View Full Version : Your favourite English team
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 06:06 PM
Untrue. Chelsea pulled out of the own accord.
Chelsea were pressured by the FA not to get involved. The FA chief executive at the time said the English game should have no association with foreign teams. The following year United were threatened with league expulsion for entering. Busby refused to comply, saying it was the future of the game.
By the way, when we entered the first compeition in 1955 it was via invitation, not by qualifying as national champions on merit. The first season was more a test of the viability of the competition. It was a completely new concept.
Chelsea were pressured by the FA not to get involved.
Chelsea pulled out as they thought the extra competition would impinge on the domestic front. The Chelsea Chairman had gone all down the line, and had even represented Hibs at the initial meetings in Paris accepting HFC's invitation on our behalf (Harry Swan being on SFA duty attending the Scotland England fixture) but pulled out because of the above.
The FA chief executive at the time said the English game should have no association with foreign teams. The following year United were threatened with league expulsion for entering. Busby refused to comply, saying it was the future of the game.
So they were trailblazers from an English perspective, not actual trailblazers, how parochial of you.
By the way, when we entered the first compeition in 1955 it was via invitation, not by qualifying as national champions on merit.
:granny sucking eggs smley:
The first season was more a test of the viability of the competition. It was a completely new concept.
Now it's my turn, ahem......... "What are you talking about?"
That's bollocks, who was testing the viability?
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 06:48 PM
Chelsea pulled out as they thought the extra competition would impinge on the domestic front. The Chelsea Chairman had gone all down the line, and had even represented Hibs at the initial meetings in Paris accepting HFC's invitation on our behalf (Harry Swan being on SFA duty attending the Scotland England fixture) but pulled out because of the above.
So they were trailblazers from an English perspective, not actual trailblazers, how parochial of you.
:granny sucking eggs smley:
Now it's my turn, ahem......... "What are you talking about?"
That's bollocks, who was testing the viability?
1, Chelsea were pressured by the FA, just as United were the following year. Look it up, it was anything but a unilateral decision. When pressure didn't work with United, the threat of expulsion was invoked, but it still didn't work upon Busby and the FA backed down.
2, United, as the first British club to enter by qualifying on merit as national champions and then making a huge impact on the new tournament, it certainly was new ground for British football, which is hardly parochial. The Busby Baebs were the most famous team in British football at the time, not merely English football. A team winning the league with kids was unheard of. Their european run of 1957 and 1958 caught the public imagination in a big way, and so for some to say a club like Manchester United is merely a product of Sky TV is totally erroneous.
3, As the first competition was open to clubs via invitation, by definition the new competition needed testing. The newly formed UEFA didn't know whether it could work in the era when jet flight was in its infancy. Many wrote it off as pie in the sky.
Of course Hibs were the first British side in Europe, and that's something we should always be proud of, but the first British club to be big across the entire continent was Manchester United and they have remained thus for over fifty years. Their huge appeal isn't a recent phenomonen.
Squealing pig
07-06-2012, 07:04 PM
Maybe they're all proper Bury fans and are out on the 24/7 task of shaking buckets to afford to mow the pitch :wink:
hey i said bury page 2. my fav english team😌
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 07:19 PM
I have a pal who is an ST holder at Bury. Wee club with a great history long ago.
SloopJB
07-06-2012, 07:22 PM
McLaren.
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 07:54 PM
What's Irish about Manchester United??? Know hundreds of United fans living down here who support them for various reasons, originally from Manchester, family from Manchester, dad made me, but mainly just glory hunting sheep without any real explanation! But I have never heard any make any Irish links?
Manchester's Irish population which is very large, is overwhelmingly United supporting. Go in any Irish pub in Manchester.
The Salford docks, just next door to Old Trafford, was a huge place of employment for Irish immigrants and made United very popular back in Ireland.
More Irish football fans today visit Old Trafford than anywhere else, including Celtic Park
When Newton Heath became Manchester United in 1902, the name Manchester Celtic was only changed at the last moment due to fear it would aleniate some
Look at the number of Irish flags at OLd Trafford in comparison to England/ Union flags.
1, Chelsea were pressured by the FA, just as United were the following year. Look it up, it was anything but a unilateral decision. When pressure didn't work with United, the threat of expulsion was invoked, but it still didn't work upon Busby and the FA backed down.
Look it up where? Primary sources please.
2, United, as the first British club to enter by qualifying on merit as national champions and then making a huge impact on the new tournament, it certainly was new ground for British football, which is hardly parochial. The Busby Baebs were the most famous team in British football at the time, not merely English football.
No you are being parochial and Man Utd weren't striking out new ground for British football - Hibs had already done that. Hibs had played in the Octagonal Rivadavia Correa Meyer in Rio as had Arsenal, Man U didn't take part in that until Fergie came along. If they were so huge seems like an awful oversight to me.
The Busby Babes were a great team but I think you are doing Hibs down by claiming they were the most famous in Britain. Hibs were just as big, Busby even took the name "Babes: from "McCartney's Babes". Don't believe Man U revisionist historians. There's one Man U book out there which even claims Busby signed the Famous Five for Hibs - which is absolute rubbish as McCartney was manager and fully in charge and indeed signed Busby.
A team winning the league with kids was unheard of. Their european run of 1957 and 1958 caught the public imagination in a big way,
Evidence please. No crappy modern books if you don't mind.
and so for some to say a club like Manchester United is merely a product of Sky TV is totally erroneous.
