PDA

View Full Version : Match Updates Today's Other Games



Sylar
03-03-2012, 12:32 PM
Aberdeen 0-1 Celtc - Stokes

Iggy Pope
03-03-2012, 12:35 PM
Aberdeen 0-1 Celtc - Stokes

Craig Burley seems to be making a point of being even more cretinous than usual today.

Sylar
03-03-2012, 12:37 PM
Craig Burley seems to be making a point of being even more cretinous than usual today.

Certainly didn't seem to think much of Stokes claiming to be tired and not joining the RoI squad for the Home Nations anyway :greengrin

Liverpool vs Arsenal about to get underway at 12:45 on SS2.

Sylar
03-03-2012, 12:39 PM
Wow - that was embarrassing from Blackman...

Compliance Officer retrospective ban for simulation? :confused:

stokesmessiah
03-03-2012, 12:47 PM
Craig Burley seems to be making a point of being even more cretinous than usual today.

Actually hate that man with a passion.

Sylar
03-03-2012, 12:48 PM
Aberdeen 1-1 Celtic - Blackman O.G.

First the dive, now he gifts the Dandy's their equaliser!

Half-time.

jgl07
03-03-2012, 01:05 PM
Actually hate that man with a passion.

He annoyed me so much while watching a Hibs match that I turned the sound off and put the radio commentary on. It was a bit of a problem as the TV pictures are about 10 seconds behind the radio commentary.

HUTCHYHIBBY
03-03-2012, 01:24 PM
What a cross for RVP's goal, game on!

SteveHFC
03-03-2012, 01:58 PM
Aberdeen 1-1 Celtic - Blackman O.G.

First the dive, now he gifts the Dandy's their equaliser!

Half-time.

Thank f***. We didn't sign Blackman in januray.

Wotherspiniesta
03-03-2012, 02:35 PM
I see that horrible **** Luis Suarez dived to win a penalty for Liverpool today.

1-2 Arsenal :greengrin

Spike Mandela
03-03-2012, 02:38 PM
I see that horrible **** Luis Suarez dived to win a penalty for Liverpool today.

1-2 Arsenal :greengrin

What a goal from RVP. Class!

HH81
03-03-2012, 02:41 PM
I see that horrible **** Luis Suarez dived to win a penalty for Liverpool today.

1-2 Arsenal :greengrin

He got caught I thought but went down very dodgy.

RVP is some player. Would walk into any team in the league right now.

lyonhibs
03-03-2012, 02:51 PM
Bosh!! Great goal from RVP.

Good to see Racists FC get scunnered like that at home.................. :giruy::fishin:

Dashing Bob S
03-03-2012, 02:59 PM
Bosh!! Great goal from RVP.

Good to see Racists FC get scunnered like that at home.................. :giruy::fishin:

Loverlee bit of smash n grab from RVP.

Saurez dived, but had as he had knocked it wide, no contact made by keeper who just spread himself, commentators were advocating Arsenal keeper to be sent off. Saurez ought to have gone and would have if video replay was permitted.

Sergey
03-03-2012, 03:09 PM
East Thurrock 1 Met Police 0

Higgins 7th minute :thumbsup:

Dashing Bob S
03-03-2012, 03:26 PM
East Thurrock 1 Met Police 0

Higgins 7th minute :thumbsup:

He should have been better policed by the Met defenders, surely?

Sergey
03-03-2012, 03:28 PM
Boo - Met Police equalise - now 1-1

HH81
03-03-2012, 03:29 PM
Rhodes already on 2 goals today. Far too good for league 1.

R'Albin
03-03-2012, 04:01 PM
Aberdeen 1-1 Celtic - Blackman O.G.

First the dive, now he gifts the Dandy's their equaliser!

Half-time.

Typical jammy Aberdeen :rolleyes:


Rhodes already on 2 goals today. Far too good for league 1.


:agree:

lyonhibs
03-03-2012, 04:09 PM
In the much vaunted "Battle of the Bankrupt", HMRC's Bitches lead Romanov's Ramjets 1-0.

Aldo
03-03-2012, 04:16 PM
Painter and decorator equalises for the ramjets.

Sergey
03-03-2012, 04:18 PM
East Thurrock 2 Met Police 2

East Thurrock equaliser - Higgins (pen 62 mins)

Sergey
03-03-2012, 04:28 PM
East Thurrock 3 - Met Police 2

Gorbell - 72 minutes :thumbsup:

Sylar
03-03-2012, 04:36 PM
Rangers 1-2 Hearts

DH1875
03-03-2012, 04:41 PM
Motherwell for the Champions league? What happens to the SKY deal if Rangers finish in the bottom 6.

Sergey
03-03-2012, 04:50 PM
East Thurrock 4 Met Police 2

Higgins 90+2

joe breezy
03-03-2012, 05:04 PM
Rangers ha ha, Chelsea ha ha, Liverpool ha ha, shame Hibs couldnae win though...

HIBERNIAN-0762
03-03-2012, 05:09 PM
Rangers ha ha, Chelsea ha ha, Liverpool ha ha, shame Hibs couldnae win though...

Rangers ha ha ha?

You mean you actually want the yaks to win? :confused:

Never, ever for me!

Nando™
03-03-2012, 05:26 PM
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=212666&st=420

Thank you to whoever was responsible for bringing Rangers Media into my life, this ****ing tremendous.

"just woke up my sleeping girlfriend because I threw my glass at the wall and it smashed everywhere and I was yelling ****** YoU at the TV. I need some valium or something, this is not good for my heart."

:hilarious

Sylar
03-03-2012, 05:35 PM
Leeds 0-1 Southampton

Been a great game thus far, with Leeds dominating, but what a strike from Ricky Lambert!

HIBERNIAN-0762
03-03-2012, 05:51 PM
If it suits Hibs then yes for me.
7th April will do too

:confused:

How does it suit us?, please explain

SteveHFC
03-03-2012, 06:03 PM
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=212771&st=0 :faf::faf::faf:


If and its a big IF for some reason we need to start from the bottom of Scottish Football and work our way back up the leagues then I would rather just go to the bottom tiers of England and lets this ungrateful shambles of a league rot in hell.

However I look forward to the day when we are dominating this league once again and showing all these b*****ds that they will never keep us down!!


Simply put, we should ****** off elsewhere, even to the SFL and sit back and laugh at the death of the SPL

****** them all, cheating b*****ds

:faf::faf::faf::faf:

SteveHFC
03-03-2012, 06:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW4WFHl6j74&feature=player_embedded
:faf:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjcORJrbFYA&feature=player_embedded

:faf:

Rangers TV commentator

HH81
03-03-2012, 06:20 PM
Manchester city won again and +50. Something wrong if they can't win this league.

