derek1872 548 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 You claim I'm not funny and post that? Seen many attempts at humour from yourself that are as interesting as paint drying.Why would I comment on something that I haven't even read? This makes no sense? Are you saying you didnt even bother to read the reason I said what I said? So you saw I posted and decided to plough right in then? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 The current global situation suggests that Manchester United are by some distance currently the biggest club in England, surpassing the status that Liverpool held throughout the 70s and 80s. Arsenal have been consistently in the area and are by no means a small club, certainly with a more successful history and wider fanbase than teams like Chelsea.Even in the 1970s and 1980s Manchester United was a bigger club than Liverpool. If Aberdeen suddenly went on a twenty year spree of winning in Scotland the club still wouldn't be considered bigger than the Old Firm by anyone serious. When people talk about "big clubs", they're talking about history, tradition and often indescribable intangibles. And in terms of England, the tragedy of Munich has bestowed upon Manchester United that extra little bit of magic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek1872 548 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Even in the 1970s and 1980s Manchester United was a bigger club than Liverpool. If Aberdeen suddenly went on a twenty year spree of winning in Scotland the club still wouldn't be considered bigger than the Old Firm by anyone serious. When people talk about "big clubs", they're talking about history, tradition and often indescribable intangibles. And in terms of England, the tragedy of Munich has bestowed upon Manchester United that extra little bit of magic.You're off your rocker you must. Day release? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Negri's Beard 1,423 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Simply, there is absolutely no reason that man united wouldn't still be the biggest club in England had the Munich air disaster never happened. It's an unavoidable part of their history, just as the ibrox disaster was to us, Hillsborough was to Liverpool, and molesting children was for Celtic...I would never for a second argue that the ibrox disaster had any influence over our overall stature as a football club Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck_Fickens 425 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Sooo, Arsenal fan donations, is this actually happening or is it just a rumour? PS, fuck man utd. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 They were not the biggest club in England in the 70s/80s.It's only been in the last twenty years since United started to become the biggest club in England, something that occurred 35 years prior was the main reason behind this, seriously? The emergence of 'The Premier League' was the catalyst behind United pushing into the biggest club in England.Manchester United were the biggest club in England during the 1970s and 1980s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangers#1 5,471 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Sooo, Arsenal fan donations, is this actually happening or is it just a rumour? PS, fuck man utd. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Curiously, most English clubs owe a debt to Rangers, or, more exactly, to David Holmes and Freddie Fletcher. Rangers, under the off-field leadership of those two were the first club in Britain to fully exploit football clubs as a brand. It's no coincidence that when John Hall started his revolution at Newcastle United he turned to Freddie Fletcher. Fletcher had leveraged the Rangers brand and helped Rangers become the richest club in Britain. His template was followed by all the major clubs in England. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Bear 72 363 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Manchester United were the biggest club in England during the 1970s and 1980s.I'm not so sure about that. Would it not have been Liverpool? They were certainly the dominant force. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek1872 548 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Don't be daft, it was Manchester United due to the Munich disaster.Now that actually was funnyNow you have decided to read the thread maybe you can see why I was annoyed earlier with his idiocy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnberry18 3,204 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Curiously, most English clubs owe a debt to Rangers, or, more exactly, to David Holmes and Freddie Fletcher. Rangers, under the off-field leadership of those two were the first club in Britain to fully exploit football clubs as a brand. It's no coincidence that when John Hall started his revolution at Newcastle United he turned to Freddie Fletcher. Fletcher had leveraged the Rangers brand and helped Rangers become the richest club in Britain. His template was followed by all the major clubs in England.This is a great point; but the influence of Lawrence Marlborough was interesting as well: he had seen the corporate side of sport in the US and Rangers were the first club in Britain to use Exec Boxes and hospitality to the scale it became. It was then replicated by Middlesborough and others followed. Apparently the late Jimmy Reid did a television interview with Lawrence Marlbourough in the US, and that was quite enlightening about his plans for Rangers. He then sold the club not long after, which left Jimmy baffled. The sale of Rangers to Sir David Murray did not go down well with many in the Lawrence family. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjan 1 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 My son works down in london, quite near the emirates, his local pub there is a gooners bar, he got talking to a few supporters and they all agreed that they would willingly give to any fund set up to help the Rangers Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 I'm not so sure about that. Would it not have been Liverpool? They were certainly the dominant force.Yes, but that's not the ultimate definition of a big club ... if I were a multi-billionaire and lavished huge money on Berwick Rangers and brought the club twenty years of success, would that mean Berwick Rangers would be a bigger club than the Rangers? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 This is a great point; but the influence of Lawrence Marlborough was interesting as well: he had seen the corporate side of sport in the US and Rangers were the first club in Britain to use Exec Boxes and hospitality to the scale it became. It was then replicated by Middlesborough and others followed. Apparently the late Jimmy Reid did a television interview with Lawrence Marlbourough in the US, and that was quite enlightening about his plans for Rangers. He then sold the club not long after, which left Jimmy baffled. The sale of Rangers to Sir David Murray did not go down well with many in the Lawrence family.Probably the first guy in England to realise the value in football clubs was Michael Knighton. His ill-fated attempt to purchase Manchester United was another catalyst in the transformation of the game south of the border. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Would love for you to explain how that situation is comparable with United and Liverpool back in the 70s and 80s.It's quite simple, really. People are saying Liverpool was the biggest club based on success on the field. By extension, if Berwick had twenty years of success then it follows that you would have to consider Berwick a bigger club than Rangers. Or does on-field success only count in the English leagues? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Every little helpsWe could give them some shares in return for their gesture.................................... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamFyfe 1,438 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 If its true good on them, and cheers Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek1872 548 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Well he was slagging Man United, of course you would be annoyed. and you delighted! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Manchester Utd have shamelessly traded off the back of the Munich Disaster for over 50 years. That, as much as anything they achieved on the pitch, is why they are the worldwide force they are. Arsenal are consistently Englands biggest club over the history of English football. Not the most succesful perhaps, but the most consistent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 So it had nothing to do with Liverpool winning many league titles before 1970 and by 1975 having more than any other club in England? Even-though United had 14 years on them, as did other clubs!It was not a case of a successful team throughout that period, Liverpool had built up a history/repuation by winning league titles. Unlike say a Chelsea in today's terms!This is ridiculous. I'm English. I grew up during the 1970s and 1980s ... Manchester United was the biggest club in the country. Success is a factor, of course, but it's about much more. Before Munich it was the glamour clubs of London ... Arsenal and Spurs, but Munich and the Busby Babes gave the Old Trafford club a lead it has never relinquished. That's a fact, whether you choose to accept it or not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Manchester Utd have shamelessly traded off the back of the Munich Disaster for over 50 years. That, as much as anything they achieved on the pitch, is why they are the worldwide force they are. Arsenal are consistently Englands biggest club over the history of English football. Not the most succesful perhaps, but the most consistent.Finally, someone understands my argument. I'd almost given up hope. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Finally, someone understands my argument. I'd almost given up hope.I was going to chip in with my tuppenceworth earlier, but got waylaid. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Negri's Beard 1,423 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 This is ridiculous. I'm English. I grew up during the 1970s and 1980s ... Manchester United was the biggest club in the country. Success is a factor, of course, but it's about much more. Before Munich it was the glamour clubs of London ... Arsenal and Spurs, but Munich and the Busby Babes gave the Old Trafford club a lead it has never relinquished. That's a fact, whether you choose to accept it or not.It's quite clearly not. It's an opinion Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobatai 70 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 It's quite clearly not. It's an opinionOkay, it's an opinion ... just an opinion that the majority of fans in England would hold. But I think that if you looked at attendances I think you'd find that in the 1970s and 1980s clubs in England would report their largest gates, outside local derbies, for the visit of Manchester United. Manchester United already had a nationwide fanbase that no other club could match. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Negri's Beard 1,423 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Okay, it's an opinion ... just an opinion that the majority of fans in England would hold. But I think that if you looked at attaendances I think you'd find that in the 1970s and 1980s clubs in England would report their largest gates, outside local derbies, for the visit of Manchester United. Manchester United already had a nationwide fanbase that no other club could match.I don't deny they were a big club in the 70s and 80s or that the Munich air disaster isn't a massive part of their history. What I do deny is the notion that had that air disaster never happened and the 'romanticism' hadn't taken hold, that Man United wouldn't be the biggest club in the country and Arsenal would. I'd argue that winning countless trophies, possessing some of the great footballers of their generation and having some of the best managers of their generations, might, just might, have a fair amount to do with it too. Many factors have shaped United into the massive club they are. Players, trophies, Sky, etc. While Munich is an important part of their history, i'd stress that what came out of it, as you say, the Busby babes et al, were more of a deciding factor, rather than it being the 'romanticism' as you put it, of it. That's my opinion, you clearly have yours.Anyway, Discussions over why Arsenal aren't as big as United is hardly Bears Den worthy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.