You are getting me mixed up with "some".
3, As the first competition was open to clubs via invitation, by definition the new competition needed testing. The newly formed UEFA didn't know whether it could work in the era when jet flight was in its infancy. Many wrote it off as pie in the sky.
UEFA had nothing to do with the tourney - the French magazine L'Quipe organised it, FIFA took exception to this and took over the initial running before then handing it over to the European Federation.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/kennymcm/pic3a.jpg
Of course Hibs were the first British side in Europe, and that's something we should always be proud of, but the first British club to be big across the entire continent was Manchester United and they have remained thus for over fifty years. Their huge appeal isn't a recent phenomonen.
That's mostly revisionism in the light of the tragedy that befell that team. Why you keep banging on about their "their huge appeal" not being a recent phenomenon is beyond me, I know this, but one thing I will say is that their "mystique" stems from the dreadful accident in Munich and did not precede it. If I'm being polite I would say that English writers have built up that charisma post-Munich. Someone impolite would say they cashed in.
Tell me. If Man Utd were so huge why weren't they invited to the inaugural EC? Seriously?
BTW
From 1955, the same season Hibs played in the EC....
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/kennymcm/pic10a.jpg
Sorry abut the rubbishy scans. I copied them years ago on a crappy digital camera.
As far as I understand the term "trailblazers" it refers to those who strike out into new territory. Man U didn't do that in Europe, it was only a years later that they joined in.
jgl07
07-06-2012, 08:28 PM
Manchester's Irish population which is very large, is overwhelmingly United supporting. Go in any Irish pub in Manchester.
The Salford docks, just next door to Old Trafford, was a huge place of employment for Irish immigrants and made United very popular back in Ireland.
More Irish football fans today visit Old Trafford than anywhere else, including Celtic Park
When Newton Heath became Manchester United in 1902, the name Manchester Celtic was only changed at the last moment due to fear it would aleniate some
Look at the number of Irish flags at Old Trafford in comparison to England/ Union flags.
Quite a lot of Manchester Irish (as opposed to them from London or Dublin) support City. There are two rather prominent brothers called Noel and Liam for starters.
The pattern of support splits largely on a geographical basis: North West (United) to South East (City).
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 08:30 PM
Look it up where? Primary sources please.
No you are being parochial and Man Utd weren't striking out new ground for British football - Hibs had already done that. Hibs had played in the Octagonal Rivadavia Correa Meyer in Rio as had Arsenal, Man U didn't take part in that until Fergie came along. If they were so huge seems like an awful oversight to me.
The Busby Babes were a great team but I think you are doing Hibs down by claiming they were the most famous in Britain. Hibs were just as big, Busby even took the name "Babes: from "McCartney's Babes". Don't believe Man U revisionist historians. There's one Man U book out there which even claims Busby signed the Famous Five for Hibs - which is absolute rubbish as McCartney was manager and fully in charge and indeed signed Busby.
Evidence please. No crappy modern books if you don't mind.
You are getting me mixed up with "some".
UEFA had nothing to do with the tourney - the French magazine L'Quipe organised it, FIFA took exception to this and took over the initial running before then handing it over to the European Federation.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/kennymcm/pic3a.jpg
That's mostly revisionism in the light of the tragedy that befell that team. Why you keep banging on about their "their huge appeal" not being a recent phenomenon is beyond me, I know this, but one thing I will say is that their "mystique" stems from the dreadful accident in Munich and did not precede it. If I'm being polite I would say that English writers have built up that charisma post-Munich. Someone impolite would say they cashed in.
Tell me. If Man Utd were so huge why weren't they invited to the inaugural EC? Seriously?
BTW
From 1955, the same season Hibs played in the EC....
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/kennymcm/pic10a.jpg
Sorry abut the rubbishy scans. I copied them years ago on a crappy digital camera.
As far as I understand the term "trailblazers" it refers to those who strike out into new territory. Man U didn't do that in Europe, it was only a years later that they joined in.
'Man U revisionist historians'. This nonsense phrase alone shows the direction from which you are travelling. We participated in the Europrean Cup in 1955 because we were asked, not because we had qualified. The word was spread about the quality of English and British football by Manchester United in 1957 and 1958. 'Cashed in'? Totally insulting. The way that great team would have really cashed in was by winning the European Cup long before 1968 when Busby had re-built the team. Sir Matt always said his pre-Munich side was far superior to the team that eventually won it in 1968. It could have happened a decade before, but the team needed to start from scratch, and how big would United be now had Edwards, Colman, Pegg, Taylor, Jones, Byrne etc had lived and dominated at home and abroad? Those young kids were 100% per cent good enough, having already reached two European Cups Semi-finals. Your prejudices are blinding rational analysis.
Hibs were never as big as Manchester United, grow up. Our local support was never comparable, or it would have survived. Eninburgh just isn't the football hotbed Manchester is.
And as for your thoughts on the germination of the competition, in 1956 Real Madrid were delared the winners of the UEFA Champions Club Winners Cup. WE didn't enter as champions, and to try to compare our club with the likes of Manchester United is plain foolish. We can't compare ourselves to the Old Firm, let alone Man United. 'Doing Hibs down'? Not at all.
Was a Tottenham fan when I was a boy. I liked the name and had the replica kit. Most other kids were into Liverpool but then, most of them were Rangers fans as well so with me being a Hibee, I wasn't one for running with the crowd.
