Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 2023-2024 Football Thread
- Thread starter Scepticalscribe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think the club would give a manager as long these days. Plus lets be honest when Utd were doing so well, rival clubs weren't state funded.
Probably not.
And that is the problem if the Glazers are eased out, or choose to depart of their own volition: They are likely to be replaced by a state-funded outfit.
Do you think we could be getting a bit blinded about state involvement in PL clubs? I did some checking on transfers starting from the year many consider City started it's dominance which was 2017/2018 season and using this website that tracks transfers over the years
I checked the transfers of City and the leagues other two commonly accepted big spenders Chelsea and United and guess what, the only year City came out on top on transfer spending was the year they started their dominance, 2017/2018. Every year since then Chelsea or United have been the biggest transfer spenders and by huge margins. So, considering City have not been the biggest spenders in the transfer market during their years of dominance, is the stance on state involvement misplaced? Or is it more than just transfers?
I checked the transfers of City and the leagues other two commonly accepted big spenders Chelsea and United and guess what, the only year City came out on top on transfer spending was the year they started their dominance, 2017/2018. Every year since then Chelsea or United have been the biggest transfer spenders and by huge margins. So, considering City have not been the biggest spenders in the transfer market during their years of dominance, is the stance on state involvement misplaced? Or is it more than just transfers?
This is not just about money.
Concerns about state owned clubs (or, rather, the specific human rights records of the particular states that own these clubs) are not solely a matter of concern about access to boundless and bottomless resources (though the PIF of Saudi Arabia is vast, and is very much part of the current state plan to drive sources of state income away from a dependence, solely, on fossil fuels), nor simply a matter of sportswashing and an exercise in 'soft power' (though they are all of these), but, also, by their very nature, - given that they are linked to the "brand", or image, of a team, - very different from any form of ownership that has occurred earlier.
Nevertheless, they have the resources to spend, whether or not they have spent the most money in the league to date; as the Saudi League amply demonstrates - crudely - they can afford to pay any price, and more, shoudl they wish to do so. Worse, unlike the most unsophisticated oligarch, or an avaricious asset-stripper, their reach (and influence) as an actor in the world of football is far greater, purely and simply because they are a state.
And, if a state with a deplorable human rights record (on minorities, on LGBT+, on women, to mention but three areas of concern) buys a club, then this is what the club will come to be seen to represent, too.
And that appals me.
Transfer fees and stats on spend per transfer window don't really tell the whole story.
Haaland cost significantly less in transfer fees than many of his contemporaries, but he's paid a very high wage and many have bonus structures and other financial benefits that smaller clubs couldn't offer - despite the fact that many of these very elite players go on free transfers or relatively modest fees due to short-tenure contracts or being out of contract.
Virtually any club could've put their hand up for many of the big names in the Premier League at some point if we're just talking transfer fees (I'm not talking about the ones that were inflated like Grealish and Rice).
There still has to be more to this issue of complaining about state funded football because both United and Chelsea could have afforded Haaland and every else that came with him (wages, bonuses) and they are not state owned.
Since the start of City's dominance from 2017/2018, United have paid more in transfer fee's than City, United pay higher wages than City. When it comes to money I believe the only thing City has bettered United in is shirt sponsorship and yet with United bettering City in nearly every department, City are the one running away with league titles and cup silverware.
When United had their dominance years many looked to find reasons to have a go at them because they kept on winning the league. Now City are doing the same, are people looking for reasons to have a go at City?
I think City have the better stadium.
Also I have nothing against City. Just the state sponsors. If City suddenly found themselves owned by someone else I think a lot of the anti City sentiment would go away.
Manchester United and Chelsea didn't have:
1) Manchester City's resources, and
2) City's strategic vision, i.e. a first rate manager in Pep Guardiola (although, as @Lord Blackadder has pointed out on a number of occasions, Guardiola has never had to manage a club with limited, or constrained, resources).
My dislike of Manchester United came about because of their arrogance when they were successful; in 1999-2000 they withdrew from the FA Cup - the world's oldest cup competition.
No.
Actually, re City's current dominance, I have two concerns:
The first is that such sustained dominance by a single team in a league, or country, - over a period of time (see PSG in France, or Bayern in Germany) is not good for the development, or competitiveness, of that particular league.
