I'm not sure they could. I saw an OPTA stat a while back which stated that, by their rating system (which is a level playing field for all players, regardless of how it's done), Scholes was the best midfielder in the Premier League last year, and he only had 5 months! The question, for me, isn't why didn't they, rather, why should they? Scholes is clearly still as good as anyone else, so why spunk £30m (or more) when you don't have to?forevertufc wrote:Don't dissargee with you matt on Scholes, the point was at the start of this season he retired at the age of 37 before the end of next he will 38, Man.u could have gone out into the transfer market and replaced him easily, so why didn't they.
It didn't, United won their first league title (in the relevant period) in 1993, just 16 years from 1977. The Premier League changed football irrecoverably, but Man Utd were already a big club when it started, they didn't come from nowhere to win stuff. If the Premiership rewarded those already successful, why was it that Liverpool, who had won virtually every trophy going, every year since 1977, fell by the way side? There were plenty of other clubs who benefited from the Premier League, it's not like 99% of the money went to Utd and the other 1% was shared out, each club got tens of millions of pounds and United just happened to do best with it.forevertufc wrote:As far as money I must admit totaly dissagree, I start following football in 1977, Man.u were by far the best supported team in country then as they were 10 years earlier, and that continued through 1987,97 and so on, so why did it take over 30 years for them to have any dominance
What actions are you accusing United of exactly? Buying players within the budget they have earned, rather than simply been given by a Russian or a Sheik? Attracting large audiences by being successful and playing attractive football? Surely this is how it works, you do the best with what you have, if your best is good, then more people come to watch and pay more money to do so. This gives you a larger budget, and the ability to attract better players, who, in turn, attract more fans and the whole thing is perpetual. What shouldn't happen is what has happened at City, where a nothing club suddenly finds itself with loads of money from a non success based source and uses that money to just buy players that the club hasn't earned the right to sign. It makes a mockery of the whole thing.forevertufc wrote:English football has not been a level playing field for some time, because of the actions of clubs like Man.u etc, and thats why I have no problem with Chelsea/ man.c, coming into to money, because their was no other way for them to get into a throphy winning position, leeds tried it buy, buying players on mortgages, look what happened to them.
Not even slightly, yes, it has meant more competition for United, but surely if you're saying that Chelsea coming into money to halt United's dominance is a good thing, you cannot say that United coming into money to halt Liverpool's dominance is a bad thing. At least everyone got the same chance as United with their money (from TV, as I said above), rather than the way Chelsea and City have done it, by becoming a plaything to a billionaire.forevertufc wrote:English football at one point was in danger of becoming all about Man.u and whether Arsenal and Liverpool could hang on to their coat tails, thank god for Chelsea and Man City, they helped to keep our game interesting.
The game at the top level gets less and less interesting every year, what with it being all about who has the richest owner, rather than who can do best with what they have earned, it all becomes a bit meaningless.
Just out of interest, all those of you who hate Man United, let me put this to you: if, in 1993, it had been, say, Charlton Athletic who had done best and had gone on to dominate the English game, and United had floated around the Championship.L1 as Charlton have, would you hate Charlton, or would you still hate United?
My VERY strong suspicion is that it isn't Manchester United you don't like, it's success which irks you, and does that not, when you think about it, seem a little bit... sad?
Matt.
haven't been multi quoted like that since fletch got his boxers in a twist.. 
