Wigan 1   Man Utd   0

Fergie wont be happy

male masturbators. I put £2 doubles on the premiership games and Utd only 1 that let me down.

I am though.  

Quoted from tintowner

Fergie wont be happy

The rest of England is though

very impressed with wigans performance (well the last 30minutes that i saw)

Quoted from tintowner

Fergie wont be happy

Thanks for sharing.  

With City winning 4-0 and still to meet Manure....is it game on again?

Come on City, will be nice to shut all them Glory hunting Grimbarians up, UTM!

Title race back on. The Manchester derby has the potential to be one of the games of the year (if not decade) if anything is still riding on it.

Quoted from LH

Title race back on. The Manchester derby has the potential to be one of the games of the year (if not decade) if anything is still riding on it.

Will Ballotelli be available and would Mancini risk him?

Quoted from tintowner

With City winning 4-0 and still to meet Manure....is it game on again?

Hopefully, though City's recent away form (2 wins in 10) suggests that Norwich away on Saturday is far from a formality. Plus Aguero will be in Bennett's pocket! Man U will beat Villa at home on Sunday so any slip by City and that's probably that.

great results for City, thank god the Scum lost, Title race is certainly back on again!!!!!!!!

Where's Aryan Imp?

Gutted, pulled out of a £2 Wigan 1-0@25/1  

Bollocking titwanks, would have fleeced Mr W Hill of £43 tomorrow  

Quoted from Les Brechin

Where's Aryan Imp?

Hello  

unbelievable win considering the gap in finances between the two clubs    just shows if all the team is pulling together and playing to the best of its capabilities what can be done

Can't believe anyone would rather City win over United. 10 years ago maybe. Football's changed now.

Quoted from Dan

Can't believe anyone would rather City win over United. 10 years ago maybe. Football's changed now.

This.

Quoted from Dan

Can't believe anyone would rather City win over United. 10 years ago maybe. Football's changed now.

This.

It would make a change - and rub Fergusons nose in it.  Thats reason(s) enough for me, although i take your point.

I respect Man United as a club however it really does annoy me seeing these Glory hunters calling themselves die hard fans as they have supported Man United all their life when really what they should be saying is "I have watched them on TV all my life". Grimsby Born + Grimsby bred= You support Grimsby. The amount of peoples who grandfather were born in Manchester is astonishing aswell.

I still want City to win the league. . . . just like I wanted Chelsea to win the league because what it does is bring into complete clarity the purely finacial nature of success and failure in the top flight of the game.

the premiership is a joke and it is represenattive of the wider joke that is football in this country. . . .

My ideal situation would be for BSkyB to have their broadcasting license taken away from them (a genuine possibility considering the investigations into Murdoch's operation) and for the whole lot to fall like a deck of cards!  It is the only way that we are going to ever achieve the root and branch reform of professional football in England which i believe is essential to it's long term survival!

Quoted from Dan

Can't believe anyone would rather City win over United. 10 years ago maybe. Football's changed now.

I want City to win because it would be nice to see somebody else's name on the top flight trophy. Anyway, before Chelsea and City came along who were England's biggest spenders? Manchester United. FACT. They've basically bought titles too by virtue of having more money than anyone else!!

Come on City!

Quoted from 1054

I still want City to win the league. . . . just like I wanted Chelsea to win the league because what it does is bring into complete clarity the purely finacial nature of success and failure in the top flight of the game.

Hardly exclusive to the Premier League though is it? I imagine that Charlton, the 2 Sheffield clubs and Huddersfield are the 4 highest spenders in League 1. The same for Swindon and Fleetwood, Barcelona and Real Madrid, Chester and Ross County etc etc.

Quoted from Paris Mariner

I want City to win because it would be nice to see somebody else's name on the top flight trophy. Anyway, before Chelsea and City came along who were England's biggest spenders? Manchester United. FACT. They've basically bought titles too by virtue of having more money than anyone else!!

Come on City!

This.

If it's a choice between a 'new' team 'buying' the title or a team winning it for the 13th year out of 20, then it's the former every time for me.

Who you'd like to win the title all really depends who your favourite Billionaire is, I suppose.

Is it Malcolm Glazer, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan or Stan Kroenke? These three own the top 3 teams at the moment (Kroenke will own Arsenal fully before too long).

Last year's billionaire, Roman Abramovich, has dropped off the pace a bit. He'll need to start chucking his money around this summer if he's going to catch up with his Billionaire competitors!

