I bet Liverpool will not be in Top 4 ...

I have to say that with 11/12 games left I am sure that Liverpool will not make the Top 4 - nor do they deserve to. Chelsea, Utd and Arsenal are definites. After that its between Pool, Villa, City and Spurs. And there is nothing much between these sides but the way the Reds have been going this season they will drop more stupid points. If they don't get into the Champs League it could be serious serious sh1t!! Loook at their good friends Leeds!

Liverpool are crap. Fact.

A mate of mine's stepdad put £500 on a 250/1 bet that Liverpool would not win the league for the next ten years. That was in 1999. He's now rolling in it I presume.

Jayo Cluxton wrote:I have to say that with 11/12 games left I am sure that Liverpool will not make the Top 4 - nor do they deserve to. Chelsea, Utd and Arsenal are definites. After that its between Pool, Villa, City and Spurs. And there is nothing much between these sides but the way the Reds have been going this season they will drop more stupid points. If they don't get into the Champs League it could be serious serious sh1t!! Loook at their good friends Leeds!

I am sure that if do not they will bring the playoff situation to try and get them in. Remember they were allowed in as fifth place a couple of years ago.

I reckon Tottenham will finish 4th, having said that the 4 teams going for the 4th spot are quite poor and I wouldn't have high hopes for any of them in the champions league next year.

If any team can break the mould i would back Villa

mullins wrote:If any team can break the mould i would back Villa

That would be my read too mullins. Great manager, solid team with a good mix of youth and experience. The big thing about even getting to that stage is the moolah.

SamiPremier08 wrote:Liverpool are crap. Fact.

Sami has ended the debate here with the use of the word FACT! It must be true that liverpool are crap if Sami has used FACT to end his point!

Lock the thread so!

As long as City don't get fourth I don't. They represent all that's wrong with the Premier League. And It would be a shame to show Europe that people like Craig Bellamy are let near a soccer pitch.

Jonsmith wrote:They represent all that's wrong with the Premier League.

Hey JS - why do City represent all that is wrong with the Premier League? For spending billions that they have got as distinct from others who are spending billions they haven't got??? Please explain ... and tread warily ...

My problem with it is that this happened completely overnight Jayo.. They went from being a poor Mid-Table team to a challenging team within the space of one season. They seem to have attracted the mercenaries of the Premier League, players with no loyalty, Tevez, could have stayed with United but was holding out for a big money deal with City (despite the love in with United and badge kissing that was going on) Barry, Captain of Villa making a burst for the top 4 and he left for the money. Johnson, Left Boro, his hometown club that made him a player, struggling in the championship and needed him, left for the money. Robinho, an absolute waste of God given talent, didn't want to be there or even pretend to care about being there, the player Pele said would be his heir, managed one goal against Scunthorpe.
They got rid of Dunne, captain and Club Player of the year for the previous 2 years for Lescott!

Now I know money is important yes every player is a professional looking after his own pocket but City don't seem to have any youth academy players or long standing players at all.

Who cares, I forget the Cavan brigade because the have nothing worthwhile to discuss.

Whoa there JS!! Firstly the amount of youth players coming through in the Premier Top 4 teams is risible all round. Not since Giggs, Beckham, Scholes, the Nevilles etc, have Utd produced players of note from their academy - apart from the odd one-off. Chelsea did the exact same thing as City are doing when Abramovich arrived. United have been able to attract players from all over Britian, Europe and the World cos of their standing in the game ... and their money. A lot of players they enticed through very dubious methods and because of who they are - they crapped on many a 'lesser' club.

So its ok for Fergie and United to have engaged in this for years, waved the chequebook and brought who they liked to Old Trafford. But now that City have a few bob suddenly its not alright with United fans. Will ya stop. There is only one thing that matters in soccer - money. City have loads of it - United haven't. Better get used to it lad.

SamiPremier08 wrote:Liverpool are crap. Fact.

A mate of mine's stepdad put £500 on a 250/1 bet that Liverpool would not win the league for the next ten years. That was in 1999. He's now rolling in it I presume.

He is like ****.

No bookie would in their right mind lay that bet!

Loyal2TheRoyal wrote:

SamiPremier08 wrote:Liverpool are crap. Fact.

A mate of mine's stepdad put £500 on a 250/1 bet that Liverpool would not win the league for the next ten years. That was in 1999. He's now rolling in it I presume.

He is like ****.

No bookie would in their right mind lay that bet!

