• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

The Pep myth

Manchester United are a global brand through something that happened 40 - 50 years ago ? Are we just erasing that for blood money? Can u remember how successful they were then or read about it ? As Liverpool?
 

Good as my pit cap said:
It was earned then
Click to expand...

United had Old Trafford bought for them by a rich benefactor. The Wembley of the North is was called.
This absolutely myth that it's all 'earned' is just that - a myth.

All clubs do not start with 1 pound and make or break from there. Over the course of history, clubs have money men putting money in (and often losing it), and sometimes, doing well as a result. That's not money earned, it's money invested (speculatively). Yes, some clubs invested better than others. Some clubs had great managers and teams along the way, others had poor investment or lousy teams, but the perpetuated myth that clubs 'earned' it is nonsense.

A club based in London is always more likely to 'earn' more than one based in Cumbria. Economics will always favour a city team vs a village team. That's not 'earned' (by endeavour), it's simply a matter of economic scale. It's never been a level playing field.
 
Absolutely nothing. This thread is about man City and pep guardiola
FanchesterCity said:
United had Old Trafford bought for them by a rich benefactor. The Wembley of the North is was called.
This absolutely myth that it's all 'earned' is just that - a myth.

All clubs do not start with 1 pound and make or break from there. Over the course of history, clubs have money men putting money in (and often losing it), and sometimes, doing well as a result. That's not money earned, it's money invested (speculatively). Yes, some clubs invested better than others. Some clubs had great managers and teams along the way, others had poor investment or lousy teams, but the perpetuated myth that clubs 'earned' it is nonsense.

A club based in London is always more likely to 'earn' more than one based in Cumbria. Economics will always favour a city team vs a village team. That's not 'earned' (by endeavour), it's simply a matter of economic scale. It's never been a level playing field.
Click to expand...
Global Brad worth 6 or 7 billion pounds
 
FanchesterCity said:
United had Old Trafford bought for them by a rich benefactor. The Wembley of the North is was called.
This absolutely myth that it's all 'earned' is just that - a myth.

All clubs do not start with 1 pound and make or break from there. Over the course of history, clubs have money men putting money in (and often losing it), and sometimes, doing well as a result. That's not money earned, it's money invested (speculatively). Yes, some clubs invested better than others. Some clubs had great managers and teams along the way, others had poor investment or lousy teams, but the perpetuated myth that clubs 'earned' it is nonsense.

A club based in London is always more likely to 'earn' more than one based in Cumbria. Economics will always favour a city team vs a village team. That's not 'earned' (by endeavour), it's simply a matter of economic scale. It's never been a level playing field.
Click to expand...
Us being the wealthiest club in the country in the 50s kind of blows the North/South argument away mate.
 
Good as my pit cap said:
Manchester United are a global brand through something that happened 40 - 50 years ago ? Are we just erasing that for blood money? Can u remember how successful they were then or read about it ? As Liverpool?
Click to expand...

United are a global brand because of many factors. The Munich Air Disaster significantly increased their following. They also happened to be the predominantly successful team after the formation of the Premier League when a great deal of wealth flowed their way. Liverpool gained a huge following during their European dominance - enough to rival United, albeit not at commercially successful, because Sky / Premier League wasn't around then.

But that's akin to saying Tesco made it big (through a lot of investment along the way), but your local greengrocer shouldn't be allowed to invest in levels to rival them... they should only invest in small ways that will never allow them to compete.

Very few businesses start off with 1 pound, and only invest what they make. They get investment (money they never had), and that grows the business. Eventually, if done well, they earn a fortune from a thriving businesses, but the investment happened. It wasn't all 'self made'
 
FanchesterCity said:
United are a global brand because of many factors. The Munich Air Disaster significantly increased their following. They also happened to be the predominantly successful team after the formation of the Premier League when a great deal of wealth flowed their way. Liverpool gained a huge following during their European dominance - enough to rival United, albeit not at commercially successful, because Sky / Premier League wasn't around then.

But that's akin to saying Tesco made it big (through a lot of investment along the way), but your local greengrocer shouldn't be allowed to invest in levels to rival them... they should only invest in small ways that will never allow them to compete.

Very few businesses start off with 1 pound, and only invest what they make. They get investment (money they never had), and that grows the business. Eventually, if done well, they earn a fortune from a thriving businesses, but the investment happened. It wasn't all 'self made'
Click to expand...
Just explained the whole scenario 🤭😁
 
Georgewhitt said:
Us being the wealthiest club in the country in the 50s kind of blows the North/South argument away mate.
Click to expand...

I didn't make the North / South argument, I made the London vs Cumbria argument. A large wealthy conurbation is far more likely to find more support than one in a less wealthy, less populated one. I could just have easily said Glasgow vs Exeter
 
Georgewhitt said:
Like I said marra. If you know the history about our "Bank of England Club" status, as you claim to, you wouldn't be asking me a daft question like that.
Click to expand...
Wasn't daft, I'm stating facts. I'm 40 year old as you will prob come back to me, been going to match with me grandad at roker and all that shit. Just can't believe that you all.like this sort of football.
 