I live near Tottenham these days and my wee boy has decided he supports them. If Rangers are in the SPL next season, I suspect I will divert my energies more to Tottenham than Scottish football from then on as it will be a pointless rigged league..
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 08:38 PM
Quite a lot of Manchester Irish (as opposed to them from London or Dublin) support City. There are two rather prominent brothers called Noel and Liam for starters.
The pattern of support splits largely on a geographical basis: North West (United) to South East (City).
United are miles bigger in Ireland than City, mate. In Manchester, City are the loyalist club, United the nationalist/left wing club. Of course there are exceptions, but the majority of the Manchester Irish are United fans. I've been to a derby (2007) at Eastlands where the City fans have sang about Bobby Sands and Fenian ****.
E10 Rifle
07-06-2012, 08:42 PM
Leyton Orient...was a season ticket holder for several seasons. Wonderful club and great, diverse support.
'Man U revisionist historians'. This nonsense phrase alone shows the direction from which you are travelling. We participated in the Europrean Cup in 1955 because we were asked, not because we had qualified. The word was spread about the quality of English and British football by Manchester United in 1957 and 1958. 'Cashed in'? Totally insulting. The way that great team would have really cashed in was by winning the European Cup long before 1968 when Busby had re-built the team. Sir Matt always said his pre-Munich side was far superior to the team that eventually won it in 1968. It could have happened a decade before, but the team needed to start from scratch, and how big would United be now had Edwards, Colman, Pegg, Taylor, Jones, Byrne etc had lived and dominated at home and abroad? Those young kids were 100% per cent good enough, having already reached two European Cups Semi-finals. Your prejudices are blinding rational analysis.
Hibs were never as big as Manchester United, grow up. Our local support was never comparable, or it would have survived. Eninburgh just isn't the football hotbed Manchester is.
And as for your thoughts on the germination of the competition, in 1956 Real Madrid were delared the winners of the UEFA Champions Club Winners Cup. WE didn't enter as champions, and to try to compare our club with the likes of Manchester United is plain foolish. We can't compare ourselves to the Old Firm, let alone Man United. 'Doing Hibs down'? Not at all.
All opinion.
Opinion from a 21st century viewpoint.
When you have some answers to the questions I raised I'll listen to your opinion then.
LancashireHibby
07-06-2012, 09:45 PM
United are miles bigger in Ireland than City, mate. In Manchester, City are the loyalist club, United the nationalist/left wing club. Of course there are exceptions, but the majority of the Manchester Irish are United fans. I've been to a derby (2007) at Eastlands where the City fans have sang about Bobby Sands and Fenian ****.
I can tell you now that you are talking out of your backside. United are bigger in Ireland because the vast, vast, vast majority are gloryhunters. Don't give me this "Irish history" pish because it simply doesn't have any relevance whatsoever in the modern day.
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 10:22 PM
I can tell you now that you are talking out of your backside. United are bigger in Ireland because the vast, vast, vast majority are gloryhunters. Don't give me this "Irish history" pish because it simply doesn't have any relevance whatsoever in the modern day.
I can tell you now that I've been there and experienced it. Have you? You have no right to judge the 'vast, vast majority' who you have have never spoken to. How many times have you been to Manchester and spoken to those who attend matches? Have you listened and learned? Write them off without having engaged!
I can tell you now that I've been there and experienced it. Have you? You have no right to judge the 'vast, vast majority' who you have have never spoken to. How many times have you been to Manchester and spoken to those who attend matches? Have you listened and learned? Write them off without having engaged!
Glory hunters aren't exactly going to admit to it, quite the opposite.
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 10:31 PM
All opinion.
Opinion from a 21st century viewpoint.
When you have some answers to the questions I raised I'll listen to your opinion then.
Ditto. You are talking utter nonsense. Trying to compare Hibs with Man United in europe is just a non-starter. I answered every point you put forward, and you're on a hiding to nothing, even on a Hibs forum. It has nothing nothing to do with a twenty-first viewpoint, as has ben demonstrated on this thread since 1956! We couldn't have played in europe but for invitation, whereas two semi-finals via a young United team set new standards. Answer that fundamental question.
HUTCHYHIBBY
07-06-2012, 10:31 PM
United are miles bigger in Ireland than City, mate. In Manchester, City are the loyalist club, United the nationalist/left wing club. Of course there are exceptions, but the majority of the Manchester Irish are United fans. I've been to a derby (2007) at Eastlands where the City fans have sang about Bobby Sands and Fenian ****.
Does this have any significance as to why Man U are your favourite English team? You seem to take any opportunity you can find these days to get a mention of either side of "the divide" into a thread. The fact you've managed to introduce it into a thread about peoples favourite English teams is just a nonsense.
I answered every point you put forward
No you didn't. You've yet to answer any of them and you have yet to show any evidence for your "opinion". You also got a bit hotheaded at the suggestion that some people hold the opinion that Man U have cashed in on a tragic part of their history when it's plain that some people do think that way but tried to lay it off onto me.
I think your penchant for the word "romance" (post 268) reveals your attitude to history and to the history of Man U in particular.
There is no room for romance in studying history, only evidence and the extrapolation of argument/opinion from that evidence.
Enjoy your romance/gloryhunting (what ever it is) - but include me out.