Nando™
03-03-2012, 06:34 PM
Manchester city won again and +50. Something wrong if they can't win this league.

Something wrong if they do win The Barclay's Premier Rich List.

It's Chelsea all over again, a wee bit of money and the league's yours. Joke.

SteveHFC
03-03-2012, 06:35 PM
Something wrong if they do win The Barclay's Premier Rich List.

It's Chelsea all over again, a wee bit of money and the league's yours. Joke.

:top marks

Love the Green
03-03-2012, 08:30 PM
Something wrong if they do win The Barclay's Premier Rich List.

It's Chelsea all over again, a wee bit of money and the league's yours. Joke.

Yes its a disgrace after all thes clubs won the leagues with little or no money to spend and paying peanuts for wages. AND nobody bankrolling them

Manure
Liverpool
Blackburn
Celtic
Rangers
Real Madrid
All provisional clubs with small crowds and no money to spend
:cb

Nando™
03-03-2012, 09:09 PM
Yes its a disgrace after all thes clubs won the leagues with little or no money to spend and paying peanuts for wages. AND nobody bankrolling them

Manure
Liverpool
Blackburn
Celtic
Rangers
Real Madrid
All provisional clubs with small crowds and no money to spend
:cb
If you say so.

AldoHFC
03-03-2012, 09:51 PM
Something wrong if they do win The Barclay's Premier Rich List.

It's Chelsea all over again, a wee bit of money and the league's yours. Joke.
So United, Liverpool etc. don't spend ridiculous amounts of money and it's just City? Ashley Young, Phil Jones, Jordan Henderson and Andy Carroll spring to mind.

Wotherspiniesta
03-03-2012, 09:59 PM
So United, Liverpool etc. don't spend ridiculous amounts of money and it's just City? Ashley Young, Phil Jones, Jordan Henderson and Andy Carroll spring to mind.

Teams like Liverpool and Man United have the right to spend money due to performances on the pitch. Champions League wins, League titles, FA cup wins, top four finishes etc.

Man City and Chelsea were nothing before their foreign billionaire owners.

SteveHFC
03-03-2012, 10:01 PM
Teams like Liverpool and Man United have the right to spend money due to performances on the pitch. Champions League wins, League titles, FA cup wins, top four finishes etc.

Man City and Chelsea were nothing before their foreign billionaire owners.

This :aok:

NORTHERNHIBBY
03-03-2012, 10:34 PM
Have to say that RVP winner was an outstanding piece of football.

Nando™
03-03-2012, 10:54 PM
So United, Liverpool etc. don't spend ridiculous amounts of money and it's just City? Ashley Young, Phil Jones, Jordan Henderson and Andy Carroll spring to mind.

What I'm saying is, football is broken. Millionaires/Billionaires can just waltz in and make a mug out of an entire country/league (see Abramovich, the Etihad people, Romanov, Mileson).

These people give their clubs and their supporters much more than they deserve and make it very unfair on the other teams. Who the **** are Gretna? Bang, SPL and Scottish Cup Final, and mugged three other clubs of fully deserved promotion. I felt sorry for their fans when they folded but the club got what it deserved.

If Romanov never spent ridiculous amounts that a wee team like Hearts should never be spending then we would have won the Scottish Cup and finished a place higher in 2006.

The sooner more stringent rules are brought in to stop these folk playing Football Manager with this game the better. Joke sport until that day.

Hibercelona
03-03-2012, 10:57 PM
What I'm saying is, football is broken. Millionaires/Billionaires can just waltz in and make a mug out of an entire country/league (see Abramovich, the Etihad people, Romanov, Mileson).

These people give their clubs and their supporters much more than they deserve and make it very unfair on the other teams. Who the **** are Gretna? Bang, SPL and Scottish Cup Final, and mugged three other clubs of fully deserved promotion. I felt sorry for their fans when they folded but the club got what it deserved.

If Romanov never spent ridiculous amounts that a wee team like Hearts should never be spending then we would have won the Scottish Cup and finished a place higher in 2006.

The sooner more stringent rules are brought in to stop these folk playing Football Manager with this game the better. Joke sport until that day.

Grenta would have no doubt have beaten us in the final TBH. :wink:

Nando™
03-03-2012, 11:02 PM
Grenta would have no doubt have beaten us in the final TBH. :wink:

Ach away you :greengrin

HIBERNIAN-0762
04-03-2012, 10:41 AM
no

Post of the year so far...

:aok:

HibbyAndy
04-03-2012, 11:47 AM
:singing: He scores when he wants, He scores when he waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaantss..RVP,He scores when he wants :singing:



GIFRUY Dalglish you soor faced ****.

Wotherspiniesta
04-03-2012, 11:49 AM
:singing: He scores when he wants, He scores when he waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaantss..RVP,He scores when he wants :singing:



GIFRUY Dalglish you soor faced ****.

:agree:

And your daughter. Twice.

HH81
04-03-2012, 11:52 AM
Spurs win today would be funny. I can't see man u losing a home game to them though.

Danderhall Hibs
04-03-2012, 12:38 PM
Teams like Liverpool and Man United have the right to spend money due to performances on the pitch. Champions League wins, League titles, FA cup wins, top four finishes etc.

Man City and Chelsea were nothing before their foreign billionaire owners.

If only Liverpool and Man U are allowed to spend money how are the other teams supposed to keep up and challenge? Just cos they used to be good doesn't mean they've won the right to always be good.

Danderhall Hibs
04-03-2012, 12:39 PM
Spurs win today would be funny. I can't see man u losing a home game to them though.

It's at White Hart Lane mate.

HUTCHYHIBBY
04-03-2012, 12:42 PM
It's at White Hart Lane mate.

Whoosh!

bingo70
04-03-2012, 12:43 PM
For any tramps like me that's no got SKY Cardiff against West Ham about to start on BBC 2.

Should be a decent game

Wotherspiniesta
04-03-2012, 12:51 PM
If only Liverpool and Man U are allowed to spend money how are the other teams supposed to keep up and challenge? Just cos they used to be good doesn't mean they've won the right to always be good.

When did I say they're the only team allowed to spend money? I just think teams should earn the right to spend ridiculous amounts of money by performances on the pitch. I wouldn't feel aggrieved if Arsenal splashed the cash or if Spurs spent a mini-fortune. They've earnt the right to part with cash since they've been so good domestically. What were Man City up to before Sheik Manure? Relegation threatened.

cabbageandribs1875
04-03-2012, 12:55 PM
cardiff v west ham game is live on cooncil TV just now, BBC2(and online)

--------
04-03-2012, 01:08 PM
Teams like Liverpool and Man United have the right to spend money due to performances on the pitch. Champions League wins, League titles, FA cup wins, top four finishes etc.

Man City and Chelsea were nothing before their foreign billionaire owners.


