|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 18:26:41 GMT 1
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Oct 22, 2010 18:26:41 GMT 1
i sense there are a few people on B&A today with lumps in thier throats and egg on their faces ;-) they went before the b of the bang ;-) Not really. It's a shambles, one ex-great sporting institution has been reduced to the play-thing of one egotistical, greedy, ugly scouse mercenery. Rooney, (or should I say his agent as Rooney hasn't got the brain capacity) have orchestrated this whole situation, and to be fair, he has played a blinder. Still, there are divisions in the camp and just because Rooney has "apologised" (or did his agent do that for him aswell), you have to be very naive to think all will be rosy again. I await the cringeworthy chants of "Rooney" by the forgiving, no, more hypocritical United fans, the same one's who were holding up the banners and chanting on Wednesday This whole situaton is a joke and so un-United-like. Rooney has shown his true colours once again, and helped himself to something like a 100% wage increase in the process. I'd laugh if it wasn't so despressing to see modern football going this way
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 18:28:11 GMT 1
Post by jamo on Oct 22, 2010 18:28:11 GMT 1
If this thread proves nothing more than the fact that the ABU's on here are quick with their mouths but slow with their brains then it has been worth it.
Ratcliffesghost chief amongst them.
Quality.
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 18:33:04 GMT 1
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Oct 22, 2010 18:33:04 GMT 1
If this thread proves nothing more than the fact that the ABU's on here are quick with their mouths but slow with their brains then it has been worth it. Ratcliffesghost chief amongst them. Quality. I suppose the fact I don't even know what an ABU is reinforces that point?
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 19:06:40 GMT 1
Post by shrewsace on Oct 22, 2010 19:06:40 GMT 1
There's a few British transfer records in that list and most of the others were signed for the sort of fees most other Premier League clubs couldn't compete with. The only exception is probably Cantona who they got courtesy of Howard Wilkinson's idiocy. If a player's good enough to command record transfer fees I don't think they can be classed as great spots. It's merely buying the best players because you have the financial clout to! As for Rooney, even if he scored a hat trick for England in the World Cup final I think I'd find the sight of his gurning, neanderthal face too much to stomach. Five of that list (which was just off the top of my head) were signed for fees that were, for a club of United's size, modest at the time. But anyway it's nonsense to suggest that a player can't be a great spot when the fee is high. Does every big money transfer lead to success? Does every player signed for a lot of money integrate into his new team? Does every such player become a better player? No to all three. But in those cases I listed, the answer's yes to all three. Sure United have failed in the transfer market sometimes, as all clubs do. The fact remains they've rarely bought at the top of the market and, in recent years (pre-Glazer) very rarely indeed. It makes no sense to say they're not competing with City in the transfer market - it's unlikely they'd want to. Which five were 'modest fees' out of interest? My point isn't that a player can't be a great spot if the fee is high, but that the majority of players you mention were already excelling and on the radar of anyone taking a passing interest in football when United signed them. Perhaps they were scouted by Sean McCallister's Right Foot, a'la Gareth Bale Of course, every signing is something of a gamble but are you seriously telling me that Keane, Ferdinand, Cantona, Rooney, Schmeicel et al were nothing more than raw potential when they signed for United?
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 19:13:20 GMT 1
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 22, 2010 19:13:20 GMT 1
I to have no idea what an ABU is so i'll take the first guess...
ermmmm
Anal Biscuits Uneaten ?
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 19:53:52 GMT 1
Post by theriverside on Oct 22, 2010 19:53:52 GMT 1
I to have no idea what an ABU is so i'll take the first guess... ermmmm Anal Biscuits Uneaten ? Ooooooooooooh..........close. It's Arse Bandit Ultras.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 20:59:58 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2010 20:59:58 GMT 1
No, i think he will stay in the area, and who has acquired a new Chairman with a bit of spare cash? Rooney will wear the red again, oh yes. Can you guess who it will be yet. Genius. I'm luvvin every moment of this sorry saga. Nearly right there baystonblue - he will stay in the area and wear the red again. Still luvvin every moment? Luvvin it, i,m lappin it up. Shrek plays them all for fools, gets what he wants, and will still leave before his contract ends. Thats if he is'nt caught "granny lovin" again. Now all he needs to do is be welcomed back into the arms of his under performing , useless team mates. Oh yes, i'm luvvin it alright.
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 21:02:56 GMT 1
Post by jamo on Oct 22, 2010 21:02:56 GMT 1
Nearly right there baystonblue - he will stay in the area and wear the red again. Still luvvin every moment? Luvvin it, i,m lappin it up. Shrek plays them all for fools, gets what he wants, and will still leave before his contract ends. Thats if he is'nt caught "granny lovin" again. Now all he needs to do is be welcomed back into the arms of his under performing , useless team mates. Oh yes, i'm luvvin it alright. Little things please little minds, and all that...