And, the second, as @Apple fanboy stated, and, as I have already written, is the general issue of state sponsorship, both, as a principle, and - as a matter of fact - chiefly because of these particular state sponsors, and their deplorable human rights records. I would feel the same way - beyond appalled - if Arsenal was captured by a state sponsor.
That was the fault of the English FA and the UK government, not United
https://www.theguardian.com/football/1999/oct/29/newsstory.sport2
'They're forcing us out' - why Fergie had to call the PM over Utd FA Cup defence
Manchester United caused chaos back in 1999 after choosing to play in the Club World Cup in Brazil
This is some snippets from the Manchester evening news
No.That was the fault of the English FA and the UK government, not United
https://www.theguardian.com/football/1999/oct/29/newsstory.sport2
'They're forcing us out' - why Fergie had to call the PM over Utd FA Cup defence
Manchester United caused chaos back in 1999 after choosing to play in the Club World Cup in Brazilwww.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
This is some snippets from the Manchester evening news
That was United's choice, at the time.
Pure greed, selfishness and an expression of contempt for their own footballing tradition and culture.
Who cares about - or even knows about - the Club World Cup now?
It matters due to the fairness of the game and those who were wronged by it and wrongly held views because of it.
Even the countries own FA did not want them to defend the FA cup and your calling United contemptuous for not following football tradition and culture!!. So where is your contempt for the English FA? all they cared about is wanting to get the 2006 World cup. They did not care about United defending the FA cup.
The English FA have been risible in a number of areas, and I do not defend them, far from it.
However, United need to own their own greed, and arrogance from that era.
Not now, or ever.
It's a cherry on top for rich clubs who've already won the big trophies, and out of reach for everyone else, so it will never matter. I suppose you could make the argument that it was meaningful to the occasional Brazilian club who won it - but that hasn't happened in over ten years, and the way the sport has gone it may never happen again in the foreseeable future*.
*Til El Ettihad wins it, maybe....
Maybe United did show greed and arrogance from that era but it is wrong to throw in the snub of the FA cup into that era when the snub was not of United's doing.
Far far too many footballing fans have hated on United because of them not defending the FA cup and that hatred is totally misplaced and without foundation once the facts are shown. Once shown and still hating on United because of it shows the person's own prejudices against the club.
I would flip it around and ask whether perhaps the real significance of the FA Cup has long since waned, and the media and fans have inflated ideas about how important it should be in the modern game. Historically, yes, it is of great significance. Symbolically, yes, it matters, especially to clubs outside the top level. But the prize money is insignificant to most of the clubs with a realistic chance of winning it. And money matters far more than anything else these days.
I think the 'snub' was absolutely motivated in part by greed, but the reaction to it was in turn partly motivated by nostalgic ideas about what the FA Cup means to football in the modern era.
The part in bold is what the UK press was saying at the time, it was greed but they did not know the full reason behind United's decision because the true fact's about United pulling out of the FA cup were not known until Ferguson retired from the club and he decided to speak out about it in defense of the club. The fact's are out there, it was never about greed, it had nothing to do with greed but yet fans still hold this delusional idea that is was about greed when the facts do not support that case.
People can feel disgusted about United for the right reasons, not the wrong ones and the FA cup snub is a wrong one.
I agree with you in part, but you can't take this affair in isolation and declare the actors as either innnocent or guily of greed. Because it is much more complicated than that.
The incident is a direct byproduct of the greed that led to the creation of the Premier League and the vision of a UK-based lucrative global brand. The FA were the prime movers in this particular story, you are correct, but I don't buy the argument that Man Utd were innocents caught up in a quandry they had nothing to do with. They were enthusiastic supporters of English football going global and consciously placed themselves in that situation. They may have been somewhat unfairly singled out by the press at the time but let's not let club tribalism obscure the fact that the pretty much all the Premier League clubs at the time, FA, UEFA and FIFA were all actively working to build the business of football in a way that ultimately devalued domestic cup competitions in favor of money-spinning traditionless international tournaments. Man Utd (along with the other Premier League clubs) went along with that whole-hog. They made a rod for their own back, and now look where we are, with 5 versions of the Champions league and two versions of the Euros and wintertime World Cups. It's all connected and it absolutely comes down to greed.