The logic of this post escapes me entirely.

Please explain how a team "earns" the "right" to spend money in the transfer market.

For example, suppose a billionaire bought out Tom Farmer? Would Hibs have the "right" to spend HIS money to improve the side?

You would have a principled moral objection to him putting money in to build a team capable of winning something?

You would worry about the St Johnstone fans, and the Dundee United fans, and the Motherwell fans and all the other fans whose possible moments of glory we might be hijacking if the new owner spent money on the Hibs team?

You wouldn't cme to ER to watch a good team playing good football because the players had been bought on the transfer market by the new owner of a team with no previous history of consistent success? Hibs would have "NO RIGHT"?

I think there's a fitting and logical conclusion to be drawn from what you've said, but I'll not go down there.

But I guess YOU favour either Liverpool or Manchester United for the EPL, as opposed to City or Chelsea? And both Liverpool and Manchester United are owned by foreign multi-millionaire businessmen? So what's the difference?

Danderhall Hibs
04-03-2012, 01:12 PM
When did I say they're the only team allowed to spend money? I just think teams should earn the right to spend ridiculous amounts of money by performances on the pitch. I wouldn't feel aggrieved if Arsenal splashed the cash or if Spurs spent a mini-fortune. They've earnt the right to part with cash since they've been so good domestically. What were Man City up to before Sheik Manure? Relegation threatened.

But Spurs haven't won a European Cup and were relegation threatened before Harry Redknapp took over - they've "not earned the right" to spend as much as Man U yet, have they?

Wotherspiniesta
04-03-2012, 01:33 PM
The logic of this post escapes me entirely.

Please explain how a team "earns" the "right" to spend money in the transfer market.

For example, suppose a billionaire bought out Tom Farmer? Would Hibs have the "right" to spend HIS money to improve the side?

You would have a principled moral objection to him putting money in to build a team capable of winning something?

You would worry about the St Johnstone fans, and the Dundee United fans, and the Motherwell fans and all the other fans whose possible moments of glory we might be hijacking if the new owner spent money on the Hibs team?

You wouldn't cme to ER to watch a good team playing good football because the players had been bought on the transfer market by the new owner of a team with no previous history of consistent success? Hibs would have "NO RIGHT"?

I think there's a fitting and logical conclusion to be drawn from what you've said, but I'll not go down there.

But I guess YOU favour either Liverpool or Manchester United for the EPL, as opposed to City or Chelsea? And both Liverpool and Manchester United are owned by foreign multi-millionaire businessmen? So what's the difference?

Hopefully my post above clears it up for you but if not I'll try my best to clear it up for you. Man United and Liverpool have been great teams for years. Domestically and in Europe. Chelsea and Man City were nothing before a foreign billionaire bought them over. The fact that Liverpool and Man United are now run by billionaires is just a sign of the way things have gone since Abramovich bought over Chelsea.

Teams should earn the right to spend millions by their performances on the pitch. It's not the way it is, but its the way that it should be.

As for Hibs being bought over, I'd probably be delighted if we could spend a lot of cash. But my reasons would be purely selfish as it would just be me wanting to see Hibs be successful on the park. It still wouldn't change my opinion that foreign billionaires in the game make it all rather tainted and slightly farcical.

As for your "fitting and logical conclusion" that you've drawn up... :rolleyes:.... If you think the beliefs of how a football club should be run are clouded by the ENGLISH team I SUPPORT then you're wrong. :aok:

hibs0666
04-03-2012, 01:39 PM
Chelsea manager is offski.

Wotherspiniesta
04-03-2012, 01:41 PM
But Spurs haven't won a European Cup and were relegation threatened before Harry Redknapp took over - they've "not earned the right" to spend as much as Man U yet, have they?

Spurs had a great season last year, done well in the Champions League and are currently 3rd in the EPL. Infact, they're the perfect example of how a football team should be run and how a team can hold their own against the best without oil money. They were relegation threatened, they made the suitable adjustments, brining in a great manager to get the best out of their talented players, brought British players through and realised their potential as a top four team. They didn't get bought over by a rich businessman and buy the best players in the world for ridiculous fee's.

One day in the future Man City are going to be in the Champions League final and will be 3-0 up against Barcelona and the City Sheik will be somwhere high up in the stand stroking his Burmese cat and he'll turn round to his assitant and say " I'm bored now, let's go and buy a Basketball team"

Danderhall Hibs
04-03-2012, 02:00 PM
One day in the future Man City are going to be in the Champions League final and will be 3-0 up against Barcelona and the City Sheik will be somwhere high up in the stand stroking his Burmese cat and he'll turn round to his assitant and say " I'm bored now, let's go and buy a Basketball team"

Is that what the Glazers done with their American Football team?

Wotherspiniesta
04-03-2012, 02:04 PM
Is that what the Glazers done with their American Football team?

Yes.

Pete
04-03-2012, 02:18 PM
Spurs had a great season last year, done well in the Champions League and are currently 3rd in the EPL. Infact, they're the perfect example of how a football team should be run and how a team can hold their own against the best without oil money. They were relegation threatened, they made the suitable adjustments, brining in a great manager to get the best out of their talented players, brought British players through and realised their potential as a top four team. They didn't get bought over by a rich businessman and buy the best players in the world for ridiculous fee's.

One day in the future Man City are going to be in the Champions League final and will be 3-0 up against Barcelona and the City Sheik will be somwhere high up in the stand stroking his Burmese cat and he'll turn round to his assitant and say " I'm bored now, let's go and buy a Basketball team"

By the time that happens city will have picked up enough glory hunting fans from all over the world to keep them up there.

Its the easiest thing in the world to attach yourself to a club that is successful.

As for city being nothing before their owners came in...united were nothing before ferguson came in and was given an open cheque book. You might go on about best and charlton but city can throw an equally good team at you. The trophy count pre fergie is pretty similar.

Or maybe your one of these united "fans" that think football didn't exist before sky money and the premirship.

poolman
04-03-2012, 03:04 PM
I see that horrible **** Luis Suarez dived to win a penalty for Liverpool today.

1-2 Arsenal :greengrin


He's a horrible little git.

Don't see why he doesn't spend a lot of time in hospital the way he goes down in agony waving his arms up like he's broken something the ten seconds later he's up and running about :bitchy:

Horrible little man playing for what is now an embarrasment of a football club

Ray_
04-03-2012, 04:05 PM
By the time that happens city will have picked up enough glory hunting fans from all over the world to keep them up there.

Its the easiest thing in the world to attach yourself to a club that is successful.

As for city being nothing before their owners came in...united were nothing before ferguson came in and was given an open cheque book. You might go on about best and charlton but city can throw an equally good team at you. The trophy count pre fergie is pretty similar.

Or maybe your one of these united "fans" that think football didn't exist before sky money and the premirship.