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 21:32:20 GMT 1
Post by stuttgartershrew on Oct 22, 2010 21:32:20 GMT 1
It makes no sense to say they're not competing with City in the transfer market - it's unlikely they'd want to?!?! Errrrm?! Pretty sure I read somewhere yesterday that Manchester United were trying to get a 'big' signing in during the summer but failed to do so because the player said he didn't want to play in England. That player is supposed to have been David Silva. I think that were in the Guardian newspaper...I may have that wrong but I pretty much think thats what I read. And when it comes to reports of United's decline, they are way off. But the difference now is that more clubs are now able to compete financially with them. First it was only Chelsea and it was then Manchester United and Chelsea that won the title. Now Manchester City are going to play a big part. And with the Arse seemingly in a better position then anyone they are really going to come strong in the coming years. Manchester United can no longer buy the league by outspending everyone else, others now have the clout to compete. Whether you can define that as a decline I doubt...but they ain't going to be winning as much as they did thats for sure... I wouldn't accept that United bought the league. Plenty of other clubs spent heavily and most didn't win. Money is a requirement for success at that level but doesn't guarantee it - it takes much more to build a successful team. Otherwise Real Madrid's galacticos would have swept the board when, in reality, they weren't even the most successful team in Spain. City are linked with anyone and everyone at the moment. Do you believe United are trying to compete with that? There might have been some interest in Silva but they were looking at others at the same time. Thet weren't competing for Balotelli, Boateng, Milner .... United might change tack and try to buy at the top of the market, if they can. But it's not been their usual policy. You wouldn't accept that Manchester United bought the league? I would. Just as Chelsea did last season. And at some point Manchester City will do too. How anyone can level that against the top flight in English football is beyond me. Who are the richest clubs in England? Now tell me who has won the most titles of late? Coincidence? Yeah, right… If you think Manchester United are not competing with Manchester City then I reckon you’re way off. Look at all this fuss with Rooney. Rooney states he wishes to leave and most folk would guess that one of the few clubs who could afford him would be Manchester City. No doubt Manchester City would have shown an interest. And after Tevez crossed the city I guess Manchester United simply could not allow that to happen. So what did they do, they paid him a s**t load more money to keep him. They had to do that otherwise I have no doubts that Rooney would have left and maybe would have ended up playing up top with Tevez (where he would be getting the type of money he’s now getting from Manchester United). Rooney knew that and he’s played them off each other a treat, he’s doubled his wages. Whatever folk think that’s a move by Manchester United to compete with the money he would have gotten elsewhere if he’d had moved…to Manchester City for example, one of a very few clubs who could afford him. If they hadn’t have doubled his wages do you think he would have stayed? As I certainly don’t…
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 21:35:00 GMT 1
Post by theyesman on Oct 22, 2010 21:35:00 GMT 1
Good decision Wayne
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 21:37:52 GMT 1
Post by stuttgartershrew on Oct 22, 2010 21:37:52 GMT 1
Good decision Wayne Is that in Shrewsbury that? Were it Jamo?
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 21:56:41 GMT 1
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 22, 2010 21:56:41 GMT 1
Little things please little minds, and all that... any opportunity to promote your autobiography ....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rooney
Oct 22, 2010 22:03:53 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2010 22:03:53 GMT 1
Luvvin it, i,m lappin it up. Shrek plays them all for fools, gets what he wants, and will still leave before his contract ends. Thats if he is'nt caught "granny lovin" again. Now all he needs to do is be welcomed back into the arms of his under performing , useless team mates. Oh yes, i'm luvvin it alright. Little things please little minds, and all that... Yep, and your'e the living proof.
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 23, 2010 9:18:05 GMT 1
Post by nicko on Oct 23, 2010 9:18:05 GMT 1
And a little bit more of my diminishing love for the game is destroyed.
The whole saga has been obscene as are his alleged wages; I feel like vomiting.
Half a million people to be made unemployed over the next 4-5 years while this tw@t gets an obscene amount over the same period.
It's sick.
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 23, 2010 10:21:48 GMT 1
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 23, 2010 10:21:48 GMT 1
And a little bit more of my diminishing love for the game is destroyed. The whole saga has been obscene as are his alleged wages; I feel like vomiting. Half a million people to be made unemployed over the next 4-5 years while this tw@t gets an obscene amount over the same period. It's sick. Massively agree with you Nick, my love for the premiership drifted off about 8 yeras ago. I don't think I could even name the teams that are in it correctly. One things for sure it will all go bump sooner or later and the only ones that wil walk away smiling are the "heroic" players taking Clubs and fans as mugs. leave em to it, just ensure we are sustainable.
