Mourinho's emotions tonight confirm he is someone we need to defend 100%

Originally Posted by utd99

It might be, but I think that most proper United supporters don’t bang on about it with such unremitting glee.

Quoting transfer stats to big the twitchy @#%&! up. Did you settle in for an ‘All or Nothing’ marathon too.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Bringing up spending to defend City?

Sorry, it appears i've accidentally got onto blue moon forum by accident.

How did you both manage to completely miss the point you mad bastards

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

How did you both manage to completely miss the point you mad bastards

what was the point?

Originally Posted by Sparky***

what was the point?

Saffers said that we've been outspent by Everton, thus putting Mou in an impossible position. He'd be the GOAT to win the title etc.

City were the 15th highest spenders in the league this summer. Does that put them in an impossible position?

It wasn't bigging them up at all, just looking for consistency and an end to bullshit excuses. We've spent loads of money.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

what was the point?

some thick keeps making the shit point that everton outspent us. it's not "fair" to expect him to challenge.

So if city are outspent by huddersfield then they can't be expected to compete etc etc.

Originally Posted by Lazlo Panaflex

some thick keeps making the shit point that everton outspent us. it's not "fair" to expect him to challenge.

So if city are outspent by huddersfield then they can't be expected to compete etc etc.

It's a legitimate point.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Saffers said that we've been outspent by Everton, thus putting Mou in an impossible position. He'd be the GOAT to win the title etc.

City were the 15th highest spenders in the league this summer. Does that put them in an impossible position?

It wasn't bigging them up at all, just looking for consistency and an end to bullshit excuses. We've spent loads of money.

yeah we have.

But we needed to spend more but didn't.

Originally Posted by MartialLaw

It's a legitimate point.

Pay your subs and you'll have spent more than Spurs

Originally Posted by Buck

Pay your subs and you'll have spent more than Spurs

I can't afford it pal otherwise I would.

Originally Posted by Buck

Pay your subs and you'll have spent more than Spurs

Really, that new stadium is free is it?

Originally Posted by Sparky***

yeah we have.

But we needed to spend more but didn't.

We needed to spend better

Originally Posted by Sparky***

But we needed to spend more but didn't.

Fred has already been dropped for Fellani. We should probably have spent less.

Originally Posted by General Woundwort

Fred has already been dropped for Fellani. We should probably have spent less.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

City were the 15th highest spenders in the league this summer. Does that put them in an impossible position?

No. Because they won the league with 100 points last season

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

We needed to spend better

he's wasted half the money he's been given.

as someone else pointed out, he's playing the mugs for a fiddle by blaming everyone else. First the players, then the board.

Originally Posted by Lazlo Panaflex

he's wasted half the money he's been given.

as someone else pointed out, he's playing the mugs for a fiddle by blaming everyone else. First the players, then the board.

What money has he wasted?

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Really, that new stadium is free is it?

Didn't know external costs are now included in transfer spending. No wonder Woodward didn't sign more players - that paint job on Old Trafford emptied the coffers

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

What money has he wasted?

Lindelof 35m English pounds.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

How did you both manage to completely miss the point you mad bastards

Because I have a tendency to just read the last few posts and sometimes sarcasm is lost unless you read the whole exchange.

Regardless, it’s still not the whole story is it? City may have spent more than those clubs in that snapshot of time, but I think it’s fair to say they’ve supported Guardiola as and when he’s needed it since he’s been there up to, and including, correcting mistakes such as Bravo in a timely manner.
He’s not expected to get every signing right, and they don’t brief the press on why they shouldn’t reasonably be expected to plop down 50m on Spurs second choice right back when they have an Argentinian international fan favourite there; they just do it.

That being said, Mourinho’s record in the market is pretty poor. Neville’s right though; pick your poison - sack him or support him. The second football matters are being second guessed by the ceo you’re in a lot of trouble.

Originally Posted by Buck

Didn't know external costs are now included in transfer spending. No wonder Woodward didn't sign more players - that paint job on Old Trafford emptied the coffers

external costs? It all comes out of the club last time i checked and that thing they're building is gonna cost about half a billion.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

external costs? It all comes out of the club last time i checked and that thing they're building is gonna cost about half a billion.

So?

We're talking about buying players for the first team, not an investment that will last 100 years.

Redeveloping the Stretford End in the early 90s cost £10m. We don't take that into account with the money the club signed on transfers or 92-93 would have been a record for most money spent in a season by an English club