Here's the link mate. http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/br/...ll-drinks-firm/


This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jan 16 2009, 11:53 AM

No worries mate. How can they take offence when their own club wanted to trademark it? It would be similar to how Newcastle fans took offence to a poster that called them "the zebras" when that's what they are called in England. I just think people are defensive by nature but it does help to check one's facts first.

My personal take is that while beating your rivals may not secure you the title, it does give you bragging rights for awhile at least.

A good majority of Manchester's occupants would disagree with you. Some would even suggest that Old Trafford isn't even in Manchester.

As for Man City claims that most Man Utd fans don't even come from Manchester,



Since there are less Man City fans here, I thought they'd need more ammunition to make this debate more interesting

As Zan81 has quite rightly said, Chelsea did have a decent squad even before Abramovich dumped barrel loads of rubles into the club. However it has to be said that his generous spending did give you an edge of over other clubs that were vying for a place amongst the top four. i.e. Aston Villa, Newcastle & Tottenham. Chelsea may have gotten there on their own in time but one cannot argue that Roman's spending accelerated the process which leads to people saying that you "bought" success.



I've given my 2 cents on this before but it's easy for fans not of the 80's or early 90's era to forget. Man Utd took the long road to success. It took Fergie 7 years to win the title if I'm not mistaken. Much of their success in the 90's was due to the emergance of players like Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, David Beckham, the Neville's, Nicky Butt, etc. Star players like Peter Schmeichel ($530,000) and Eric Cantona ($ 1.2 million) were acquired at reasonable amounts. Yes they have spend a lot on players now and could even afford a couple of expensive flops most notably Juan Sebastian Veron but their road to success was a longer one.

Personally I think it does because what creap has posted, you inflated the price of players and their wages by offering them obscene amounts of money. In layman terms, you "spoil market". Now clubs stall for "better offers" knowing that some ultra rich club may come in to offer them an obscene amount for their star player(s). Players themselves are demanding for higher wages knowing that clubs like Man City most recently, can offer them twice what they are currently getting. You may not realise or admit it, but it really have impacted the game greatly.

At the end of the day though, winning is winning.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jan 22 2009, 09:52 AM

I'm not suggesting they didn't spend but not in the same manner that Chelsea did. Heck I'm not defending Man Utd but they did an excellent job in marketing themselves worldwide, to the Asian market in particular. If Liverpool had taken advantage of their success in the 80's and done the same, who knows how much we'd have in our coffers right now. To a large extent, the success of Man Utd looked more like it was planned and measured. Where do you reckon they got the money to spend on players like Andy Cole?

You are right which is why I'm a firm advocate of the saying that money cannot buy success. For it to be sustainable, you need a plan or a roadmap, not just a long list of players you'd like on your team. Spending huge wads of cash on players without considering if your chequebook balances itself may not bring about sustained success. It is why I agree with the notion that there are only really two big clubs in England because neither Arsenal or Chelsea have dominated for a sustained period of time in the way that Man Utd have in the 90's and 00's or Liverpool did in the 70's/80's. I'm not taking the piss, but as you've suggested, success has to be sustained.

I think it's common sense lah. If a clubs only source of transfer funds is from rich investors then there would be a massive disparity between clubs. Other sources of revenue from TV, merchandise sales, ticket sales, etc contribute to it as well. Yes Fergie did spend a fair bit but a lot of the income came from marketing initiatives, which reinforces my belief that Rick Parry is a d***.

Not only can this help clubs save, it can also help clubs make money. If you are a smaller club like Southampton for example, you stand to profit from selling good young players to bigger sides, and you can then expand your squad. Look how much they got from the sale of Theo Walcott. If you are a bigger side, you stand to profit from shipping out players who don't make the grade to smaller clubs.

Ok I think this is starting to become a little bit of a joke now. Nigel De Jong is a good player from what little I've seen of him but to pay almost 10 times the amount Hamburg paid for him just a few months ago? Shay Given? Decent keeper but in Joe Hart, City already have one of the best young English keepers in the game. Robinho for Drogba? No disrespect to Drogba but to swap one of the best young footballers in the world with an ageing warhorse? I'm really beginning to wonder if the new owners have a clue.

Actually that's what Man City's formation looks like now they way they're playing.