I don't know where you got your info from? United were already a global name long before SAF came anywhere near the club. This was thanks mainly to Sir Matt Busby & his babes, further enhanced with the sympathy gained after the Munich disaster,.

Although City had a very successful spell during the late sixties and early seventies, they have never, in my lifetime, matched their city rivals status.

As for City equalling Best & Charlton, never, part of the United legend is the European Cup & the being the first English team to win that trophy cemented their status on the world stage & set the red part of Manchester apart from the rest of their contemporises, including Revie’s Leeds team, who were to become England’s top club side during the late sixties & early seventies.

You can’t discount the George Best factor either, Santos were also a global name & this was due to them having a player called Pele & MU with Best, had a similar impact on MU’s status.

Ironically, I lived in Manchester when United were relegated & this was also towards the end of City’s purple patch. MU came straight back up under “The Doc” and ever since, has always been considered one of England’s main contenders, which is a world away from City’s status, post Lee, Bell & Marsh. Another indicator, Pre-Fergie, living in London, from the mid seventies, no matter where it was, you would always have trouble getting a ticket for a game involving MU, this wasn’t the case with City.

--------
04-03-2012, 04:33 PM
Hopefully my post above clears it up for you but if not I'll try my best to clear it up for you. Man United and Liverpool have been great teams for years. Domestically and in Europe. Chelsea and Man City were nothing before a foreign billionaire bought them over. The fact that Liverpool and Man United are now run by billionaires is just a sign of the way things have gone since Abramovich bought over Chelsea.

Teams should earn the right to spend millions by their performances on the pitch. It's not the way it is, but its the way that it should be.

This is nothing more substantial than your own personal unsupported opinion - in other words, you're flying a kite here, nothing more.

Reality is that marketing and finance decide who wins and loses in world football these days, and the higher up a league you find a team, the bigger its bank-balance is likely to be.


As for Hibs being bought over, I'd probably be delighted if we could spend a lot of cash. But my reasons would be purely selfish as it would just be me wanting to see Hibs be successful on the park. It still wouldn't change my opinion that foreign billionaires in the game make it all rather tainted and slightly farcical.

As for your "fitting and logical conclusion" that you've drawn up... :rolleyes:.... If you think the beliefs of how a football club should be run are clouded by the ENGLISH team I SUPPORT then you're wrong. :aok:


Where do you think Liverpool came from before they started being "a great team"? The Second Division. And they spent a lot of money over the years - first to become a great team, and then making sure they stayed a great team.

How did United become the dominant force they are, after relegation and a season in the Second Division? By spending money. And they're still doing so.

So according to your "logic" it's OK to be run by billionaires and spend money on the team, as long as you've been doing so for years. But if you only started doing it in the last five years or so, you don't have the "right".

And money can be spent, so long as it isn't foreign money?

Get real - football has always been about the teams with the big bucks screwing the teams without. Occasionally a team without gets a wee but time in the limelight, but not often. But I really don't see how it makes an ounce of difference where the money comes from. In the cases of City and Chelsea it's just given another two groups of fans something to cheer about - at the expense of some other teams' supporters - most noticeably Liverpool's, and now perhaps United's.

The fact that both United and City and Liverpool and Chelsea have all been bougfht by foreign businessmen rather than locals is no more than the natural consequence of the way the whole EPL has been marketed in the world media - and that process began when all four clubs were still owned and run domestically.

In the case of Blackburn, it was a case of a local businessman backing the local team and giving the local fans something to cheer about. Something to reminisce about in the pub over the dark winter evenings. So what if that put some "big team" fans' noses out of joint?

As far as the neutral were conceened (I speak for myself) that was a pleasant and more than acceptable bonus. I LIKE seeing big team fans going home disappointed.

Will it cheer you up if I tell you I still reckon United'll win the EPL? Possibly not.

BUT I am absolutely dead certain that your opinions about how football clubs should be run ARE heavily influenced by the English team you support - they're bound to be. Mine are by the fact that I support Hibs. I'm sure I would see things radically differently if I supported Rangers or Celtic. Or a "big team" in the EPL.


You know, my son supported Liverpool as a kid at school - they were his "English" team, and he supported them to give himself a bit of leverage against the kids who supported the OF and gave him a hard time about Hibs.


But he forgot about it a long time ago. Round about the time he grew up. :cb

HH81
04-03-2012, 04:41 PM
Does anyone know if the man u fans still wear the norwich scalfs? Or have the Glazors won?

HibbyAndy
04-03-2012, 04:49 PM
He's a horrible little git.

Don't see why he doesn't spend a lot of time in hospital the way he goes down in agony waving his arms up like he's broken something the ten seconds later he's up and running about :bitchy:




Horrible little man playing for what is now an embarrasment of a football club



He is a horrible cheating little barsteward! And the very slightest bit contact he goes down clutching his legs like he has been shot by a sniper.



Horrible horrible individual.

lapsedhibee
04-03-2012, 05:00 PM
He is a horrible cheating little barsteward! And the very slightest bit contact he goes down clutching his legs like he has been shot by a sniper.

Dived for the pen, and dived later on to get Vermaelen booked.

Good skills but horrible, horrible person.

The 'puddle played really well but are a hard club to like just now. Dalglish is like Strachan without the grace and charm.

Wotherspiniesta
04-03-2012, 05:17 PM
Where do you think Liverpool came from before they started being "a great team"? The Second Division. And they spent a lot of money over the years - first to become a great team, and then making sure they stayed a great team.

How did United become the dominant force they are, after relegation and a season in the Second Division? By spending money. And they're still doing so.

So according to your "logic" it's OK to be run by billionaires and spend money on the team, as long as you've been doing so for years. But if you only started doing it in the last five years or so, you don't have the "right".

And money can be spent, so long as it isn't foreign money?

Get real - football has always been about the teams with the big bucks screwing the teams without. Occasionally a team without gets a wee but time in the limelight, but not often. But I really don't see how it makes an ounce of difference where the money comes from. In the cases of City and Chelsea it's just given another two groups of fans something to cheer about - at the expense of some other teams' supporters - most noticeably Liverpool's, and now perhaps United's.

The fact that both United and City and Liverpool and Chelsea have all been bougfht by foreign businessmen rather than locals is no more than the natural consequence of the way the whole EPL has been marketed in the world media - and that process began when all four clubs were still owned and run domestically.

In the case of Blackburn, it was a case of a local businessman backing the local team and giving the local fans something to cheer about. Something to reminisce about in the pub over the dark winter evenings. So what if that put some "big team" fans' noses out of joint?

As far as the neutral were conceened (I speak for myself) that was a pleasant and more than acceptable bonus. I LIKE seeing big team fans going home disappointed.