If they did, they likely have a limit on their payout anyway so they wouldn't be that much out!

where can i vote on this poll? i dont want them in it weither. LUHG

Well hold on now Jayo, Chelsea were in and around the top 4 for a good few years before Abramovich took over. City were fighting relegation before they were bought out.
And you mention those United players as if they came and went?! Scholes and Giggs and Beckham and Butt were and are the basis for United's success for a long time, they were the players who made United a big team with money to spend. They made some of the World's biggest players in Beckham and Ronaldo and Keane. Fergie didn't just take out the cheque book and buy a team of players in one season.

Chelsea were a Cup team until Abramovic took over in 2003. With his billions - and buying in 'mercenaries' they won the P'ship two years later. I am not saying that the Giggs, Butt etc team came and went - I am pointing out that Utd appear to look to the transfer market now rather than develop their own talent - no different than City now. For years United held a pre-eminent position because of their money and status. They just had to mention a players name and next thing he'd be gone to United. Many, many transfers were of a dubious nature - at least ethically (ethics in soccer ha! ha!).

Now they have no money and their neighbours have hit the jackpot, the fans are bleating and its a bit sickening to be honest - and downright hypocritical. Its not OK for City to buy who they like when United have for years? When the shoe was on the other foot United rode roughshod over everyone - now their fans don't like it.

And United made Keane? Dubious - maybe Clough did. And Beckham and Ronaldo - made them? - well they certainly sold them for large profits ...

Tevez is a 'mercenary' cos United won't (can't) pay him what he thinks he's worth? So Shearer was never a mercenary cos he never went to Old Trafford. Is Rio a mercenary? Carrick? Rooney?

Sorry JS - United fans - triumphalist and arrogant in victory - painful in retreat ...

Loyal2TheRoyal wrote:

SamiPremier08 wrote:Liverpool are crap. Fact.

A mate of mine's stepdad put £500 on a 250/1 bet that Liverpool would not win the league for the next ten years. That was in 1999. He's now rolling in it I presume.

He is like ****.

No bookie would in their right mind lay that bet!

just saying what I've been told

Jayo Cluxton wrote:Chelsea were a Cup team until Abramovic took over in 2003. With his billions - and buying in 'mercenaries' they won the P'ship two years later. I am not saying that the Giggs, Butt etc team came and went - I am pointing out that Utd appear to look to the transfer market now rather than develop their own talent - no different than City now. For years United held a pre-eminent position because of their money and status. They just had to mention a players name and next thing he'd be gone to United. Many, many transfers were of a dubious nature - at least ethically (ethics in soccer ha! ha!).

Now they have no money and their neighbours have hit the jackpot, the fans are bleating and its a bit sickening to be honest - and downright hypocritical. Its not OK for City to buy who they like when United have for years? When the shoe was on the other foot United rode roughshod over everyone - now their fans don't like it.

And United made Keane? Dubious - maybe Clough did. And Beckham and Ronaldo - made them? - well they certainly sold them for large profits ...

Tevez is a 'mercenary' cos United won't (can't) pay him what he thinks he's worth? So Shearer was never a mercenary cos he never went to Old Trafford. Is Rio a mercenary? Carrick? Rooney?

Sorry JS - United fans - triumphalist and arrogant in victory - painful in retreat ...

Chelsea were then what Everton are now: Knocking on the door. Chelsea finished 4th the year before Abramovich took over; City finished 10th and fought relegation for years before that until they were bought out.

City's rise up the pecking order is not comparable with United's! Nobody handed Fergie 300 million and told him to buy a team, he built a team from the ground up, they became successful and of course they attracted the best players, who wouldn't want to play with such a successful team?! Evans, the da Silva brothers, Macheda, Evans, all came from United's Academy.

How can you doubt whether United made Beckham or Ronaldo? Beckham played for United since he was 12 and is widely regarded as the best dead ball specialist in the world. Ronaldo was made great at United, remember when he first came? People wanted rid of him!

Tevez is a mercenary because he bladdered on about how much he loved the club and the fans. Fergie met with him after the Inter game and told him he would be offered a contract, Tevez said he had other options to consider i.e City had came calling with a big money contract. So despite all the badge kissing he left, leaving after him just 5 league goals, just over half of what the flop Berbatov scored that season.

Retreat? You must be on about a retreat in the bank books because the last time I checked they were second in the League and were coasting past AC in the Champions league.

If it's massive generalisations your into Jayo then how's this one: ABUs - Bitter when United are on top -Pathetic when they smell blood.