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 10:55 PM
Does this have any significance as to why Man U are your favourite English team? You seem to take any opportunity you can find these days to get a mention of either side of "the divide" into a thread. The fact you've managed to introduce it into a thread about peoples favourite English teams is just a nonsense.
Nonsense, mate. Which days? Those on this forum who are totally anti-Manchester United bring far more unsubstantiated nonsense to the table than those who are pro-United, as has been proven. The vast majority of the United support I have met are inclusive and tolerant people, much like the vast majority of the Hibs fans, and they don't warrant the prejudice some exemplify towards them. I have honestly found that envy creates a lot of the hatred towards them, and that's something I just don't understand. If anybody wants to form an opinion, at least get to know them first. Progressive, inclusive clubs, tolerant of diversity are few and far between. I believe Hibs are one such club and Manchester United another. Those who have no time for political/religious bias but who accept all without judgement. A progressive culture.
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 10:58 PM
No you didn't. You've yet to answer any of them and you have yet to show any evidence for your "opinion". You also got a bit hotheaded at the suggestion that some people hold the opinion that Man U have cashed in on a tragic part of their history when it's plain that some people do think that way but tried to lay it off onto me.
I think your penchant for the word "romance" (post 268) reveals your attitude to history and to the history of Man U in particular.
There is no room for romance in studying history, only evidence and the extrapolation of argument/opinion from that evidence.
Enjoy your romance/gloryhunting (what ever it is) - but include me out.
Show ONE example of where the club has used death to 'cash in'. Just one. It's an outrageous and unsubstantiated accusation.
No better than saying Rangers cashed in on the Ibrox disaster or that Liverpool cashed in on Hillsborough. Seemingly Man United are fair game.
Show ONE example of where the club has used death to 'cash in'. Just one. It's an outrageous and unsubstantiated accusation.
Why would I do that? I don't hold the opinion that they have done or do so. What I said was some people hold that opinion.
If you want to discuss history learning to read is a boon.
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 11:07 PM
Why would I do that? I don't hold the opinion that they have done or do so. What I said was some people hold that opinion.
If you want to discuss history learning to read is a boon.
You brought that argument into the discussion. On what basis do these people (not you of course) say United cashed in on Munich?
Oh, and I can read very well, thanks for being patronising. Montaigne is my latest thing.
Nonsense, mate. Which days? Those on this forum who are totally anti-Manchester United bring far more unsubstantiated nonsense to the table than those who are pro-United, as has been proven. The vast majority of the United support I have met are inclusive and tolerant people, much like the vast majority of the Hibs fans, and they don't warrant the prejudice some exemplify towards them. I have honestly found that envy creates a lot of the hatred towards them, and that's something I just don't understand. If anybody wants to form an opinion, at least get to know them first. Progressive, inclusive clubs, tolerant of diversity are few and far between. I believe Hibs are one such club and Manchester United another. Those who have no time for political/religious bias but who accept all without judgement. A progressive culture.
....and like us they're a right shower of *******s when they lose.
You brought that argument into the discussion. On what basis do these people (not you of course) say United cashed in on Munich?
To tell the truth I'm bored with this - as you're fond of saying "look it up" or as I would say "you should get out more often".
Some people who attach themselves to Man U* are the most opinionated, plastic, self-rightious pompous, fools who can't see the woods for the trees (not you of course).
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 11:18 PM
To tell the truth I'm bored with this - as you're fond of saying "look it up" or as I would say "you should get out more often".
Some people who attach themselves to Man U* are the most opinionated, plastic, self-rightious pompous, fools who can't see the woods for the trees (not you of course).
Exactly. Your pre-conceived ideas without any real life experience are extremely plastic in themsleves. If you got out more you would recognise this. The world exists beyond the caricatures of those you have never met.
I have no idea what Hibernia&Alba is yarping on about, I'll just put it down to trying to justify his glory hunting status.
I bet he was on that Scotland based Man u glory hunting coach that pulled into the services when i was returning from Hibs v Killie league game.
That day cost the glory hunters the title how i laughed at the odd balls. :thumbsup:
Exactly. Your pre-conceived ideas without any real life experience are extremely plastic in themsleves. If you got out more you would recognise this. The world exists beyond the caricatures of those you have never met.
Aye. Barry. Whatever.
Hibernia&Alba
07-06-2012, 11:44 PM
I have no idea what Hibernia&Alba is yarping on about, I'll just put it down to trying to justify his glory hunting status.
I bet he was on that Scotland based Man u glory hunting coach that pulled into the services when i was returning from Hibs v Killie league game.
That day cost the glory hunters the title how i laughed at the odd balls. :thumbsup:
I've never hunted glory in my life. My dad's family are Mancunians going back as long as he knows, and all are Man United fans. Great people whose company it has been a privilege to know and whose experiences defy evey gloryhunting accusation. Their background makes me proud to be a descendent of theirs and I'm happy to call many real Mancunians my friends. The real word extends far beyond the steroetypes of outsiders who project their own views upon those they have never met.
There's a world of difference between spending ones own money (even when hamstrung by debt created from an American takeover) and spending a billion pounds in a very short period. Manchester United have been one of the most famous clubs in the world since the start of the European Cup in the mid-fifties when the Busby Babes blazed a trail for the rest. United had the biggest average attendance in Britain when in the second division 1974-75, circa 53,000, which was hardly gloryhunting. It's growth has been generational and sustained, as well as self-financing. I don't begrudge Man City their rapid rise under Mansoor, but the two models are a world apart.