Will it cheer you up if I tell you I still reckon United'll win the EPL? Possibly not.

BUT I am absolutely dead certain that your opinions about how football clubs should be run ARE heavily influenced by the English team you support - they're bound to be. Mine are by the fact that I support Hibs. I'm sure I would see things radically differently if I supported Rangers or Celtic. Or a "big team" in the EPL.


You know, my son supported Liverpool as a kid at school - they were his "English" team, and he supported them to give himself a bit of leverage against the kids who supported the OF and gave him a hard time about Hibs.


But he forgot about it a long time ago. Round about the time he grew up. :cb

To be honest, I've given my view to you. You disagree with it. Cheers for your opinion though.

jgl07
04-03-2012, 05:32 PM
Where do you think Liverpool came from before they started being "a great team"? the Second Division. And they spent a lot of money over the years making sure they stayed a great team.

How did United become the dominant force they are, after relegation and a spell languishing in the Second Division? By spending money.



Very true.

United established their strong financial position in the mid-1950s thanks to Busby Babes. How did they establish that team? In the case of Duncan Edwards from Dudley, who had been associated with Woves as a boy, they signed him using the dodge of buying his parents a house.

They kept themselves there by paying big money to sign the likes of Maurice Setters, Albert Quixall, Denis Law, Pat Crerand, and Noel Cantwell. Quixall and Law were both signed for then record transfer fees. After the departure of Busby and relegation for United, the speding really started and has continued unabled since then.

This crap about United and Liverpool deserving to be able to outspend everyone else because of all those championships and cups is rubbish ad deep down everyoe knows this.

Substitute Rangers and Celtic for United and Liverpool and you could make exactly thesame case for Scotland.

Hibernia&Alba
04-03-2012, 07:25 PM
Very true.

United established their strong financial position in the mid-1950s thanks to Busby Babes. How did they establish that team? In the case of Duncan Edwards from Dudley, who had been associated with Woves as a boy, they signed him using the dodge of buying his parents a house.

They kept themselves there by paying big money to sign the likes of Maurice Setters, Albert Quixall, Denis Law, Pat Crerand, and Noel Cantwell. Quixall and Law were both signed for then record transfer fees. After the departure of Busby and relegation for United, the speding really started and has continued unabled since then.

This crap about United and Liverpool deserving to be able to outspend everyone else because of all those championships and cups is rubbish ad deep down everyoe knows this.

Substitute Rangers and Celtic for United and Liverpool and you could make exactly thesame case for Scotland.

You fail to mention the fact that United have been consistently the best supported club in the U.K for decades, including when in the second division 1974-75. The Old Firm have suffered massive collapses in attendances when not winning trophies, unlike Manchester United. Some clubs will always be bigger than others, and United are amongst the biggest anywhere. There is a world of difference between a club spending money earned from their own success and revenue, as is the case with Manchester United, and the money of an incredibly wealthy outsider deciding to bankroll a club for whatever reason e.g. Chelsea and Man City. If we had such an owner we could dominate Scottish football regardless of revenue.

By the way, I hope United win the league again. Do it via your own stature, not with the financial doping of a Man City/Rangers

Ray_
04-03-2012, 11:44 PM
Very true.

United established their strong financial position in the mid-1950s thanks to Busby Babes. How did they establish that team? In the case of Duncan Edwards from Dudley, who had been associated with Woves as a boy, they signed him using the dodge of buying his parents a house.

They kept themselves there by paying big money to sign the likes of Maurice Setters, Albert Quixall, Denis Law, Pat Crerand, and Noel Cantwell. Quixall and Law were both signed for then record transfer fees. After the departure of Busby and relegation for United, the speding really started and has continued unabled since then.

This crap about United and Liverpool deserving to be able to outspend everyone else because of all those championships and cups is rubbish ad deep down everyoe knows this.

Substitute Rangers and Celtic for United and Liverpool and you could make exactly thesame case for Scotland.

There is a world of a difference with the likes of Man U spending money & Chelsea/Man City, Man U have been spending money they earned over the years, not cash provided by a rich benefactor. Does anybody think it is wrong for cash being earn't by a club, to be spent on strengthening it, I don't, I thought that was one of the reasons supporters part with their cash.

Ray_
04-03-2012, 11:54 PM
Very true.

United established their strong financial position in the mid-1950s thanks to Busby Babes. How did they establish that team? In the case of Duncan Edwards from Dudley, who had been associated with Woves as a boy, they signed him using the dodge of buying his parents a house.

They kept themselves there by paying big money to sign the likes of Maurice Setters, Albert Quixall, Denis Law, Pat Crerand, and Noel Cantwell. Quixall and Law were both signed for then record transfer fees. After the departure of Busby and relegation for United, the speding really started and has continued unabled since then.

This crap about United and Liverpool deserving to be able to outspend everyone else because of all those championships and cups is rubbish ad deep down everyoe knows this.

Substitute Rangers and Celtic for United and Liverpool and you could make exactly thesame case for Scotland.

To me the massive difference between the clubs is that their popularity & wealth never came about through religious bigotry & therefore the non old firm clubs deserve their status.

Pete
05-03-2012, 02:09 AM
You fail to mention the fact that United have been consistently the best supported club in the U.K for decades, including when in the second division 1974-75. The Old Firm have suffered massive collapses in attendances when not winning trophies, unlike Manchester United. Some clubs will always be bigger than others, and United are amongst the biggest anywhere. There is a world of difference between a club spending money earned from their own success and revenue, as is the case with Manchester United, and the money of an incredibly wealthy outsider deciding to bankroll a club for whatever reason e.g. Chelsea and Man City. If we had such an owner we could dominate Scottish football regardless of revenue.

By the way, I hope United win the league again. Do it via your own stature, not with the financial doping of a Man City/Rangers

You cant put Man City in the same category as Rangers....because the money actually exists.

You're right to say that United have always had high attendances and that's because they've always had glory hunters attaching themselves to the club since the Busby babes. The money comes from a rich Arab or the money comes from people from Wolverhampton who should have been supporting Wolves in the sixties but let fairy tales about magic men in red seduce them. Whats the difference?

Next we'll be getting told that Manchester United are so organic they only eat food reared on their organic farms.

Pete
05-03-2012, 03:28 AM
I don't know where you got your info from? United were already a global name long before SAF came anywhere near the club. This was thanks mainly to Sir Matt Busby & his babes, further enhanced with the sympathy gained after the Munich disaster,.

Although City had a very successful spell during the late sixties and early seventies, they have never, in my lifetime, matched their city rivals status.

As for City equalling Best & Charlton, never, part of the United legend is the European Cup & the being the first English team to win that trophy cemented their status on the world stage & set the red part of Manchester apart from the rest of their contemporises, including Revie’s Leeds team, who were to become England’s top club side during the late sixties & early seventies.