FanchesterCity said:
I didn't make the North / South argument, I made the London vs Cumbria argument. A large wealthy conurbation is far more likely to find more support than one in a less wealthy, less populated one. I could just have easily said Glasgow vs Exeter
Click to expand...
Point taken, but my point still stands regarding our financial status in the 50s
 
Good as my pit cap said:
Wasn't daft, I'm stating facts. I'm 40 year old as you will prob come back to me, been going to match with me grandad at roker and all that shit. Just can't believe that you all.like this sort of football.
Click to expand...
Mate, you claimed to know the history behind our demise from being "The Bank of England Club" back in the day.
You clearly don't.
Thats fine, but don't start getting all aggressive at the first sign of someone calling you out.
You brought up the subject of history, not anyone else.
You said you knew the history when asked.
You now don't want to consider the history having shown you know fuck all about it.
Fair enough, but wind your neck in.

And if you are 40, shouldn't your user name be "Good as somebody elses Pit Cap"?
 
Last edited:
Manchester United
Georgewhitt said:
Mate, you claimed to know the history behind our demise from being "The Bank of England Club" back in the day.
You clearly don't.
Thats fine, but don't start getting all aggressive at the first sign of someone calling you out.
You brought up the subject of history, not anyone else.
You said you knew the history when asked.
You now don't want to consider the history having shown you know fuck all about it.
Fair enough, but wind your neck in.

And if you are 40, shouldn't your user name be "Good as somebody elses Pit Cap"?
Click to expand...
🤭🤣🤣🤣 what the hell
Georgewhitt said:
Mate, you claimed to know the history behind our demise from being "The Bank of England Club" back in the day.
You clearly don't.
Thats fine, but don't start getting all aggressive at the first sign of someone calling you out.
You brought up the subject of history, not anyone else.
You said you knew the history when asked.
You now don't want to consider the history having shown you know fuck all about it.
Fair enough, but wind your neck in.

And if you are 40, shouldn't your user name be "Good as somebody elses Pit Cap"?
Click to expand...
I'm not even talking about " the bank of history club " 🤣🤣🤣 are u insane ?
 
Last edited:
Georgewhitt said:
Point taken, but my point still stands regarding our financial status in the 50s
Click to expand...

That could be said if Newcastle briefly, or Leeds etc who had lots of investment, but only over a short period. It improved them for a short period, but not enough to compete with a behemoth like United over a longer period.
Burnley were once a wealthy club, as were Wolves, and each had their heyday. Arguably, they still are wealthy clubs in comparison with many others, but not in comparison with others.

City had a period when they blew a fortune on dross and it set them back 20 years paying for it all. Poor investment after poor investment. That's a tale many fans will tell.

I don't think anybody can deny the likes of Liverpool and United hit the winning formula at particular periods in their history. Other clubs hit their winning formula in periods before I was born and whilst the scale of football was far smaller. In another 50 years, we might be talking about 'when United and Liverpool were big clubs', whilst praising Yeovil Town's rise to European Kings. Far fetched, yes, but it's simply trying to illustrate how we are looking at things through the lens of our own experience / timeframe and conveniently overlooking investment and choices made +60 or 70 years ago influencing the position of clubs as they stand today.

Had City not moved stadiums, they might never have gained the investment they did.
Had United not had Old Trafford built, they might never have grown to where they are today.
Had the Ukraine war not happened, Chelsea might be looking to gain their 3rd Champions League...

Ultimately, my point is - money has always influenced the game, and it probably always will. Is it worse now than ever before? I don't think so, I just think it's more obvious.
 
FanchesterCity said:
That could be said if Newcastle briefly, or Leeds etc who had lots of investment, but only over a short period. It improved them for a short period, but not enough to compete with a behemoth like United over a longer period.
Burnley were once a wealthy club, as were Wolves, and each had their heyday. Arguably, they still are wealthy clubs in comparison with many others, but not in comparison with others.

City had a period when they blew a fortune on dross and it set them back 20 years paying for it all. Poor investment after poor investment. That's a tale many fans will tell.

I don't think anybody can deny the likes of Liverpool and United hit the winning formula at particular periods in their history. Other clubs hit their winning formula in periods before I was born and whilst the scale of football was far smaller. In another 50 years, we might be talking about 'when United and Liverpool were big clubs', whilst praising Yeovil Town's rise to European Kings. Far fetched, yes, but it's simply trying to illustrate how we are looking at things through the lens of our own experience / timeframe and conveniently overlooking investment and choices made +60 or 70 years ago influencing the position of clubs as they stand today.

Had City not moved stadiums, they might never have gained the investment they did.
Had United not had Old Trafford built, they might never have grown to where they are today.
Had the Ukraine war not happened, Chelsea might be looking to gain their 3rd Champions League...

Ultimately, my point is - money has always influenced the game, and it probably always will. Is it worse now than ever before? I don't think so, I just think it's more obvious.
Click to expand...
Leeds fell because they didn't have the clout to back it up, united did and always will
 
Good as my pit cap said:
Leeds fell because they didn't have the clout to back it up, united did and always will
Click to expand...

Always will, why?

The Roman Empire didn't last forever, neither did the Greek, or the British one. With enough time, things change. It doesn't happen overnight, maybe not a decade, or two decades, but eventually, things do change.

Ferguson was mocked for claiming he'd knock Liverpool off their perch.
Ferguson also claimed 'not in my lifetime' about City being top dogs in Manchester.
Good as my pit cap said:
Leeds fell because they didn't have the clout to back it up, united did and always will
Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'clout'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top