I don't grudge Manchester United their status of being up there in England. They have always had a large following and if you were basing how a team should be doing on historical attendances then they should never have been outside the top three in the last fifty years.
Manchester United were always well known and did have a certain "aura" about them (The babes, Munich etc...) and this brought extra people along in the seventies and eighties. They had this "aura" yet they won nothing. No doubt there were still lots of "gloryhunters" hoping for the good times to come back but this is when Liverpool picked up a lot of their admirers.
I think one of Uniteds periods of domination came at exactly the right time...in the nineties when the premiership really started and brought all these teams into living rooms across the world. United were always there or there abouts and people across the world remembered them being a name from the past that used to win things...therefore this new audience latched onto a club associated with glory.
Credit has to go to United for persevering with Fergie and that young team but a lot of players were purchased off rivals for serious money...money that the exposure around the world and extra shirt sales allowed them to have...even back then.
You might say that's fair enough and every team had that opportunity with all that coverage and people simply picked United to latch on to but ask yourself why they did. The answer is because they were the best team at the time and people wanted a piece of them...a piece of glory!
Lots of Irish people support United but how much difference do they make actually going through the turnstiles? not a lot. The Irish fans buying shirts and subscribing to their TV stations on the other hand...
People in Ireland support Celtic, United and Liverpool because they win things and they have an Irish connection. If it was simply about heritage there would be people beating down our door to get in.
People in Malaysia support Liverpool and Manchester United because they are associated with glory and have a realistic chance of winning things every year.
These people who have nothing to do with Manchester have made Uniteds status rise far greater than if it were a simple case of this being one of uniteds times in a "cycle". Before the premiership teams had their times and teams had latchers on but other teams were never far behind. Uniteds rise has been totally out of proportion and all these global gloryhunters have skewed things. If it was a purely organic process then this cycle would continue but the fact that United have remained at the top just goes to show how much things have changed.
Credit has to go to United for what they did from 1986 onwards and the youth system they adopted but you can't deny the impact gloryhunters have made on the club. If Everton had dominated from 1992 to 1995 we might be looking at a different scenario!
Self-generated? Yes.
Lucky with timing?, Definatley.
However, the main factor has to be an enormous amount of soccer fans who couldn't even tell you where Manchester is on a map. It's sad that it's come to this but Uniteds rise hasn't been as slow and steady as some think and when you think about it for any United fan to moan about foreign money buying the league is absurd.
Hibernia&Alba
08-06-2012, 01:57 AM
I don't grudge Manchester United their status of being up there in England. They have always had a large following and if you were basing how a team should be doing on historical attendances then they should never have been outside the top three in the last fifty years.
Manchester United were always well known and did have a certain "aura" about them (The babes, Munich etc...) and this brought extra people along in the seventies and eighties. They had this "aura" yet they won nothing. No doubt there were still lots of "gloryhunters" hoping for the good times to come back but this is when Liverpool picked up a lot of their admirers.
I think one of Uniteds periods of domination came at exactly the right time...in the nineties when the premiership really started and brought all these teams into living rooms across the world. United were always there or there abouts and people across the world remembered them being a name from the past that used to win things...therefore this new audience latched onto a club associated with glory.
Credit has to go to United for persevering with Fergie and that young team but a lot of players were purchased off rivals for serious money...money that the exposure around the world and extra shirt sales allowed them to have...even back then.
You might say that's fair enough and every team had that opportunity with all that coverage and people simply picked United to latch on to but ask yourself why they did. The answer is because they were the best team at the time and people wanted a piece of them...a piece of glory!
Lots of Irish people support United but how much difference do they make actually going through the turnstiles? not a lot. The Irish fans buying shirts and subscribing to their TV stations on the other hand...
People in Ireland support Celtic, United and Liverpool because they win things and they have an Irish connection. If it was simply about heritage there would be people beating down our door to get in.
People in Malaysia support Liverpool and Manchester United because they are associated with glory and have a realistic chance of winning things every year.
These people who have nothing to do with Manchester have made Uniteds status rise far greater than if it were a simple case of this being one of uniteds times in a "cycle". Before the premiership teams had their times and teams had latchers on but other teams were never far behind. Uniteds rise has been totally out of proportion and all these global gloryhunters have skewed things. If it was a purely organic process then this cycle would continue but the fact that United have remained at the top just goes to show how much things have changed.
Credit has to go to United for what they did from 1986 onwards and the youth system they adopted but you can't deny the impact gloryhunters have made on the club. If Everton had dominated from 1992 to 1995 we might be looking at a different scenario!
Self-generated? Yes.
Lucky with timing?, Definatley.
However, the main factor has to be an enormous amount of soccer fans who couldn't even tell you where Manchester is on a map. It's sad that it's come to this but Uniteds rise hasn't been as slow and steady as some think and when you think about it for any United fan to moan about foreign money buying the league is absurd.
A very good post, mate, though it doesn't explain why United were the best supported British club by attendance from 1967-93 when they didn't win the league. Is that really an example of gloryhunting? Surely gloryhunters woud have walked away long before a quarter-century. 26 years when there was a chance to jump ship?
