[Kaizer Shogun]

baselbarca, on 11 November 2009 - 02:28 PM, said:

oh they did have a couple of bad years. most manU fans called for ferguson to be sacked back then.

Yes it happened during Fergie early career though...
But NOW ? almost every season is a HAPPY DAY for them because Fergie = God of EPL.. I think EPL should change their name with MU - PL since its looks like its ALL ABOUT MU & MU plus MU ONLY while others ? are just some loser again & again even in liga or UCL too...

Reds can beat MU but ITS TOTALLY USELESS if they are failed again & again to topple Mu from rank 1...
Chelsea & Reds got worse when they change their apparel to Adidas too... I can't believe it at all !

CC Is Klaas, on 11 November 2009 - 02:38 PM, said:

I don't doubt SOME do. But not ALL of them. Plus we're talking about many more countries than just those two. As I said, what I said was absolutely correct.


Again, utter bollocks.

Not utter bollocks... its TRULY happened during 83 - 84 season, if I am not forget... Fergie career was in dire situation due to bad position in liga
But of course, its just a HISTORY now...

[CC Is Klaas]

Kaizer Shogun, on 11 November 2009 - 11:49 AM, said:

Not utter bollocks... its TRULY happened during 83 - 84 season, if I am not forget... Fergie career was in dire situation due to bad position in liga
But of course, its just a HISTORY now...

Yes, utter bollocks. What happened nearly twenty years ago is irrelevant. He meant the couple of years before we started winning the league again, the mid-2000's. Hence his pathetic remark before about changing support to Chelsea. It is simply a lie to suggest that most United fans wanted him sacked at that point. We're not talking about what happened twenty-odd years ago. Again, like I said to start with about FCUM, my remarks were totally correct.

[baselbarca]

CC Is Klaas, on 11 November 2009 - 01:10 PM, said:

Yes, utter bollocks. What happened nearly twenty years ago is irrelevant. He meant the couple of years before we started winning the league again, the mid-2000's. Hence his pathetic remark before about changing support to Chelsea. It is simply a lie to suggest that most United fans wanted him sacked at that point. We're not talking about what happened twenty-odd years ago. Again, like I said to start with about FCUM, my remarks were totally correct.

yes i meant the time when arsenal, then chelsea were dominating the epl and manU regularly failed to impress in the CL (and if i remember correctly got 4th in the group stage on 1 occasion). fergie fell from grace and many fans argued he was too old and someone younger should take over. of course now everyone claims they always supported him, but that's bullshit.

[CC Is Klaas]

baselbarca, on 11 November 2009 - 01:07 PM, said:

yes i meant the time when arsenal, then chelsea were dominating the epl and manU regularly failed to impress in the CL (and if i remember correctly got 4th in the group stage on 1 occasion). fergie fell from grace and many fans argued he was too old and someone younger should take over. of course now everyone claims they always supported him, but that's bullshit.

Absolute rubbish. You've now downgraded it from "most". to "many", which just says it all. Relatively speaking, a small portion of United fans thought his time at the club was up. Not "many", nor "most".

[Erdinger]

CC Is Klaas, on 09 November 2009 - 09:09 PM, said:

Well the obvious trauma you suffered as a child in those playgrounds somewhere obviously still cuts you deep inside. But you're so massively ill-informed on this matter, you have little right yourself to get self-righteous about people having a go at Blackburn for "buying the league". Martin Edwards had little choice, as he's explained time and again. A lot of the fans didn't like it of course, but according to him it had to be done. We needed the money to redevelop Old Trafford after what happened at Hillsborough, the regulations changing regarding seating etc which came about as a result of that. So to suggest it was greed on the clubs/fans part or anywhere near that, is just plain idiotic. You'll have to remind me what we did wrong as a club, in going public in the first place. Last time I checked, it was perfectly legal to do so then, and it's still legal today. And as you even pointed out yourself, we're certainly not the only ones to do it, and we had to do it out of necessity according to Edwards. I doubt you'd be leaving Rovers to form your own club if you were in the same group as United and Spurs, and really benefited from going public, gaining that extra wealth and really becoming a big club in the Premier League. The only clubs who were "hurt" by it, were the clubs who didn't have a club how to use it so to speak. But again, what do you propose the fans do to stop Edwards from doing that? Kidnap him and his family? Protest by not going to games? Then others will just come in and fill the seats. It's now or then - a Barcelona system unfortunately where the fans actually do have a realistic and loud say in what happened to the club. It's just not the case. So again, this "selling out", rubbish is just that. Rubbish.