Quoted from Paris Mariner

I want City to win because it would be nice to see somebody else's name on the top flight trophy. Anyway, before Chelsea and City came along who were England's biggest spenders? Manchester United. FACT. They've basically bought titles too by virtue of having more money than anyone else!!

Come on City!

Yep, this exactly.

Quoted from Paris Mariner

I want City to win because it would be nice to see somebody else's name on the top flight trophy. Anyway, before Chelsea and City came along who were England's biggest spenders? Manchester United. FACT. They've basically bought titles too by virtue of having more money than anyone else!!

Come on City!

Nonsense. Manchester United have probably the best record of bringing through academy players in football. I wouldn't say they've ever bought a title. They've created more world class British players than Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Man City put together. And they just happen to have the best manager in the world. That you can't buy. I mean, I hardly follow the premiership at all, but it seems to me that Man United go about things properly (although maybe not as much as Arsenal). Sure, hate their fans, call them plastic whatever. I don't go in for sniping at other teams fans, but there's a definite point there. If Manchester United win the title this season, that's a kick in the girl private to any bored Arab Sheikh or corrupt Russian sat on a mountain of dodgy oil cash.

I want Man City to win the league just to shut the glory-hunting plastic Grimsby born and bred Man Ure fans up.

We haven't got many Man City plastics around here yet but I'm sure quite a few will be changing allegiances if Man City continue to be successful.

I actually say a Grimsby born and bred Man Ure plastic in Town the other day, proudly sporting his new Man Ure top. I remembered him from a while ago when he used to walk around Town with a Blackburn shirt on when SaS were there.  

Quoted from Abdul19

Hardly exclusive to the Premier League though is it? I imagine that Charlton, the 2 Sheffield clubs and Huddersfield are the 4 highest spenders in League 1. The same for Swindon and Fleetwood, Barcelona and Real Madrid, Chester and Ross County etc etc.

. . . and that's why i said that it was representative of the problems throughout English football (which you decided to omit from my quote). . .
Bizarre!

Quoted from Dan

Nonsense. Manchester United have probably the best record of bringing through academy players in football. I wouldn't say they've ever bought a title. They've created more world class British players than Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Man City put together. And they just happen to have the best manager in the world. That you can't buy. I mean, I hardly follow the premiership at all, but it seems to me that Man United go about things properly (although maybe not as much as Arsenal). Sure, hate their fans, call them plastic whatever. I don't go in for sniping at other teams fans, but there's a definite point there. If Manchester United win the title this season, that's a kick in the girl private to any bored Arab Sheikh or corrupt Russian sat on a mountain of dodgy oil cash.

I'll throw your "nonsense" back at you.  Read some of the other posts which are more accurate than yours IMO.  Have MU not spent huge sums hoovering up talent over the years?  It depends on your favourite Billionaire, or if you fancy a change.  Or other reasons such as an irrational dislike of Manchester United (NOT FC - that has removed as it didn't fit  with the "brand") as a whole.  Which i do have, along with Liverpool.  Killing local football as a whole.

Quoted from Dan

Nonsense. Manchester United have probably the best record of bringing through academy players in football. I wouldn't say they've ever bought a title. They've created more world class British players than Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Man City put together. And they just happen to have the best manager in the world. That you can't buy. I mean, I hardly follow the premiership at all, but it seems to me that Man United go about things properly (although maybe not as much as Arsenal). Sure, hate their fans, call them plastic whatever. I don't go in for sniping at other teams fans, but there's a definite point there. If Manchester United win the title this season, that's a kick in the girl private to any bored Arab Sheikh or corrupt Russian sat on a mountain of dodgy oil cash.

Even in the team that had all of their 'youth' players they still had brought in a lot of talent for some quite costly sums at the time.

Even this team has De Gea, Ferdinand, Jones, Carrick, Berbatov, Rooney, Young, Nani, Valencia and Anderson are all fairly costly signings.

Although City have spent there money over a much shorter period I would have thought the relative squads are of a similar value, particularly if you take into account TPI.


*TPI is Transfer Price Inflation and is a way of adjusting transfer values in the past to modern day values to try and compare how much they would cost in today's market. An example of this is that Ferdinand cost United 29.1 million but in todays money he would have cost them 53 million.

No offence Dan, but it reads like you are a fairly educated bloke - so your ill-educated quote and "hardly follow the premiership at all" comment suggests you are a closet Man Utd fan.

Quoted from Paris Mariner

I want City to win because it would be nice to see somebody else's name on the top flight trophy. Anyway, before Chelsea and City came along who were England's biggest spenders? Manchester United. FACT. They've basically bought titles too by virtue of having more money than anyone else!!

