| Greetings and welcome to The Football Net. We love talking balls, do you? You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. Therefore you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, take part in the banter, vote in polls and enjoy fun competitions such as fantasy football and the betting exchange. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join us today on our football forums to talk balls with us! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| 'One-Club Man' Terry Wants Man City Talks; TERRY DEMANDS CITY TALKS | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 12 2009, 09:34 AM (1,123 Views) | |
| BALLBAG | Jul 12 2009, 02:21 PM Post #16 |
![]()
MOVE !!...Im Head Boy !!
|
I cant see him going,what would be the point,he will be finished by the time they are ready to compete for the big trophies |
| |
|
|
| Jeffers | Jul 12 2009, 02:27 PM Post #17 |
|
Ginger Prince
|
chelsea didnt really pay higher for players than united have done, they did bring in alot of players near the beginning, but i think the majority of the signings were worth the money they spent essien and drogba was money well spent IMO citys £100 for kaka was ridiculous. as was the £80m for ronaldo. city havent been able to attract players of the ame quality because of where they r in the table i dont think terry will go. no Cl in the season before a world cup can not be good |
| "I don't play against a particular team. I play against the idea of losing." - Cantona | |
|
|
| akuta | Jul 12 2009, 02:29 PM Post #18 |
|
Sausage Warrior
|
lol.. me thinks its a bit hypocritical from the manc concerning citys spending. No other team had the cash in the 90's when you lot spent big. Just because its unethical "in your view" does not mean a club should not invest in its ambitions if it has the finance. They have plans to become big and just because your club did it the conventional way (i.e over time) does not give you the right to look down on the ambitions of those that dont have the luxury of waiting that long. Lets not forget the fact that their millions does not guarantee them instant success which is why it is very very ok to spend all they like in my view |
|
|
| Jeffers | Jul 12 2009, 02:37 PM Post #19 |
|
Ginger Prince
|
newcastle had the money as did balckburn actually. its just united had certain players like giggs beckahm, scholes etc.. that came through the academy. so we only needed to bring in 1 big player a season. keane, yorke, cantona etc.. |
| "I don't play against a particular team. I play against the idea of losing." - Cantona | |
|
|
| akuta | Jul 12 2009, 02:44 PM Post #20 |
|
Sausage Warrior
|
because you brought in one big player a season doesnt mean everyone has to follow that trend.. If they want to buy 11 players for 50mill each, tbh its their problem.. As we can all see, the fact that you have cash does not mean the best players will all come to your club.. (e.g: kaka turned em down.. Pato turned us down before he went to milan... benzema turned Man Utd down etc) |
|
|
| Jeffers | Jul 12 2009, 02:50 PM Post #21 |
|
Ginger Prince
|
u say its a bit hypocritical, but its not the same situation, because we wont the league we had money to spend on players so we never spent beyond r means, the money was all generated from the club to spend on what they wanted. thus why only 1 big signing a season man utd never offered 3 times the amount of the amount of the highest player wed bought ever, i personally think spending over £30m on a player is ridiculous |
| "I don't play against a particular team. I play against the idea of losing." - Cantona | |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jul 12 2009, 02:52 PM Post #22 |
|
Deleted User
|
?? Blackburn, Chelsea, Newcastle, Arsenal all spent big in the 90's United only briefly held the transfer record (Roy Keane) during that period. |
|
|
| akuta | Jul 12 2009, 03:00 PM Post #23 |
|
Sausage Warrior
|
This is fair enough comment but you have to realise that its your opinion. There are no guidelines against spending more than 30mil on players but you have decided to take the moral high ground and call it ridiculous but the truth is there might be a few people that will agree but NOT everyone. If they disagree, it doesnt mean they are wrong either. As regards Man Utd's business model, it was thought to be a very good one back in the day but times have changed and Man City IMO is copying Chelsea's plan of massive investments in making the team well known all around the world which increases the brand and fan base and that in turn generates more income, interest from world class players etc. Imo there's nothing wrong with that, they're just taking a different approach but with the same end result in mind. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jul 12 2009, 03:02 PM Post #24 |
|
Deleted User
|
Man City's 'plan' is to have a sugar daddy. And when they go (and they will one day) all you have left is a sh1t load of trouble. Same for Chelsea, same for all clubs who are massively in debt to an owner. |
|
|
| akuta | Jul 12 2009, 03:03 PM Post #25 |
|
Sausage Warrior
|
Transfer record is very negligible as you very well know azward... Buy 3-4 players for 20 mill each and another team buys a single player for 50mil. Ofcourse the 50mil transfer will get more coverage because of the singular fee of one player. Man Utd in the 90's were unrivaled in terms of spending power |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jul 12 2009, 03:05 PM Post #26 |
|
Deleted User
|
your forgetting Mr Walker at Blackburn then? |
|
|
| akuta | Jul 12 2009, 03:08 PM Post #27 |
|
Sausage Warrior
|
Another fair comment but how does Man Utd owned by the glaziers and also in debt differ from Chelsea owned by an individual and also in debt??? |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jul 12 2009, 03:09 PM Post #28 |
|
Deleted User
|
because Uniteds size, they are mortgaged and are managing the debt. If Roman called in his loans, Chelsea are screwed. Ditto City. |
|
|
| akuta | Jul 12 2009, 03:12 PM Post #29 |
|
Sausage Warrior
|
No im not... Jack Walkers personal fortunes were no where near what Man Utd as a brand name controlled in the 90's. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jul 12 2009, 03:13 PM Post #30 |
|
Deleted User
|
but we weren't talking about brands, we were talking about disposable income. Walker gave Blackburn a virtually open cheque book. Remember what happened at United in 96? The sold Ince, Hughes and Kanchelskis and couldn't afford to bring anyone in |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Barclays Premier League · Next Topic » |





8:23 PM Jul 11