:lol: , you can save all of that point-scoring nonsense against our fans. The fact that you've now moved away from the club and onto the fans as it were says it all. We as fans could do little to stop. How do you propose us normal folk go about finding £800 million to stop the club being sold to the Glazer's by buying it ourselves? So explain to me how "we had the chance to change things"? How? I couldn't give two elephants what those associated with FCUM put on their banners. As far as I'm concerned, they ditched the club when it looked like we were going to fall down the league with all of that debt and the uncertainty around the club. See, there's always two sides to each story. As you said yourself, the fact it was "only a few thousand [that] bothered", I think tells you all you need to know about how the majority saw it. Most stuck with United, despite the relatively gloomy prospect which lay ahead. I should know, I was actually one of the fans who donated a bit of cash to the FCUM effort of setting up the club. I'm glad that's as far as it went. And again, I don't think you're the most informed about this. A great deal of the FCUM fans still go to Old Trafford regularly to watch United. Many still go on away trips as well. Including European away games. They still support United, as well as FCUM. I know, because I know someone who does just that. Not all of them do of course. Someone are still very anti what's happened at United and want nothing to do with them anymore. But it's certainly not all of them. In fact on that point, I wouldn't even say it's the majority in my opinion. So these FCUM fans aren't the great maverick revolutionaries you'd perhaps like to portray them as for the sake of your argument. Many of them are just as bad as all us "sell outs", who stuck with United rather than running off to a new club in protest. So you can take that "only a few thousand", and probably halve it at least. That's not to say that suddenly every United fans loves the Glazer's now, and have forgotten about everything. Because you'd be wrong on that front as well. The vast majority would love the Glazer's to get lost, even if it it to another foreign investor, because then there wouldn't be so much debt on the club (hopefully). "Selling out"? Bollocks. Like I said, point-scoring will get you nowhere.

Jaysus, doesn't take much to annoy you does it?

Simply put, Man Utd were one of the fore runners of the share issue rubbish - which I don't personally think should have been legal, whether it was or not. I am fully aware that Spurs were also one of the first, and I think it was Millwall that started it all? The difference is, only Utd and Spurs seemed to gain anything from it, whilst many other clubs - such as Dortmund and Leeds - suffered heavily from the fallout.

I'm aware of many of the FCUM fans supporting both,it's pretty fecking obvious. The general concensus from what i'm told and have seen tends to be that they feel they have done their bit, and don't feel so guilty, by following FCUM. Yes - I see the FCUM fans as Maverick Revolutionaries, and raise a glass to them - as I do to all other similarly structured team. I would much prefer fan owned clubs to any alternative, and would even rather Abramovich style owners to profit hunters (Glazers, Liverpools yanks, asset strippers like Lowe) or shareholders.
I suppose one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, however, and I recognise that I am very unlikley to see eye to eye with any Utd supporter that has made the decsion to stand by the club on this matter.



I'll pre-emt any questions about what I would do if Rovers were bought out by stating it'll never be financially viable for anyone to make serious cash from Rovers. Hopefully, the Glazers won't make anything from Utd, but thats up to people like you, rather than people like me. The only thing I can do is boycott Old Trafford each season - but I've been doing that since Ashby made such a pigs ear of that game back in 95.

[baselbarca]

CC Is Klaas, on 11 November 2009 - 02:14 PM, said:

Absolute rubbish. You've now downgraded it from "most". to "many", which just says it all. Relatively speaking, a small portion of United fans thought his time at the club was up. Not "many", nor "most".

no, its not rubbish, its the truth. you were among them by the way so now why don't you just stop repeating yourself, you are very annoying.

[CC Is Klaas]

Erdinger, on 11 November 2009 - 01:35 PM, said:

Jaysus, doesn't take much to annoy you does it?

Clear admission that's what you were trying to do? I mean it's not like I called you lot "plastic scummer(s)", or even just a "scummer". Yet apparently I'm the one who's "annoyed" here. Believe me, you've seen nothing yet if you think that's me being annoyed :lol: .

Erdinger, on 11 November 2009 - 01:35 PM, said:

Simply put, Man Utd were one of the fore runners of the share issue rubbish - which I don't personally think should have been legal, whether it was or not. I am fully aware that Spurs were also one of the first, and I think it was Millwall that started it all? The difference is, only Utd and Spurs seemed to gain anything from it, whilst many other clubs - such as Dortmund and Leeds - suffered heavily from the fallout.