You can’t discount the George Best factor either, Santos were also a global name & this was due to them having a player called Pele & MU with Best, had a similar impact on MU’s status.

Ironically, I lived in Manchester when United were relegated & this was also towards the end of City’s purple patch. MU came straight back up under “The Doc” and ever since, has always been considered one of England’s main contenders, which is a world away from City’s status, post Lee, Bell & Marsh. Another indicator, Pre-Fergie, living in London, from the mid seventies, no matter where it was, you would always have trouble getting a ticket for a game involving MU, this wasn’t the case with City.

It depends what you mean by info. Facts are that City had won eight major trophies and a European honour before Fergie arrived at United and United had won thirteen major trophies and a European cup. Looking at these facts, his statement about city being nothing before they had foreign owners come in is ridiculous. My statement about United being nothing was born out of anger at some people giving the impression that some teams don't deserve to even be in the same league as Manchester United. It's downright ignorant and disrespectful.

I agree that the Babes and Munich disaster had an effect on the level of support United got. I think a lot of people also attach themselves to Liverpool for similar reasons. I'm not sure what you mean by "global name" especially in a sixties and seventies context. You use words like "status" and "legend". I think a lot of what people liked about United back then wasn't really based on cold, hard facts but second hand stories and myths. You also say City never matched their "status" but how can you say this when City were league champions when United won the European cup?
Popular opinion is that a certain United team was great but I reckon it was helped by being fashionable...unlike the later city team. I've met city fans who swear on their mothers graves that the teams managed by Mercer and Allison were at worst equal and at best would wipe the floor with that famous United side. Maybe their opinion is bias but who's to say United fans aren't and commentators of the day weren't taken in by the georgeos Irishman, the flying Scot and the World cup heroes?

What was the real achievement in becoming the first English side to win the European cup? Was it any harder than Liverpool becoming the second or Forest becoming the third...or retaining it? Did they have to break down some massive barrier to achieve this? They took the cup off Celtic, another British team, by beating foreign opposition on their own soil surrounded by a 90% supportive stadium. British teams were getting to the finals and semis on a regular basis back then and so winning it in 1968 was more iconic than anything else. And before anyone belittles anyone winning the cup winners cup or Uefa cup back then they should be reminded of the tournaments formats which often meant that the best teams in Europe in a certain season were competing in any one of those tournaments making them near enough as hard to win as each other.

With respect, you can't say that United were considered "contenders" constantly after they got promoted. They were a ropey outfit when Liverpool were in charge for much of the seventies and most of the eighties. They won next to nothing and when they did win cup finals against the likes of Everton it was considered a massive shock.

Don't get me wrong there's a lot I admire about Manchester united, especially from the Ferguson era but I think there's a lot of misty eyed bull**** as well.

...and it's interesting that you couldn't get a ticket for a Man U game in London back then because Southerners who wanted a bit of "glory" were buying them. Money from these glory hunters who have nothing to do with Manchester is as deserving as money from an oligarch or a sheikh.

jgl07
05-03-2012, 04:22 AM
To me the massive difference between the clubs is that their popularity & wealth never came about through religious bigotry & therefore the non old firm clubs deserve their status.

Do you really think that the Old Firm gain their support and wealth (at one time!) purely through religious bigotry?

If so, please explain the support that Celtic have in the North East of Scotland where Catholics were traditionally thin on the ground.

It is the glory hunter element plus the media hype that is the main issue. That is something that United have had in spades ever since the Busby Babes and the Munich air crash. The tabloids have rammed Manchester United down the throats of public throughout England for the past fifty years much as the Scottish tabloids plug the Old Firm.

PS Manchester United were noted to be a 'Catholic' team in the 1950s.

Ray_
05-03-2012, 09:29 AM
Do you really think that the Old Firm gain their support and wealth (at one time!) purely through religious bigotry?

If so, please explain the support that Celtic have in the North East of Scotland where Catholics were traditionally thin on the ground.

It is the glory hunter element plus the media hype that is the main issue. That is something that United have had in spades ever since the Busby Babes and the Munich air crash. The tabloids have rammed Manchester United down the throats of public throughout England for the past fifty years much as the Scottish tabloids plug the Old Firm.

PS Manchester United were noted to be a 'Catholic' team in the 1950s.

Of course there is a glory hunter element, that is without question & another part of it is Glaswegians departing their native City and kids following in their parents steps, but please don't tell me that a significant part of it is not down to down right bigotry, whether started now or in previous generations.

As for Mau U & the Infirm being rammed down our throats, of course that'll be the case, they are by far the most popular clubs in their respective leagues.

Ray_
05-03-2012, 09:51 AM
It depends what you mean by info. Facts are that City had won eight major trophies and a European honour before Fergie arrived at United and United had won thirteen major trophies and a European cup. Looking at these facts, his statement about city being nothing before they had foreign owners come in is ridiculous. My statement about United being nothing was born out of anger at some people giving the impression that some teams don't deserve to even be in the same league as Manchester United. It's downright ignorant and disrespectful.

I agree that the Babes and Munich disaster had an effect on the level of support United got. I think a lot of people also attach themselves to Liverpool for similar reasons. I'm not sure what you mean by "global name" especially in a sixties and seventies context. You use words like "status" and "legend". I think a lot of what people liked about United back then wasn't really based on cold, hard facts but second hand stories and myths. You also say City never matched their "status" but how can you say this when City were league champions when United won the European cup?
Popular opinion is that a certain United team was great but I reckon it was helped by being fashionable...unlike the later city team. I've met city fans who swear on their mothers graves that the teams managed by Mercer and Allison were at worst equal and at best would wipe the floor with that famous United side. Maybe their opinion is bias but who's to say United fans aren't and commentators of the day weren't taken in by the georgeos Irishman, the flying Scot and the World cup heroes?

What was the real achievement in becoming the first English side to win the European cup? Was it any harder than Liverpool becoming the second or Forest becoming the third...or retaining it? Did they have to break down some massive barrier to achieve this? They took the cup off Celtic, another British team, by beating foreign opposition on their own soil surrounded by a 90% supportive stadium. British teams were getting to the finals and semis on a regular basis back then and so winning it in 1968 was more iconic than anything else. And before anyone belittles anyone winning the cup winners cup or Uefa cup back then they should be reminded of the tournaments formats which often meant that the best teams in Europe in a certain season were competing in any one of those tournaments making them near enough as hard to win as each other.

With respect, you can't say that United were considered "contenders" constantly after they got promoted. They were a ropey outfit when Liverpool were in charge for much of the seventies and most of the eighties. They won next to nothing and when they did win cup finals against the likes of Everton it was considered a massive shock.

Don't get me wrong there's a lot I admire about Manchester united, especially from the Ferguson era but I think there's a lot of misty eyed bull**** as well.