Alex Ferguson was the key to bringing back the glory to Britain's biggest club. He knew the potential and his intelligence saw it from day one. It was the perfect match of man and club. United can outweighh every British club several times over and it's no accident. It's based upon long term achievement and a certainty that such a club couldn't be held down forever. Liverpool have now gone 22 years without a league title, yet they reamin United's only long term threat, and that's because they are a great club.
A very good post, mate, though it doesn't explain why United were the best supported British club by attendance from 1967-93 when they didn't win the league. Is that really an example of gloryhunting? Surely gloryhunters woud have walked away long before a quarter-century. 26 years when there was a chance to jump ship?
I think it must be down to that area being a real hotbed of football. I don't know the population of greater Manchester but I do know there are a lot of football clubs there and there is plenty choice. I actually think it was partly down to "gloryhunters"...and it's interesting that you use 1967 as a starting point. Not the modern type of gloryhunter but a more loyal type of fan, but they were still outsiders looking to past glory and hoping for a repeat.
Alex Ferguson was the key to bringing back the glory to Britain's biggest club. He knew the potential and his intelligence saw it from day one. It was the perfect match of man and club. United can outweigh every British club several times over and it's no accident. It's based upon long term achievement and a certainty that such a club couldn't be held down forever. Liverpool have now gone 22 years without a league title, yet they reamin United's only long term threat, and that's because they are a great club.
Agree about Fergie and the credit for the greatest chapter in Uniteds history (the last 22 years!) should be given to those who persevered with him in those barren years. I'll have to strongly disagree with the sentence in bold though. United are the biggest club in Britain but to suggest you can "outweigh" Liverpool on any global stage is wrong. But you're right that it's also no accident...it's down to Sky launching when it did. That's why United and Liverpool have such a global following. Your success and tragedy are appealing and attract interest. In the mid-nineties Liverpool had history and two tragic events fresh in the memory...while United were winning all the time and had the history of the babes.
If gravitas was determined by "long-term" success then surely Arsenal would be top of the pile given the distribution of their 13 odd titles?
I appreciate you support United and I'll concede that you have pretty good reasons...but you have to admit that you have been helped enormously by this football capitalism that has emerged in the last 20 years. This has evolved into teams being given short, sharp shocks to enable them to compete and you have to accept this. It's just the same system but more advanced.
Chelsea now have "history" and a reference point that gloryhunters in the future can use and City are up for it too. It might not sit well with yourself but for the neutral its great that there are other teams competing. Don't try and tell me last season wasn't exciting!
Hibernia&Alba
08-06-2012, 03:20 AM
I think it must be down to that area being a real hotbed of football. I don't know the population of greater Manchester but I do know there are a lot of football clubs there and there is plenty choice. I actually think it was partly down to "gloryhunters"...and it's interesting that you use 1967 as a starting point. Not the modern type of gloryhunter but a more loyal type of fan, but they were still outsiders looking to past glory and hoping for a repeat.
Agree about Fergie and the credit for the greatest chapter in Uniteds history (the last 22 years!) should be given to those who persevered with him in those barren years. I'll have to strongly disagree with the sentence in bold though. United are the biggest club in Britain but to suggest you can "outweigh" Liverpool on any global stage is wrong. But you're right that it's also no accident...it's down to Sky launching when it did. That's why United and Liverpool have such a global following. Your success and tragedy are appealing and attract interest. In the mid-nineties Liverpool had history and two tragic events fresh in the memory...while United were winning all the time and had the history of the babes.
If gravitas was determined by "long-term" success then surely Arsenal would be top of the pile given the distribution of their 13 odd titles?
I appreciate you support United and I'll concede that you have pretty good reasons...but you have to admit that you have been helped enormously by this football capitalism that has emerged in the last 20 years. This has evolved into teams being given short, sharp shocks to enable them to compete and you have to accept this. It's just the same system but more advanced.
Chelsea now have "history" and a reference point that gloryhunters in the future can use and City are up for it too. It might not sit well with yourself but for the neutral its great that there are other teams competing. Don't try and tell me last season wasn't exciting!
Arsenal's achievements are of nowhere compared to Man United and Liverpool. How many European cups have they won? Chelsea won it very recently, London's only success, yet their long term success is nothing compared to United and Liverpool - British football's giants which were built upon great managers who created legacies from nothing. The likes of Busby, Ferguson, Shankly, Paisley were miles ahead of their competitors. Some clubs have a magic allure that others try to imitate. Even Celtic with the great Stein haven't carried that through. By the way, Jock was due to become Manchester United manager in 1969 after Busby, but he changed his mind at the last moment and he stayed with Celtic. United would have risen to the top with the right manager, regardless of Sky. Such was/is thier appeal in the wider world, just as Barca and Real Madrid would have despite Sky, massive TV rights and tax breaks. The biggest and best come through long term.
Arsenal's achievements are of nowhere compared to Man United and Liverpool. How many European cups have they won?
Arsenal won the same amount of trophies as Manchester United before the premiership started.
Chelsea won it very recently, London's only success, yet their long term success is nothing compared to United and Liverpool - British football's giants which were built upon great managers who created legacies from nothing. The likes of Busby, Ferguson, Shankly, Paisley were miles ahead of their competitors.
My point about Chelsea was that they now have a specific point of reference...and a strong one. However, they can also look back on Mourinho who will be considered one of the greatest managers of all time, the trophies they have won and the exciting finals they have lost. They were also winning cups before that in the late nineties.