Why on earth should it be illegal to go public with a football club? It's open to everyone to do so, it's not something which is exclusive to only one or two clubs, which gives them an unfair advantage. United and Spurs actually had the know-how so to speak and made it work for them, yet they're the ones who're being castigated for doing so. I'm not aware of Dortmunds past problems, but I know 'going public' wasn't the problem for Leeds United. In fact, they were another club who benefited greatly from going public. The problem they had was that they were spending what they simply didn't have; securing loans against possible future income - Champions League qualification and all that. So naturally when that future income wasn't coming into the club anymore, everything went tits up. They were spending too much money on players, wages while taking huge risks with what I said earlier, regarding loans etc. It was a time-bomb waiting to happen. And since we're talking about the fans now, I don't recall many Leeds fans having too many problems with that strategy when they were reaching two Champions League semi-finals in a row at the start of the decade. Only once the shit started to hit the fan did more people come out and say "actually, what have we just done?" Leeds isn't the fault of the "share issue". Leeds were on the verge of greatness because of all the benefits they received from going public. Leeds is just a prime example of mismanagement. As was Chelsea before Roman saved them from the bring. United on the other hand became the blueprint for how a modern day football club should be managed in this century. I'm sure many, many purists don't like that, the 'commercialisation' of football. But football isn't immune from changing social climates, tendencies and practices. If it wasn't United, it would've been Arsenal, or another team who did it. And as I said before, it wasn't through greed that United first went public, it's not because the then owners thought they would "sell out" to an American billionaire fifteen years later. It was because the stadium needed modernising, due to new regulations. It was either going public, or taking out huge loans. Which would've crippled the club. Having a go at United for being astute enough to make the most out of this, is a bit like mocking the clever kid at school for getting straight A's. Fair enough if you don't like the commercialisation of football, I'm sure many don't. But suggesting the club and it's fans are "sell outs", simply because an American came in fifteen years later to buy the shares and the club, is ridiculous in my opinion.

Erdinger, on 11 November 2009 - 01:35 PM, said:

I'm aware of many of the FCUM fans supporting both,it's pretty fecking obvious. The general concensus from what i'm told and have seen tends to be that they feel they have done their bit, and don't feel so guilty, by following FCUM.

Aww. Well I'm glad they feel they've done their bit by abandoning the club. It seems to me that doing that, and simply "boycotting" Old Trafford are the only suggestions I've seen from the people who claim the fans who still support United have "sold out", as if we were responsible for the Glazer's takeover of the club. As if we were laying out the red carpet for him and welcoming in a new dawn. It's pretty obvious the Glazer's are in it for a profit. Quite how much profit they'll get from the £800-odd million needed to buy the club is a different story. And the vast majority of United fans still dislike what they're doing. But like I said before, apart from raising the £800-million ourselves, what else could've been done? Boycotting won't help, more fans will just replace the ones who have gone. That's been the case throughout their reign so far. I fail to see why supporting both is even a noble thing to do. What happened to this "you can only support one club" mantra? As far as I'm concerned, they're a seperate club now. I'll always stand by the club, no matter who owns it.

baselbarca, on 11 November 2009 - 01:52 PM, said:

no, its not rubbish, its the truth. you were among them by the way so now why don't you just stop repeating yourself, you are very annoying.

Complete, and utter, bollocks. I have never, never called for Sir Alex to be sacked. Not now, not five years ago, not ever. I'll keep repeating myself for as long as you keep repeating yourself. What I find "annoying", is people like yourself simply making up comments like that. Because that's what that is, a lie. Not "most", nor "many" United fans were demanding or thinking Ferguson should be sacked five or so years ago. It's rubbish. Period. And I'll keep repeating myself for as long as I need to.

[Kaizer Shogun]

CC Is Klaas, on 11 November 2009 - 07:10 PM, said:

Yes, utter bollocks. What happened nearly twenty years ago is irrelevant. He meant the couple of years before we started winning the league again, the mid-2000's. Hence his pathetic remark before about changing support to Chelsea. It is simply a lie to suggest that most United fans wanted him sacked at that point. We're not talking about what happened twenty-odd years ago. Again, like I said to start with about FCUM, my remarks were totally correct.

How can u say that what happened nearly 20yrs ago is IRRELEVANT ? yeah its just a history but still... WITHOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN 80's, I believe Mu will not become a team so strong like this !!!

About what happened in the mid 2000, yeah I know ALL OF MU FANS IN BRITS will surely still loyal & support Fergie but UNFORTUNATELY... maybe not the fans in OTHER SIDE of the world particularly & to be accurate... its not MANY but just VERY FEW though since I believe... even the MU Mania will surely still believe in Fergie so only the crazy or newbie dumb ass wants Fergie sacked easily like that... since either their brain is damaged or their knowledge about MU is lacking so they don't know so much about Fergie too... but of course, these numbers are barely TOO FEW

baselbarca, on 11 November 2009 - 08:07 PM, said:

yes i meant the time when arsenal, then chelsea were dominating the epl and manU regularly failed to impress in the CL (and if i remember correctly got 4th in the group stage on 1 occasion). fergie fell from grace and many fans argued he was too old and someone younger should take over. of course now everyone claims they always supported him, but that's bullshit.

Actually... there aren't MANY fans since COMPARED with the TOTAL PROPORTION of MU Mania, they numbers barely cover even less than 0.5% of total percentage of Mu Mania numbers in the world though... so to be more accurate, its just VERY FEW fans... who demand Fergie step down or retired too actually (not to be sacked)