...and it's interesting that you couldn't get a ticket for a Man U game in London back then because Southerners who wanted a bit of "glory" were buying them. Money from these glory hunters who have nothing to do with Manchester is as deserving as money from an oligarch or a sheikh.

Which famous United side are you talking about Peter? If its the one that won the European Cup, that United side were ageing & soon after were in decline & they relied heavily on the more and more troubled George Best, while City were on the up, during what was the purple patch of Mercer & Allison.

After the Mercer & Allison era, the most notable thing City done was to reach an FA Cup final & at one stage spent heavily, during one period, on flops like Kevin Reeves & Steve Daley, although they did get Trevor Francis from Forest.

With regard to global names, they were what was known as biggest of the big clubs of the time, the usual suspects Real Madrid & Barcelona in Spain, Juve & Inter of Italy, Man U in England, Celtic in Scotland & Benfica of Portugal, not necessarily the best teams of the era.

The European Cup was always the number one competition, by far dwarfing the Inter Cities & Cup Winners Cup & when MU won it, like Celtic before them, nobody from those countries had come close. Almost a decade later, with English sides getting closer to repeating the feat [Derby Semi & Leeds final], Liverpool deserve all the credit they get for winning it in 77 & the start of the English dominance, meanwhile, during the periods before and after the 1968 win, English clubs regularly won the lesser two European trophies.

HH81
05-03-2012, 12:36 PM
Biggest hero at Old Trafford. More important to the club than Alex F....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Glazer

Legend. USA USA USA

Dirkster23
05-03-2012, 01:15 PM
Biggest hero at Old Trafford. More important to the club than Alex F....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Glazer

Legend. USA USA USA

You really do lead a sad existence :agree:

--------
05-03-2012, 02:09 PM
It depends what you mean by info. Facts are that City had won eight major trophies and a European honour before Fergie arrived at United and United had won thirteen major trophies and a European cup. Looking at these facts, his statement about city being nothing before they had foreign owners come in is ridiculous. My statement about United being nothing was born out of anger at some people giving the impression that some teams don't deserve to even be in the same league as Manchester United. It's downright ignorant and disrespectful.

I agree that the Babes and Munich disaster had an effect on the level of support United got. I think a lot of people also attach themselves to Liverpool for similar reasons. I'm not sure what you mean by "global name" especially in a sixties and seventies context. You use words like "status" and "legend". I think a lot of what people liked about United back then wasn't really based on cold, hard facts but second hand stories and myths. You also say City never matched their "status" but how can you say this when City were league champions when United won the European cup?

Popular opinion is that a certain United team was great but I reckon it was helped by being fashionable...unlike the later city team. I've met city fans who swear on their mothers graves that the teams managed by Mercer and Allison were at worst equal and at best would wipe the floor with that famous United side. Maybe their opinion is bias but who's to say United fans aren't and commentators of the day weren't taken in by the georgeos Irishman, the flying Scot and the World cup heroes?

What was the real achievement in becoming the first English side to win the European cup? Was it any harder than Liverpool becoming the second or Forest becoming the third...or retaining it? Did they have to break down some massive barrier to achieve this? They took the cup off Celtic, another British team, by beating foreign opposition on their own soil surrounded by a 90% supportive stadium. British teams were getting to the finals and semis on a regular basis back then and so winning it in 1968 was more iconic than anything else. And before anyone belittles anyone winning the cup winners cup or Uefa cup back then they should be reminded of the tournaments formats which often meant that the best teams in Europe in a certain season were competing in any one of those tournaments making them near enough as hard to win as each other.

With respect, you can't say that United were considered "contenders" constantly after they got promoted. They were a ropey outfit when Liverpool were in charge for much of the seventies and most of the eighties. They won next to nothing and when they did win cup finals against the likes of Everton it was considered a massive shock.

Don't get me wrong there's a lot I admire about Manchester united, especially from the Ferguson era but I think there's a lot of misty eyed bull**** as well.

...and it's interesting that you couldn't get a ticket for a Man U game in London back then because Southerners who wanted a bit of "glory" were buying them. Money from these glory hunters who have nothing to do with Manchester is as deserving as money from an oligarch or a sheikh.


:top marks

What you say here, Peter, is what I was trying to say and not succeeding. I cannot get my head around the idea that some teams are somehow more worthy of success than other clubs - or that some clubs aren't worthy enough to be allowed to take the steps necessary to become successful - like finding a wealthy backer, then spending money to bring in better players to improve the team.

I agree with you about the United team that won the European Cup in 1968 - they had a very steady keeper in Alex Stepney, they had george Best, Denis law, and Bobby Charlton who were top-class players all of them, though Best was beginning to self-destruct IIRC. Crerand was getting past his best, as was Foulkes. Man for man, Leeds United were the better team - though I have to say I'm delighted that THEY didn't ever win the European Cup. (They were, and remain, my English anti-team, if there can be such a thing.)

Manchester City have a history, and a proud one. It's actually very similar to the history of Hibernian - a team that every now and then hit the heights of the game, but also had long spells in the doldrums. Thye've won trophies, and played in Europe. They've produced great players, and once in a while a great team or two. They live in a city full of people only too ready to write them off as "The Wee Team", so although I share people's reservations about sudden massive foreign investment in British football teams, I have a lot of sympathy for the City fans who're sitting back enjoying life just now.

And I have absolutely NO sympathy for the Liverpool and United fans sniping at them, or for the idea that somehow they're unworthy to have the money or resources they have right now. How much did United pay for Rooney? Carrick? Berbatov? How much did Liverpool pay for Kenny Dalglish back in the day?

And when the Liverpool or Manchester United supporters rubbishing City are also Hibs fans ... That makes me wonder.

When I was at Hampden in 1972, when Celtic hammered us 6-1 in the SC, I was about to leave when a guy from our village grabbed me and told me to stay put. The team, he said, deserved to have some supporters in the stadium when they went up to receive their RUNNERS-UP medals - NOT their "losers" medals. that was what being a supporter's all about, he said. So I stayed, and cheered with the rest of thodse who stayed, with the Unwashed Ones laughing and jeering at us. I was back later on - and so was he - to see us lift the League Cup, beating the same Celtic a lot more comprehensively that the scoreline suggested. And when the Cup was presented to King Patrick, the Celtic end of Hampden was EMPTY. They'd all gone.

Which is why I nearly wet myself laughing at the Man Utd "supporters" who left the European Champions Final early when United were 1-0 down to Bayern Munich, and missed the two late goals that won United the Cup. Served THEM absolutely right. The ones who stayed to the bitter (sweet) end of the game, on the other hand, deserved all the joy the result brought them.

Which maybe accounts for the way I feel about some of the posts in this thread ...

