Man CitHEHEHE

[stealthpapes]

Man Utd the same. Despite the fact that they had a group of academy stars, they still spent VERY big on the likes of Ferdinand, Rooney, Veron and others (they sort of repeated the Liverpool trick of buying up everyone else's best)

yeah, I think people underestimate the financial clout United had even in the early 90s.

Take the 1993-94 side - they went out and made Keane the then English transfer record. With the good youth structure, they never had to worry as much as most, but when it came to it, they could, for example, buy Keane, or make Pallister the most expensive defender in the country.

[From Despair To Where?]

United were spending big back in the late 70's and early 80's, comparatively more than Liverpool; Wilkins for £875,000 in 79, Birtles for £1.25m in 80, Robson for £1.5m and Stapleton for £900,000 in 81, for example. And then you look at the spending of clubs like Forest, Wolves and Man City.

Liverpool broke £500,000 for the first time in 81 and £1m for the first time in 87. What is true is that when they spent big, they spent well, buying young, up and coming players from clubs like Brighton and Middlesbrough.

[BR0B0T]

United were spending big back in the late 70's and early 80's, comparatively more than Liverpool; Wilkins for £875,000 in 79, Birtles for £1.25m in 80, Robson for £1.5m and Stapleton for £900,000 in 81, for example. And then you look at the spending of clubs like Forest, Wolves and Man City.

Liverpool broke £500,000 for the first time in 81 and £1m for the first time in 87. What is true is that when they spent big, they spent well, buying young, up and coming players from clubs like Brighton and Middlesbrough.

United had a reasonable league record from 79/80 to '86 (the equiv of Liverpool in the 90's)

Birtles was shite for Utd sold him back to Forest for 300grand.

Wilkins was sold on for about 1.3m to one of the Italian clubs (Milan?) was a good player for the 4-5 years he was at Utd

Robson did the business for ten years so money well spent. Also got Paul McGath for 30grand that year. City bought someone around that time for a similar fee to Robson

[From Despair To Where?]

City bought Steve Daley for £1.4m.

I'm not questioning the worth of United's signings, just that around the the time United bought Wilkins, Liverpool spent a similar combined sum on Dalglish, Souness and Hansen. When United spent £2.5m on Stapleton and Robson, Liverpool spent £1.6m on Johnston, Lawrenson and Rush. Then a again, both Liverpool and United bought better than other clubs who were also spending big.

I'm just trying to look at comparative spending and generally up to 1987, Liverpool spent less and bought better than their rivals and really any dominant team since.

However, returning to what is the central point really, both Liverpool and United's spending power was fuelled by success and popularity, I wouldn't say that either side bought success. The big difference now that the relationship between success and financial clout has been flipped on its head. Even in the 90's, United's spending was fuelled largely by success rather than the other way round. So yes, I can see why some City fans might get bored by the conveyor belt of success because it's not organic, it's fuelled by grotesque spending power. I think there's also a section of City fans who quite liked their underdog status and they've lost that.

[stealthpapes]

I've met Steve Daley.

[bakerlou]

Not that it adds much to the argument, but the £2m United gave to WBA was for Robson and Remi Moses

[Hoop Blah]

I'm just trying to look at comparative spending and generally up to 1987, Liverpool spent less and bought better than their rivals and really any dominant team since.

Liverpool always seemed to buy well, but I guess that's a lot down to buying from a position of strength and integrating players into a dominant side is easier than one playing catch up.

One thing they did used to do is buy players and make them earn their place in the side. Rarely (at least in my memory) did a player come in and walk into the side (Dalglish being an obvious exception, I think).

[bcubed]

Thoroughly deserved win by Newport yesterday.

If the pitch is still as muddy and it rains (pretty good chance!) City players will fancy it as little as Boro's did. A proper old fashioned Cup game with a proper but deserved upset.

Odds on a City defeat? I'll wait for the weather forecast

[Old Man Andrews]

City will sadly trounce them imo. Hope Newport can make it interesting but just cannot see anything other than a 0-5.

[Nameless]

NEwport 14th in Div 2
Burton 13th in Div 1

Newport should probably be grateful the FA Cup is not played over 2 legs ..
They will fancy their chances, why wouldn’t they ? But if they win it would be the greatest FA Cup shock in history.

I’m going City to win 3-1, possibly Newport to score first just to set up the fairytale

[Hendo]

They got a 1-1 against Spurs last year, so I wouldn't rule anything out, but it is going to be a tall order for them.

[John Smith]

Rodney Parade pitch is back to being a disgrace so I'd think that'll restrict City to a 3-0 win

[Sanguine]

I'm not questioning the worth of United's signings, just that around the the time United bought Wilkins, Liverpool spent a similar combined sum on Dalglish, Souness and Hansen.

That's nuts!

[bcubed]

City will sadly trounce them imo. Hope Newport can make it interesting but just cannot see anything other than a 0-5.

Not with a pitch as churned up as last night plus ome more driving rain. City's prima donnas will not fancy it one bit.

[Old Man Andrews]

City will sadly trounce them imo. Hope Newport can make it interesting but just cannot see anything other than a 0-5.

Not with a pitch as churned up as last night plus ome more driving rain. City's prima donnas will not fancy it one bit.

I think you might have to give Man City and Pep Guardiola a bit more credit than that. Would like to be wrong but can see it being a cricket score.

[bcubed]

City will sadly trounce them imo. Hope Newport can make it interesting but just cannot see anything other than a 0-5.

Not with a pitch as churned up as last night plus ome more driving rain. City's prima donnas will not fancy it one bit.

I think you might have to give Man City and Pep Guardiola a bit more credit than that. Would like to be wrong but can see it being a cricket score.

Maybe but if Newport is as inhospitable as last night who knows?!

[BR0B0T]

GTFI City!

[Hendo]

City will sadly trounce them imo. Hope Newport can make it interesting but just cannot see anything other than a 0-5.

Not with a pitch as churned up as last night plus ome more driving rain. City's prima donnas will not fancy it one bit.

I think you might have to give Man City and Pep Guardiola a bit more credit than that. Would like to be wrong but can see it being a cricket score.

Technically any score is a cricket score

[Old Man Andrews]

Not with a pitch as churned up as last night plus ome more driving rain. City's prima donnas will not fancy it one bit.

I think you might have to give Man City and Pep Guardiola a bit more credit than that. Would like to be wrong but can see it being a cricket score.

Technically any score is a cricket score

0-5 is actually a pretty accurate score for the England cricket team right now.

[6ft Kerplunk]

Technically any score is a cricket score

Until the away team gets to double figures*.


* ignore stupid Aussies writing it down the wrong way round.