We're ManchesteROFL United, we do what we want

[Mr Angry]

United were 1/40 for the Premiership before they played Wigan; now its 1/2.

BottLOLers.

[No Fixed Abode]

Yeah - but you don't all want CIty 'buying' the title do you?

[sandman]

Wouldn't mind actually. United are such cnuts it would be good to see their smaller rivals wipe the smug smile off their collective face.

[Franchise FC]

Yeah - but you don't all want CIty 'buying' the title do you?

Yeh - cos United didn't do that at all did they

[No Fixed Abode]

Different with United really - gradual. Not so with City. City never won anything until the Arabs took over.

[Franchise FC]

Different with United really - gradual. Not so with City. City never won anything until the Arabs took over.

Why is spending more than anyone else (until Chelski) every season different to City ?

Oh, and I do believe City have won the title & the FA Cup before they were foreign owned.

[soggy biscuit]

City never won anything until the Arabs took over.

Just 2 top division title's, 4 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and a Cup Winners cup. Oh hang on, football didn't exist before 1992 did it

cLOLassic Kes

[Mr Angry]

The Independent on Saturday had a great little snippet of info; Man Utd's wage bill (some £94M a Year) is twice Wigans totak Annual turnover....

[Hoop Blah]

The Independent on Saturday had a great little snippet of info; Man Utd's wage bill (some £94M a Year) is twice Wigans totak Annual turnover....

But that's not the same as buying the league of course...

For the record, Man Utd FC's wages for the year up to 2011 were actually £114m. Wigan's turnover for the same year, £50m.

Quite staggering really, although perhaps not as staggering as City's wages being £153m!!!

[TheMaraudingDog]

Uniteds net transfer spend over last 3 years is lower than Hull and Blackpools.

[Hoop Blah]

Uniteds net transfer spend over last 3 years is lower than Hull and Blackpools.

What about over the last 2 years?

Or what about over the last 6 or 7?

One big fee in for Ronaldo doesn't mean they haven't spent shed loads on the rest of the remaining squad does it?

[No Fixed Abode]

City never won anything until the Arabs took over.

Just 2 top division title's, 4 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and a Cup Winners cup. Oh hang on, football didn't exist before 1992 did it

cLOLassic Kes

Ya know what I meant. For 35 years. Now all of a sudden they're up there challenging for the title.

Still, quite surprised that Reading fans of all fans want City to win it. I suppose the goalposts have moved now you have a rich owner.....

[leww_rfc]

City never won anything until the Arabs took over.

Just 2 top division title's, 4 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and a Cup Winners cup. Oh hang on, football didn't exist before 1992 did it

cLOLassic Kes

Ya know what I meant. For 35 years. Now all of a sudden they're up there challenging for the title.

Still, quite surprised that Reading fans of all fans want City to win it. I suppose the goalposts have moved now you have a rich owner.....

Nah, Id rather United won it personally.

[sandman]

City never won anything until the Arabs took over.

Just 2 top division title's, 4 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and a Cup Winners cup. Oh hang on, football didn't exist before 1992 did it

cLOLassic Kes

Ya know what I meant. For 35 years. Now all of a sudden they're up there challenging for the title.

Still, quite surprised that Reading fans of all fans want City to win it. I suppose the goalposts have moved now you have a rich owner.....

I'm not sure I get your point Man United are mega rich as well. It's just mega rich bastards versus another bunch of mega rich bastards. If people want City to win it it's most likely because they've been rich tw@ts the least amount of time and have had to put up with their neighbours being d1ckheads towards them (see the banner taking the pi55 out of City's lack of trophies). Let's face it most of us who've grown up in the last 20 years are sick of people who are United "fans" turning up like rats just because they win trophies. I'm sure that when United first started to beat Liverpool to trophies most people probably wished them the best of luck. Unfortunately for United they are no longer the underdog, they have become what they hate, they have become the new Liverpool.

In fact, I would suggest Reading fans are more likely to identify with City and their fans than they are with United because City are still seen as the underdog. When, rather than if, they become complete tw@ts after they've won a few PL trophies that's when they become fair game. I'm sure if your own club had rivals who were noticeably big than you you'd have got a lot more people hoping you'd do well when Abramovich took over.

[Franchise FC]

Uniteds net transfer spend over last 3 years is lower than Hull and Blackpools.

Only because they sold ONE player for a ridiculous amount - otherwise they've spent c£100m

[Victor Meldrew]

Different with United really - gradual. Not so withChelsea. Chelsea never won anything until the Russian took over.

[SpaceCruiser]

Hmmmm! Somebody changed the thread title.

[No Fixed Abode]

Different with United really - gradual. Not so withChelsea. Chelsea never won anything until the Russian took over.

Poor fishing as this isn't true.

[Seal]

[Wimb]

Uniteds net transfer spend over last 3 years is lower than Hull and Blackpools.

Only because they sold ONE player for a ridiculous amount - otherwise they've spent c£100m

And again missing the point that its spend on wages that seperates clubs far far more than transfer net spend.

At least with United they have the revenue streams to support their spending/service the debt. If they make that much money then doesn't matter how they spend it really.