Jayo Cluxton wrote:Chelsea were a Cup team until Abramovic took over in 2003. With his billions - and buying in 'mercenaries' they won the P'ship two years later. I am not saying that the Giggs, Butt etc team came and went - I am pointing out that Utd appear to look to the transfer market now rather than develop their own talent - no different than City now. For years United held a pre-eminent position because of their money and status. They just had to mention a players name and next thing he'd be gone to United. Many, many transfers were of a dubious nature - at least ethically (ethics in soccer ha! ha!).

Now they have no money and their neighbours have hit the jackpot, the fans are bleating and its a bit sickening to be honest - and downright hypocritical. Its not OK for City to buy who they like when United have for years? When the shoe was on the other foot United rode roughshod over everyone - now their fans don't like it.

And United made Keane? Dubious - maybe Clough did. And Beckham and Ronaldo - made them? - well they certainly sold them for large profits ...

Tevez is a 'mercenary' cos United won't (can't) pay him what he thinks he's worth? So Shearer was never a mercenary cos he never went to Old Trafford. Is Rio a mercenary? Carrick? Rooney?

Sorry JS - United fans - triumphalist and arrogant in victory - painful in retreat ...

Agree with you totally Jayo (for once) - JS may I direct you to my own feature length Man United special https://globalgaa.forumotion.net/non-gaa-talk-f4/same-old-man-u-an-article-t586-13.htm

JS - I am a Leeds fan whose interest in soccer has seriously waned in recent years because of the greed, the sell out of fans and disgusting levels of pay etc, etc (not because Leeds are sh1te before you say it! ) I love to see good football played and don't give a damn whether its Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool or anyone else. I was a big fan of the Giggs-Scholes-Beckham-Keane team - they played great football. But I am born and reared in Dublin and therefore have only one love - and I can't understand why Irish people get het up about English football!

But back to the argument! Firstly what has the fact that City were in relegation trouble got to do with anything? It strikes me that you are saying teams that finish 15th or something have no right to buy top class players if they have the money! Maybe I am wrong.

Evans (only one) , the Da Silvas, Macheda - excellent products of the Man U youth academy and all Salford born I trust!! Sorry but the importation of 'youth' kind of completely defeats the purpose of a youth academy in my opinion.

And Fergie bought plenty of teams - plenty - when Utd had money. And they did attract players - which is what City are doing now. Incidentally the same moaning noises came from Old Trafford when Chelsea 'got money'. When Utd didn't get everyone they went to buy and were looking enviously at Stamford Bridge and saying it wasn't fair!

As for Tevez - the guy felt he was worth X amount. United were unwilling to pay that amount - City were - badge kissing doesn't come into it. If you went to your boss and asked for a raise cos you had performed well for the company (and were on less than other people in the company whe were not performing as well) and he said no and then another company came in and recognised your talent and offered you that increase - what would you do? And Berbatov - another unsavoury transfer - so Tevez is a bigger flop that Berba? Why are you so sour that he left then???

So now JS - I tried hard not to generalise here. Good luck to Man U in the second leg but as a seasoned observer of football there is absolutely no chance of this Utd team winning the Champs League or the P'ship.

Jayo,

I think you're missing the point on the money thing.

United's money doesn't come from some sugar daddy. United's money has always come through footballing sources, either through TV revenues, matchday revenue, prize money and merchandising. Thus in the eyes of the fans it is legitimate, money which has been earned by the club.
United earn this money primarily due to having a huge fan base, built up from the days of Matt Busby and through always endevouring to play exiting attacking football. Through the dark days of the 70s and 80s United always maintained a significant fan base, and always had a larger international fan base than other teams, going back to the days of the Busby Babes and George Best. United have been better than others at turning this fan base into revenue, and this is what historically allowed the club to spend big.
In the Premiership era no club adapted to the global market place better than United. Liverpool should have been in the prime position to match United in terms of revenues and global popularity, but poor management both on and off the pitch meant that they never took advantage of the opportunities of the 90s.

Chelsea and City have gotten their money because they happened to be for sale at the right time. They can't claim to "deserve" their money, as footballing reasons are incidental to how they obtained it.

Jayo Cluxton wrote:JS - I am a Leeds fan whose interest in soccer has seriously waned in recent years because of the greed, the sell out of fans and disgusting levels of pay etc, etc (not because Leeds are sh1te before you say it! ) I love to see good football played and don't give a damn whether its Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool or anyone else. I was a big fan of the Giggs-Scholes-Beckham-Keane team - they played great football. But I am born and reared in Dublin and therefore have only one love - and I can't understand why Irish people get het up about English football!

But back to the argument! Firstly what has the fact that City were in relegation trouble got to do with anything? It strikes me that you are saying teams that finish 15th or something have no right to buy top class players if they have the money! Maybe I am wrong.