So yes, it wasn not all Man Utd's 'fault' but I think the angry sentiment at the time about greed was not entirely misplaced. Again, just look where we are now - people were right to smell greed and be upset about it.
Greed was never a factor in United's decision to not defend the FA cup and the facts prove this but yet the word greed is still used when the issue is discussed. In this one instance using the word greed is wrong in my opinion because as I said the facts do not support it. Did United benefit financially from going to the club championship? they probably did but it is wrong to refer to it as greed because it implies money was a factor in United's decision to leave the FA Cup when it was not and this is where I have the problem because people use this incident as the reason for the demise of the game as we know it, using United as the cause of it all when in fact it was not United's doing at all, it was the English FA. They are the custodians of the competition but yet they were the one's that pressured United not to defend the cup. The English FA were the ones that wanted United to play in the World Club competition to help the FA's own ambitions and they used United to do it but yet it is United that persistently get's the flack for it. Every time I hear it it is always 'United killed the FA Cup, United killed the game of football' and yet everything was of the English FA's doing. Yes United begrudgingly went along with it so yes they are not a totally innocent party in this but when ever this issue around the FA Cup get's talked about I never once hear fans and others go on about how the FA killed the game of football, how the FA killed the FA cup, no it's always United and it's wrong, totally wrong.
It's not only an English thing. Cups have continually lost relevance to Leagues in several other countries.
Still deciding not to show up is something I would consider a massive display of hubris and arrogance.
Still deciding not to show up is something I would consider a massive display of hubris and arrogance.
Greed was "never" a factor in United's decision to not defend the FA Cup?
Nonsense.
Greed was a major factor, greed and arrogance and contempt for the history and traditions of the football culture that gave rise to the club.
Now, your argument would be a lot stronger if you conceded this and admitted their greed, but also argued that it was not the only factor, and perhaps, not even the major factor, at the time.
Last edited:
A much changed line up for tonight’s game.
Ings and JWP play together for the first time since they left Southampton.
Hope it’s just a formality.
Ings and JWP play together for the first time since they left Southampton.
Hope it’s just a formality.
Liverpool's European match against LASK has followed this season's script to the letter...a frenetic start and 'Pool go a goal down, then begin to control the match, snatch a goal early in the second half and then ease away to a relatively comfortable win.
Clubs have accurately pinpointed Liverpool as slow starters with a defense that can be got at, but that still means keeping Klopp's men at bay for 95-100 minutes, and so far Liverpool have shown excellent late-game fitness and depth. As I said before though, this pattern could be absolutely deadly for Liverpool against the big boys. Give up a couple goals to Man City or Real in the first half and it's probably over. We can score three in the second half but they will score two + more and win anyway.
Clubs have accurately pinpointed Liverpool as slow starters with a defense that can be got at, but that still means keeping Klopp's men at bay for 95-100 minutes, and so far Liverpool have shown excellent late-game fitness and depth. As I said before though, this pattern could be absolutely deadly for Liverpool against the big boys. Give up a couple goals to Man City or Real in the first half and it's probably over. We can score three in the second half but they will score two + more and win anyway.
You are 100% wrong and your dislike of United is clouding your judgement.
The Guardian
Ferguson wanted United to defend FA Cup
For Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson it was an insult. The sport minister, Kate Hoey, had criticised the club for insulting its fans by refusing to participate in the FA Cup, and Ferguson wanted to set the record straight.
Manchester Evening News
'They're forcing us out' - why Fergie had to call the PM over Utd FA Cup defence
Manchester United caused chaos back in 1999 after choosing to play in the Club World Cup in Brazil
The Daily Mail
Ferguson called Blair to keep MUFC in the FA Cup
MIKE KEEGAN: Sir Alex Ferguson made a phone call to Tony Blair as part of a desperate attempt to keep Manchester United in the 1999-2000 FA Cup, a man close to the talks has revealed.
and there is more
The facts do not support your stance on the matter. Greed was never a factor. If you chose to ignore the facts then that is your business but you are wrong.