Some clubs have a magic allure that others try to imitate. Even Celtic with the great Stein haven't carried that through. By the way, Jock was due to become Manchester United manager in 1969 after Busby, but he changed his mind at the last moment and he stayed with Celtic. United would have risen to the top with the right manager, regardless of Sky. Such was/is thier appeal in the wider world, just as Barca and Real Madrid would have despite Sky, massive TV rights and tax breaks. The biggest and best come through long term.
Red-tinted, doe-eyed claptrap. I'd expect nothing less from a real United fan so good on you mate! I'll respect your opinion from now own because you seem to care and have a reason for liking them:aok:
Hibernia&Alba
08-06-2012, 04:28 AM
Arsenal won the same amount of trophies as Manchester United before the premiership started.
My point about Chelsea was that they now have a specific point of reference...and a strong one. However, they can also look back on Mourinho who will be considered one of the greatest managers of all time, the trophies they have won and the exciting finals they have lost. They were also winning cups before that in the late nineties.
Red-tinted, doe-eyed claptrap. I'd expect nothing less from a real United fan so good on you mate! I'll respect your opinion from now own because you seem to care and have a reason for liking them:aok:
So what if Arsenal won the same amound of trophies as Man United before the premiership started. Their attendances were never as big, nor was their appeal. United have always been the biggest in England in terms of fans, even matchgoers, as was proven in 1974-75 in the second division. Chelsea were nowhere in the second division and before Abramovic arrived. United are miles ahead of every other British team on that basis, and for a reason. Arsenal have the second biggest attendance, a good 15,000 behind United. The beginning of the Premiership is no holy grail point of reference. United were Britain's club before and since 1992. Such clubs are miles ahead of the rest. Man United, Barca, Real Madrid are the biggest clubs in the world on any basis you wish draw. Such clubs are few and far between. If it wasn't for United the EPL wouldn't have the global audience it does. it's a special club that others aspire to be.
So what if Arsenal won the same amound of trophies as Man United before the premiership started. Their attendances were never as big, nor was their appeal. United have always been the biggest in England in terms of fans, even matchgoers, as was proven in 1974-75 in the second division. United are miles ahead of every other British team on that basis, and for a reason. Arsenal have the second biggest attendance, a good 15,000 behind United. The beginning of the Premiership is no holy grail point of reference. United were Britain's club before and since 1992. Such clubs are miles ahead of the rest. Man United, Barca, Real Madrid are the biggest clubs in the world on any basis you wish draw. Such clubs are few and far between. If it wasn't for United the EPL wouldn't have the global audience it does. it's a special club that others aspire to be.
You're obviously beyond reason tonight...just red claptrap.
Go to sleep and revel in your glory. :aok:
Hibernia&Alba
08-06-2012, 04:49 AM
You're obviously beyond reason tonight...just red claptrap.
Go to sleep and revel in your glory. :aok:
It isn't claptrap though. Britian's biggest club by a mile is Manchester United on any basis - attendance, global fanbase, income etc. Only Liverpool are British football's other global club, a long way behind.
It isn't claptrap though. Britian's biggest club by a mile is Manchester United on any basis - attendance, global fanbase, income etc. Only Liverpool are British football's other global club, a long way behind.
Thats. because. of. sky.
...and maybe you should look in the vast trophy cabinet and see that Liverpool are actually ahead in the European Cup department.
Tell you what mate, my first ever strip was a man city red and black away in a box when I was nine years old. Just a coincidence. I loved oasis in the nineties and therefore had a soft spot for city as the anti-united option.
I got my four year old a city strip a few weeks ago and he's been sent to his football with it. We've joked about him being a gloryhunter but he's got more reason to wear that strip than those who are wearing their liverpool, celtic, rangers and united strips.
Four and five year olds dont care about history...they want winning teams and there's a few chelsea tops as well. Money buys fans my friend...and you don't get a more cultured, non-footballing background than Oasis.:greengrin
Hibernia&Alba
08-06-2012, 05:21 AM
Thats. because. of. sky.
...and maybe you should look in the vast trophy cabinet and see that Liverpool are actually ahead in the European Cup department.
Tell you what mate, my first ever strip was a man city red and black away in a box when I was nine years old. Just a coincidence. I loved oasis in the nineties and therefore had a soft spot for city as the anti-united option.
I got my four year old a city strip a few weeks ago and he's been sent to his football with it. We've joked about him being a gloryhunter but he's got more reason to wear that strip than those who are wearing their liverpool, celtic, rangers and united strips.
Four and five year olds dont care about history...they want winning teams and there's a few chelsea tops as well. Money buys fans my friend...and you don't get a more cultured, non-footballing background than Oasis.:greengrin
Complete nonsense. Look at the attendances since 1945.
I have no problem with any City fans, but seeing it as an 'anti-United option' proves my point entirely. No other British club gains fans as some reaction to another's success, and Man City aren't anti-anything now. They are the ultimate money machine, buying short term success.
City are Oasis to United's Rolling stones
Complete nonsense. Look at the attendances since 1945.
I have no problem with any City fans, but seeing it as an 'anti-United option' proves my point entirely. No other British club gains fans as some reaction to another's success, and Man City aren't anti-anything now. They are the ultimate money machine, buying short term success.
City are Oasis to United's Rolling stones
..from London!
Summed up perfectly!
Hibernia&Alba
08-06-2012, 05:35 AM
..from London!