Evans (only one) , the Da Silvas, Macheda - excellent products of the Man U youth academy and all Salford born I trust!! Sorry but the importation of 'youth' kind of completely defeats the purpose of a youth academy in my opinion.

And Fergie bought plenty of teams - plenty - when Utd had money. And they did attract players - which is what City are doing now. Incidentally the same moaning noises came from Old Trafford when Chelsea 'got money'. When Utd didn't get everyone they went to buy and were looking enviously at Stamford Bridge and saying it wasn't fair!

As for Tevez - the guy felt he was worth X amount. United were unwilling to pay that amount - City were - badge kissing doesn't come into it. If you went to your boss and asked for a raise cos you had performed well for the company (and were on less than other people in the company whe were not performing as well) and he said no and then another company came in and recognised your talent and offered you that increase - what would you do? And Berbatov - another unsavoury transfer - so Tevez is a bigger flop that Berba? Why are you so sour that he left then???

So now JS - I tried hard not to generalise here. Good luck to Man U in the second leg but as a seasoned observer of football there is absolutely no chance of this Utd team winning the Champs League or the P'ship.

Trust me Jayo I'm far from a die-hard fan. Give me Cavan seeing the second round of the championship over a Champions League cup any day of the week. But I do enjoy following soccer and I don't like ABUs who don't follow any one team but always cheer for United's opposition. (Plus who doesn't love a good argument.. )

Of course City have the right to buy players, but they just became rich overnight and bought a team of established players and are suddenly a force in football. No development, no buying promising talent and bringing them on, just instant success. Terrible for the game if you ask me..

As an International market I don't see the problem with getting young players from abroad. The youth academy is for the development of players from a young age in your own club as opposed to waiting on someone else to make a player out of them and buying them, what does it matter if their English or Brazilian? The da Silvas joined United at just 15 and Macheda at 16.

Fergie bought teams yes, he did not however suddenly have the backing of Billions and go and buy a team in one year. It was a gradual building of a team and the development of players.
If I was in a job and constantly professed my loyalty to the company and it's clients I would stick with them. Especially if I had a less than convincing record.. I'm not bitter that he left at all. I don't like the way he seemed so devoted to the club and then left when the big money came calling. Not a great indication of a person if you ask me.. He was a fine player but the way some fans went on about him you'd swear he was George Best.

Well the results remain to be seen.. But they're only 4 points off Chelsea with 11 games left.. It's not at all beyond the realms of possibility now in fairness.

JS - you hit the nail on the head when you said 'as an International market'. That is what football is - a business now far more than a sport. Is anybody trying to tell me that if the Sheikhs or Roman had called to Old Trafford with wads of cash they'd have been told - No, we only take money from merchandising and ticket sales'!! Get real lads. For such an astute business Utd have really cocked up here. We had the Fergie debacle with Magnier and the lads and then the Glazier takeover. Looking increasingly like a very bad decision by United. You have got to ask how did the biggest soccer brand name in the world get itself into this position.

And then people say that 'new money' coming into the game is a bad thing! Did you want something like Norway where Rosenborg got some funding and then TV money and were able to win the Norwegian Premiership 13 years in a row??? Whats the point in that?

B&W - as an accountant I am amazed at your take on this. Its a cold blooded multi million pound business - Chelsea and City have managed to attract investors with huge amounts of money - what do they not deserve????

I am by no means ABU - I like good football and you see that at Old Trafford more than most other grounds. What I don't like is this new found apathy towards City. It was fine when they were down a Division etc - but now its a different story. I think its great that football fans in Manchester now finally have a team to follow.

ps If Tevez is a turncoat then what is Ronaldo? Or put it this way - if Ronaldo went to City instead of Real what would you think?

pps surely youth academies are about nurturing local or at least English talent for the good of the future of the game?

I've been a football fan a lot longer than I've been an accountant!

At the core most football fans are still a 10-year old boy dreaming of playing for Manchester United, Liverpool or Real Madrid. Things might be different now, but when I was that age we all dreamed of playing for the glamorous teams, with history and tradition.

It's only been since the advent of the Premiership era that money has become the be-all end-all of football. The resentment towards City and Chelsea is largely due to a growing dissillusion with the way the game is going (much like you have said you feel yourself), where a rich man can come in and buy success. Until the 1990s success had to be earned, teams could only spend big if they had built up a significant fan base, and needed to establish themselves in order to attract the best players.
In those days the game didn't seem too far from the one we played ourselves, City and Chelsea are a reminder of just how different the game is nowadays.........