Dashing Bob S
05-03-2012, 03:24 PM
:top marks

What you say here, Peter, is what I was trying to say and not succeeding. I cannot get my head around the idea that some teams are somehow more worthy of success than other clubs - or that some clubs aren't worthy enough to be allowed to take the steps necessary to become successful - like finding a wealthy backer, then spending money to bring in better players to improve the team.

I agree with you about the United team that won the European Cup in 1968 - they had a very steady keeper in Alex Stepney, they had george Best, Denis law, and Bobby Charlton who were top-class players all of them, though Best was beginning to self-destruct IIRC. Crerand was getting past his best, as was Foulkes. Man for man, Leeds United were the better team - though I have to say I'm delighted that THEY didn't ever win the European Cup. (They were, and remain, my English anti-team, if there can be such a thing.)

Manchester City have a history, and a proud one. It's actually very similar to the history of Hibernian - a team that every now and then hit the heights of the game, but also had long spells in the doldrums. Thye've won trophies, and played in Europe. They've produced great players, and once in a while a great team or two. They live in a city full of people only too ready to write them off as "The Wee Team", so although I share people's reservations about sudden massive foreign investment in British football teams, I have a lot of sympathy for the City fans who're sitting back enjoying life just now.

And I have absolutely NO sympathy for the Liverpool and United fans sniping at them, or for the idea that somehow they're unworthy to have the money or resources they have right now. How much did United pay for Rooney? Carrick? Berbatov? How much did Liverpool pay for Kenny Dalglish back in the day?

And when the Liverpool or Manchester United supporters rubbishing City are also Hibs fans ... That makes me wonder.

When I was at Hampden in 1972, when Celtic hammered us 6-1 in the SC, I was about to leave when a guy from our village grabbed me and told me to stay put. The team, he said, deserved to have some supporters in the stadium when they went up to receive their RUNNERS-UP medals - NOT their "losers" medals. that was what being a supporter's all about, he said. So I stayed, and cheered with the rest of thodse who stayed, with the Unwashed Ones laughing and jeering at us. I was back later on - and so was he - to see us lift the League Cup, beating the same Celtic a lot more comprehensively that the scoreline suggested. And when the Cup was presented to King Patrick, the Celtic end of Hampden was EMPTY. They'd all gone.

Which is why I nearly wet myself laughing at the Man Utd "supporters" who left the European Champions Final early when United were 1-0 down to Bayern Munich, and missed the two late goals that won United the Cup. Served THEM absolutely right. The ones who stayed to the bitter (sweet) end of the game, on the other hand, deserved all the joy the result brought them.

Which maybe accounts for the way I feel about some of the posts in this thread ...


I'm agreeing with you guys in principle, but your argument falls down with the current Rangers difficulties. Surely nobody is saying that this great club deserves to be in administration?

Scouse Hibee
05-03-2012, 04:38 PM
He's a horrible little git.

Don't see why he doesn't spend a lot of time in hospital the way he goes down in agony waving his arms up like he's broken something the ten seconds later he's up and running about :bitchy:

Horrible little man playing for what is now an embarrasment of a football club

Get real :faf:

Scouse Hibee
05-03-2012, 04:47 PM
There is a world of a difference with the likes of Man U spending money & Chelsea/Man City, Man U have been spending money they earned over the years, not cash provided by a rich benefactor. Does anybody think it is wrong for cash being earn't by a club, to be spent on strengthening it, I don't, I thought that was one of the reasons supporters part with their cash.

Just about the only post that gets it right! :top marks

Ray_
05-03-2012, 09:08 PM
:top marks

What you say here, Peter, is what I was trying to say and not succeeding. I cannot get my head around the idea that some teams are somehow more worthy of success than other clubs - or that some clubs aren't worthy enough to be allowed to take the steps necessary to become successful - like finding a wealthy backer, then spending money to bring in better players to improve the team.

I agree with you about the United team that won the European Cup in 1968 - they had a very steady keeper in Alex Stepney, they had george Best, Denis law, and Bobby Charlton who were top-class players all of them, though Best was beginning to self-destruct IIRC. Crerand was getting past his best, as was Foulkes. Man for man, Leeds United were the better team - though I have to say I'm delighted that THEY didn't ever win the European Cup. (They were, and remain, my English anti-team, if there can be such a thing.)

Manchester City have a history, and a proud one. It's actually very similar to the history of Hibernian - a team that every now and then hit the heights of the game, but also had long spells in the doldrums. Thye've won trophies, and played in Europe. They've produced great players, and once in a while a great team or two. They live in a city full of people only too ready to write them off as "The Wee Team", so although I share people's reservations about sudden massive foreign investment in British football teams, I have a lot of sympathy for the City fans who're sitting back enjoying life just now.

And I have absolutely NO sympathy for the Liverpool and United fans sniping at them, or for the idea that somehow they're unworthy to have the money or resources they have right now. How much did United pay for Rooney? Carrick? Berbatov? How much did Liverpool pay for Kenny Dalglish back in the day?

And when the Liverpool or Manchester United supporters rubbishing City are also Hibs fans ... That makes me wonder.

When I was at Hampden in 1972, when Celtic hammered us 6-1 in the SC, I was about to leave when a guy from our village grabbed me and told me to stay put. The team, he said, deserved to have some supporters in the stadium when they went up to receive their RUNNERS-UP medals - NOT their "losers" medals. that was what being a supporter's all about, he said. So I stayed, and cheered with the rest of thodse who stayed, with the Unwashed Ones laughing and jeering at us. I was back later on - and so was he - to see us lift the League Cup, beating the same Celtic a lot more comprehensively that the scoreline suggested. And when the Cup was presented to King Patrick, the Celtic end of Hampden was EMPTY. They'd all gone.

Which is why I nearly wet myself laughing at the Man Utd "supporters" who left the European Champions Final early when United were 1-0 down to Bayern Munich, and missed the two late goals that won United the Cup. Served THEM absolutely right. The ones who stayed to the bitter (sweet) end of the game, on the other hand, deserved all the joy the result brought them.

Which maybe accounts for the way I feel about some of the posts in this thread ...

Doddie I hate to say it, Man City are nothing like Hibs, we were struggling to get 65k to buy Gordon Durie when they were buying the likes of Reeves, Daley & Trevor Francis for Millions. I admire teams like Liverpool & Man Utd simply because their success came about because they were brilliant at what they done. Both were run of the mill second division teams, both had dour fantastic Scottish managers that totally changed what they were all about & put down the foundations for continued success and that is still part of their culture today.

Neither of the clubs were rich, or had a benefactor that would spend untold millions to fast track the clubs to the top, the foundations went in, the fan base grew, success came and both club structures were built to remain at the top end of the English game & to ensure that they would never again become run of the mill second division sides, what is so wrong about that?