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 23, 2010 12:22:01 GMT 1
Post by Pilch on Oct 23, 2010 12:22:01 GMT 1
You really have to laugh at stuttys claims that united bought the league
For starters transfers have happened since the year dot
And as someone else has pointed out other sides have spent more and not even managed a sniff of silverware
Does it only count to say someone bought the league if they go on and win it ?
And does it not count if they spent more money and flopped
Some serious sour grapes going on in that statement
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 23, 2010 12:32:46 GMT 1
Post by mrbunny on Oct 23, 2010 12:32:46 GMT 1
You really have to laugh at stuttys claims that united bought the league For starters transfers have happened since the year dot And as someone else has pointed out other sides have spent more and not even managed a sniff of silverware Does it only count to say someone bought the league if they go on and win it ? And does it not count if they spent more money and flopped Some serious sour grapes going on in that statement Yep,every side buys the title unless all the members of their squad came through the youth set up and that won't happen.Strange statement.
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 23, 2010 13:05:35 GMT 1
Post by venceremos on Oct 23, 2010 13:05:35 GMT 1
I wouldn't accept that United bought the league. Plenty of other clubs spent heavily and most didn't win. Money is a requirement for success at that level but doesn't guarantee it - it takes much more to build a successful team. Otherwise Real Madrid's galacticos would have swept the board when, in reality, they weren't even the most successful team in Spain. City are linked with anyone and everyone at the moment. Do you believe United are trying to compete with that? There might have been some interest in Silva but they were looking at others at the same time. Thet weren't competing for Balotelli, Boateng, Milner .... United might change tack and try to buy at the top of the market, if they can. But it's not been their usual policy. You wouldn't accept that Manchester United bought the league? I would. Just as Chelsea did last season. And at some point Manchester City will do too. How anyone can level that against the top flight in English football is beyond me. Who are the richest clubs in England? Now tell me who has won the most titles of late? Coincidence? Yeah, right… If you think Manchester United are not competing with Manchester City then I reckon you’re way off. Look at all this fuss with Rooney. Rooney states he wishes to leave and most folk would guess that one of the few clubs who could afford him would be Manchester City. No doubt Manchester City would have shown an interest. And after Tevez crossed the city I guess Manchester United simply could not allow that to happen. So what did they do, they paid him a s**t load more money to keep him. They had to do that otherwise I have no doubts that Rooney would have left and maybe would have ended up playing up top with Tevez (where he would be getting the type of money he’s now getting from Manchester United). Rooney knew that and he’s played them off each other a treat, he’s doubled his wages. Whatever folk think that’s a move by Manchester United to compete with the money he would have gotten elsewhere if he’d had moved…to Manchester City for example, one of a very few clubs who could afford him. If they hadn’t have doubled his wages do you think he would have stayed? As I certainly don’t… Simplistic arguments. Others here have shot the buying the league argument down. Ignoring the fact that most buying teams don't win anything doesn't really help your argument does it? When United won the league but Chelsea, Liverpool and other big spenders didn't, how does that square with your view that the league can just be bought? Clearly it doesn't because it takes more than just money and expensive players. I said United aren't competing with City in the transfer market and you've just talked about the Rooney deal. What's that got to do with the fact that United's transfer policy hasn't been to buy players at the top of the market, which is where City are focused at the moment?
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 23, 2010 13:22:12 GMT 1
Post by venceremos on Oct 23, 2010 13:22:12 GMT 1
Five of that list (which was just off the top of my head) were signed for fees that were, for a club of United's size, modest at the time. But anyway it's nonsense to suggest that a player can't be a great spot when the fee is high. Does every big money transfer lead to success? Does every player signed for a lot of money integrate into his new team? Does every such player become a better player? No to all three. But in those cases I listed, the answer's yes to all three. Sure United have failed in the transfer market sometimes, as all clubs do. The fact remains they've rarely bought at the top of the market and, in recent years (pre-Glazer) very rarely indeed. It makes no sense to say they're not competing with City in the transfer market - it's unlikely they'd want to. Which five were 'modest fees' out of interest? My point isn't that a player can't be a great spot if the fee is high, but that the majority of players you mention were already excelling and on the radar of anyone taking a passing interest in football when United signed them. Perhaps they were scouted by Sean McCallister's Right Foot, a'la Gareth Bale Of course, every signing is something of a gamble but are you seriously telling me that Keane, Ferdinand, Cantona, Rooney, Schmeicel et al were nothing more than raw potential when they signed for United? Are you seriously suggesting there's raw potential and the finished article and nothing in between? Was Schmeichel the world's best keeper when United bought him? Would Real Madrid have paid 80m (or the equivalent at the time) when United bought Ronaldo (and some were saying he wasn't going to be good enough in his first year or so)? Was Cantona the player at Leeds that he was at United? Was Keane one of the world's greatest midfield players at Forest? No, no, no and no. It was United that spotted and developed that talent to the level it reached. Yes they were all good players when United signed them but, at any given moment, there are a few hundred good players around. How many become truly great players? Not so many. That's my point - United's tradition has been built on homegrown players mixed with bought in players who are then further developed at the club. If you think that's easy to achieve then you're overlooking the fact that almost every other top level club rarely, if ever, does it. Only those with a one-eyed anti-United bias or an inability to understand that it takes more than money to succeed at the top level could argue that United simply bought their success.