Summed up perfectly!
:greengrin
The originals who were much copied but never matched.
:greengrin
The originals who were much copied but never matched.
So near yet so far. If you'd have said the stone roses I would have been totally snookered bud!
...Music wise :-)
HUTCHYHIBBY
08-06-2012, 06:30 AM
Anybody else got a favourite English team?
Anybody else got a favourite English team?
I don't have a favourite English team, I quite like a few though. Man U are obvious because of all the Scots they've had. For some reason I like WBA and have a few Brummie pals who support them, good humoured support who like the ball on the deck but are long suffering like us but optomistic. When I was a nipper the old man worked in Liverpool and he got to know a few of their players through functions etc so I remember being introduced to Ian St John and Ron Yeats in a pub outside Lime St when I was around 8 or so, so I probably like LFC more than any other English team. Doesn't really bother me but I have to say I enjoy watching Chelsea get beat whenever they play.
:greengrin
The originals who were much copied but never matched.
Tell that to Muddy Waters or Howlin' Wolf. Although I suppose you'll argue that The Stones are a bigger world wide brand so I'm just being silly even though Keef would agree.
Bill Milne
08-06-2012, 08:18 AM
Why not vary the question? How many posters' "favourite" team changes with the degree of success they enjoy?
LancashireHibby
08-06-2012, 10:39 AM
I can tell you now that I've been there and experienced it. Have you? You have no right to judge the 'vast, vast majority' who you have have never spoken to. How many times have you been to Manchester and spoken to those who attend matches? Have you listened and learned? Write them off without having engaged!
Aye, because living 13 miles away from Manchester in what is a hotbed for both clubs means I don't know any fans at all of either club. :rolleyes:
LancsHibs
08-06-2012, 01:02 PM
Look at the number of Irish flags at OLd Trafford in comparison to England/ Union flags.
seen a few, but Irish flags are a common sight at most PL grounds, often seen at Liverpool, Everton, Sunderland, Stoke, Villa, Fulham, Spurs, Arsenal etc..., I would however say that IMO there are many more English/union flags displayed by their support then Irish ones, flags with the name of where the fans have come from emblazoned accross the middle of the St.George cross, for example 'Cockney Reds' or 'Surrey Reds' are a common sight:wink: I will make a point of counting them at Uniteds next away trip to Europe when it's on the telly:nerd:
I also don't dispute that lots of folk from Ireland support United (been to Dublin airport on a Saturday morning and caught a flight to Manchester, packed with united fans!) but I disagree that they support United for its 'Irishness' but for the same reason folks in Wales, Norway, Malta, United Arab Emerates, Malaysia, Singapore, China and Japan 'support' them.
Hibernia&Alba
08-06-2012, 07:08 PM
Apologies for my part in taking the thread off track somewhat. It should just be a straw poll about any leanings south of the border, not a debate about one club. I think it demonstrates that Man United can arouse strong feelings for and against, and not just in England. Those of us in the pro-camp tend to be fiercely loyal, those in the anti-camp are equally strident, and neither is going to change our mind.
Each tae their ain is the best policy. Agree to differ and all that.
thischarmingman
08-06-2012, 07:28 PM
west brom
Apologies for my part in taking the thread off track somewhat. It should just be a straw poll about any leanings south of the border, not a debate about one club. I think it demonstrates that Man United can arouse strong feelings for and against, and not just in England. Those of us in the pro-camp tend to be fiercely loyal, those in the anti-camp are equally strident, and neither is going to change our mind.
Each tae their ain is the best policy. Agree to differ and all that.
....and I'd like to point out that I'm not Anti-ManUtd. Polarizing a debate into fiercely pro and bitterly anti, all too prevalent in this day and age, leaves zero room for those who "dinny give a toss."
My feelings for Man U range from the above "dinny give a toss" to "oooh that was a pretty goal, I hope they beat City." All I took exception to was the warping of history so that it looks like they are the be all and end all, which they certainly are not and never have been.
Hibernia&Alba
08-06-2012, 09:18 PM
....and I'd like to point out that I'm not Anti-ManUtd. Polarizing a debate into fiercely pro and bitterly anti, all too prevalent in this day and age, leaves zero room for those who "dinny give a toss."
My feelings for Man U range from the above "dinny give a toss" to "oooh that was a pretty goal, I hope they beat City." All I took exception to was the warping of history so that it looks like they are the be all and end all, which they certainly are not and never have been.
I would never claim that any club is the be all and end all. There are great clubs across the world, and every club is great to its own supporters. I think some innacurate and unfair things are said about them and their fans e.g gloryhunters. Of course some are, all big clubs have them, but to portray them as the norm isn't fair, as the records show. That's my issue.
But anyway, all are entitled to their view and it isn't worth falling out over.
Scouse Hibee
08-06-2012, 10:56 PM
I would never claim that any club is the be all and end all. There are great clubs across the world, and every club is great to its own supporters. I think some innacurate and unfair things are said about them and their fans e.g gloryhunters. Of course some are, all big clubs have them, but to portray them as the norm isn't fair, as the records show. That's my issue.
But anyway, all are entitled to their view and it isn't worth falling out over.
Now that's finally been cleared up I hate the Mancs with a ****** passion. :greengrin
Tricla
10-06-2012, 10:14 AM
Hibs are the only team for me. Don't give a hoot about any other team in any other league.
GGTTH.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.