• Manchester United Message Board

  • A Yahoo! User Jan 21, 2013 14:57 Flag

    Lets look on the bright side

    Yesterday`s draw leaves 4th placed spurs 7 points ahead of arsenal. Could this be the season when Weneger`s policy of concentrating on qualifying for the CL ahead of trying to win the title finally comes crashing down.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • "Hmmmm....perhaps one could have phrased it better,"

      Hmmmm... perhaps you could have.

      " Though, it is in part, as that is my whole water tight argument."

      The argument you "don't have time" to make, even though you have time to argue about this?

      "Just because City spent later in the day, that does not mean to say they were willing to spend earlier on surely? "

      Maybe, but that's guesswork.

      "Whose to say United is the 'more desirable destination'? "

      Anyone who prefers a bigger club, a club with more history, a club with more trophies, a club with a reputation of challenging for trophies more regularly, a club with a bigger fanbase...

    • ". I have not the time to answer your incessant questioning!"

      Yet you have the time to have made, what 10 or 15 comments since yesterday?

    • Hahaha!! How's the new arsehole, Pixie?

      I've never seen anyone ripped to pieces easier than the flogging you just got!!!


      FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!

    • PS. Tevez certainly agreed!

      PPS. I'm not 'avoiding' anything. I have not the time to answer your incessant questioning!

      Much love.

    • "Fortuitous" means it happened by chance, rather than design. United's status and budget is by design - reinvesting money from winning, earning status and earning income. It is City who were bought, out of the blue, by a rich sugar-daddy. That is fortuitous.'

      Hmmmm....perhaps one could have phrased it better, admittedly i will not deny that the position of United, when compared to that of City, is not wholly 'fortuitous'. Though, it is in part, as that is my whole water tight argument.

      'Because United's rivals had bigger budgets (purse) and United have earned their status as a more desirable destination through hard work, not just outside circumstances.'

      Just because City spent later in the day, that does not mean to say they were willing to spend earlier on surely? Whose to say United is the 'more desirable destination'? I would prefer City and i'm sure so would many others. I mean, United, a rat infested paint peeling very old stadium run by a psychotic scots oligarch, or City, shiny and clean, brand new facilities, bottomless purse, run by a super smooth Italian....and champions of England.

    • "Fortuitous" means it happened by chance, rather than design. United's status and budget is by design - reinvesting money from winning, earning status and earning income. It is City who were bought, out of the blue, by a rich sugar-daddy. That is fortuitous.

      "Sure, why is the signing of RVP not down to 'Size of purse AND circumstance'"

      Because United's rivals had bigger budgets (purse) and United have earned their status as a more desirable destination through hard work, not just outside circumstances.

      And you're still avoiding the other questions.

    • The situation IS 'fortuitous' when compared to that of the situation at the new Man City. Of course if City had been run in a better manner in previous times then they could well have found themselves in a position more on a par with United. However, my comments on City were dealing with their more recent situation.

      Sure, why is the signing of RVP not down to 'Size of purse AND circumstance', even if City did eventually buy and sell others in the market? May i suggest....you ask Marwood. Ask Marwood!

    • "The thing with City is they have had to spend big to build fast, to catch up with the likes of United. United are in the fortuitous position of having the benefit of a longer period of time to build their playing staff."

      You mean, a longer time to earn money by being a good team, and reinvesting money from winning things? That's not fortuitous, that's hard work.

      Also, they mention problems with the wage and general budget, but still spent £50m on players, and got rid of the players identified as problems for the wage bill in the article, through sales or loans. And yet, for whatever reason, they couldn't sign Van Persie.

      But it's all down to "Size of purse AND circumstance"?

    • Well, then Mancini appears to be contradicting himself. He says they wanted to and tried to sign him, that they thought he'd be good for the club.

      It could just be that we can't take Mancini's word for it.

      "I will address any outstanding questions, when i have more Fab time."

      Unlike the time you have at the moment for posting these responses? You wouldn't be doing any of that "research" you seem to find so amusing, would you?

    • Supportive of 'my' claims?

      My claims spring from Mancini himself dear boy.

      I will address any outstanding questions, when i have more Fab time.

      Much love!

    • View More Messages