veron. Rooney. They were paying £25-30m long before anyone else.

 

And wasn't Yorke about £12m, Cole £7.5m, at a time when they were big amounts.

 

Apparently you are patronising people if you dare to point out that Man Utd buy 99% of their players. That does not matter, they do it the right way.

 

Most of the players mentioned above were bought in, not for a pittance either. Ronaldo was £10m+ wasn't he?

I don't like the way billionaires have taken over football but without them it would have been a United procession for the last 20yrs. I think some on here would be happy with that mind.

 

I somehow missed typing Wellbeck and Cleverley in there.

 

So nearly all of them

 

Do United only play with 5 men then? Would explain their results this season.

 

They do have to buy players. And expensive players, but they still give youth a chance to break into first team januaz for example this season. How can a youth player make it in first ten at man city or Chelsea

 

That's a different conversation though. We're talking about the fact that United spend on players, and spend big. Hazard and Oscar weren't exactly knocking on when they started for chelsea either.

 

The difference is, the money United spend, is money they've made from merchandising sales etc. The money City and Chelsea spend comes straight out of their owners pocket. If the premier league introduced a rule where you could only spend a percentage of turnover on players, then Man Utd would be able to carry on as they are, I dont think the rest could.

 

Not disputing that but what's everyone else supposed to do, roll over and accept they can't compete?