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 24, 2010 11:28:07 GMT 1
Post by shrewsace on Oct 24, 2010 11:28:07 GMT 1
Which five were 'modest fees' out of interest? My point isn't that a player can't be a great spot if the fee is high, but that the majority of players you mention were already excelling and on the radar of anyone taking a passing interest in football when United signed them. Perhaps they were scouted by Sean McCallister's Right Foot, a'la Gareth Bale Of course, every signing is something of a gamble but are you seriously telling me that Keane, Ferdinand, Cantona, Rooney, Schmeicel et al were nothing more than raw potential when they signed for United? Are you seriously suggesting there's raw potential and the finished article and nothing in between? Was Schmeichel the world's best keeper when United bought him? Would Real Madrid have paid 80m (or the equivalent at the time) when United bought Ronaldo (and some were saying he wasn't going to be good enough in his first year or so)? Was Cantona the player at Leeds that he was at United? Was Keane one of the world's greatest midfield players at Forest? No, no, no and no. It was United that spotted and developed that talent to the level it reached. Yes they were all good players when United signed them but, at any given moment, there are a few hundred good players around. How many become truly great players? Not so many. That's my point - United's tradition has been built on homegrown players mixed with bought in players who are then further developed at the club. If you think that's easy to achieve then you're overlooking the fact that almost every other top level club rarely, if ever, does it. Only those with a one-eyed anti-United bias or an inability to understand that it takes more than money to succeed at the top level could argue that United simply bought their success. I think any of the players you mention could have been classed as far better than just one of 'a few hundred good players' knocking around. Cantona was clearly one of - if not the - best players in the country when United signed him, ditto Ferdinand and Keane. I think your strongest case in point is Ronaldo. In hs first season people were saying he was a one trick pony who didn't provide the forwards with service.
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Rooney
Oct 24, 2010 11:54:05 GMT 1
Post by oranjemob on Oct 24, 2010 11:54:05 GMT 1
How do you feel regarding Rooney signing? From a Salop perspective if that had been Ainsworth I dont know if i'd be happy seeing him pull on the shirt again. Then I suppose you're furious every time you see Stevie |G in the Red of Liverpool. Far bigger U turn a few years back and then only because some Gangstrs threatend him and his familly. What goes around comes around, Fingers old mate. A little 'strange' that those with a Liverpool bias seem to be ignoring this point about Gerrard. Very similar situation in as much as he was determind to leave Liverpool, but they don't take this into consideration when pillorying Rooney
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 24, 2010 20:48:12 GMT 1
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Oct 24, 2010 20:48:12 GMT 1
Gerrard's situation was different. Gerrard's problem was that he felt Rick Parry and Rafa Benitez were stalling talks over a new contract, he wasn't sure whether he was part of Rafa's bigger plan, and ultimately felt he was being ushered towards the exit. He put in the transfer request, saw how it was affecting the city, saw how much the club did want to keep him, and decided to stay.
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 25, 2010 9:34:19 GMT 1
Post by Pilch on Oct 25, 2010 9:34:19 GMT 1
Gerrard's situation was different. Gerrard's problem was that he felt Rick Parry and Rafa Benitez were stalling talks over a new contract, he wasn't sure whether he was part of Rafa's bigger plan, and ultimately felt he was being ushered towards the exit. He put in the transfer request, saw how it was affecting the city, saw how much the club did want to keep him, and decided to stay. that made me laugh i think you'll find he wanted to leave after the club refused his pay demands and only offered him £100K a week
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 25, 2010 12:37:25 GMT 1
Post by ambergambler on Oct 25, 2010 12:37:25 GMT 1
" only"!!!!
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 25, 2010 13:25:24 GMT 1
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 25, 2010 13:25:24 GMT 1
Now that he signed a contract extension if he starts playing any decent football may be they can offload him in the summer for a decent (read: indecent) fee.
|
|
|
Rooney
Oct 25, 2010 15:25:39 GMT 1
Post by Pilch on Oct 25, 2010 15:25:39 GMT 1
i see city threw the game yesterday just to spoil the buying the league argument ;-)
|
|