Come on City!

In. A. Nutshell.

Quoted from Maringer

Who you'd like to win the title all really depends who your favourite Billionaire is, I suppose.

Is it Malcolm Glazer, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan or Stan Kroenke? These three own the top 3 teams at the moment (Kroenke will own Arsenal fully before too long).

Last year's billionaire, Roman Abramovich, has dropped off the pace a bit. He'll need to start chucking his money around this summer if he's going to catch up with his Billionaire competitors!

I personally would disagree with this.  I would rather man utd didn't win the leafgue because I find rhe majority of their fans incredibly nauseating.  Never fvelt that way about Chelsea fans when they won the league a few times, or Arsenal fans, or Blackburn fans back in the day.  

Quoted from biggles9999

Even in the team that had all of their 'youth' players they still had brought in a lot of talent for some quite costly sums at the time.

Even this team has De Gea, Ferdinand, Jones, Carrick, Berbatov, Rooney, Young, Nani, Valencia and Anderson are all fairly costly signings.

Although City have spent there money over a much shorter period I would have thought the relative squads are of a similar value, particularly if you take into account TPI.


*TPI is Transfer Price Inflation and is a way of adjusting transfer values in the past to modern day values to try and compare how much they would cost in today's market. An example of this is that Ferdinand cost United 29.1 million but in todays money he would have cost them 53 million.

While you're right, to a degree, most of those players are of a similar value because Man United will develop them. I bet you a pound to a penny Young, Nani, Anderson, Valencia, De Gea and Jones wouldn't have even been considered by the current Manchester City set up at the stage in their careers Ferguson signed them. It is definitely not the same thing.

GTFC R MASSIVE, I really don't get the logic of what you just said. If I hardly follow the Premiership, I can also hardly be a closet Man United fan. As a dispassionate observer, it puts me in a much better position to see this. I couldn't care less if people from Grimsby support premiership teams, just like I couldn't care less if someone supports Scunny or Bolton. I support Grimsby, I don't care about other clubs fans because I don't get caught up in handbags with them. Laissez faire I say.

You want it in Non-League terms? Man City are Crawley.

Top ten Premiership transfers:

1. Fernando Torres £50M
2. Andy Carroll £35M
3. Robinho £32.5M
4. Andrei Shevchenko £30.8M
5. Dimitar Berbatov £30.75M
6. Rio Ferdinand £29.1M
7. Juan Sebastien Veron £28.1M
8. Wayne Rooney £27M
9. Michael Essien £24.4M
10. Didier Drogba £24M

Not to mention the colossal sums (at the time) paid for Peter Schmeichel, Steve Bruce/Gary Pallister (I can't remember which), Andy Cole etc etc. They have got a great youth policy, yes, but that is somewhat diluted by the number of players transferred in over the years for million and millions of pounds. You can see why Fergie chose Man Utd over Villa.

Yes but they bought those 4 players for circa £120m to develop them.

Quoted from 1054

. . . and that's why i said that it was representative of the problems throughout English football (which you decided to omit from my quote). . .
Bizarre!

Oh yeah! But has it ever been different? And are other countries any different?

As for Sky being shut down, surely Al Jazeera or ESPN would just pick up the rights?

One thing I would like to mention is the fact that Man ure have come to the end of their production line of young talent. Highlighted by the fact that they struggled to bring through a centre half  last season. Something which wouldn't have happened 3-4 years ago.

One thing I would like to see happen is that this government and successive governments start to make these clubs pay the tax that they owe. In some cases 5-6 million quid. I think it was reported that the combined figure of what is owed to the tax man is £500 million+, so make these clubs pay and this would go some way to a level playing field for all clubs.
This action might make the government stop ripping of the ordinary tax payers in this country. As for the premiershite title I don't give a flying f$$k, the  clubs in there dont care for lower teams or their fans so why do we concern ourselves with who wins it , it's the club with the biggest pot of money and who can fiddle figures.

Just my opinion.

Quoted from Abdul19

Oh yeah! But has it ever been different? And are other countries any different?

As for Sky being shut down, surely Al Jazeera or ESPN would just pick up the rights?

I loathe Murdoch with a passion. . . I cant really see al jazeera buying it, espn barely have a presence in the uk. . . maybe someone woylf snap it up but i cant imagine any being able to match the sums sky have put in!

I would love to see a big club go to the wall. . . Liverpool would be funny as fu(k. . . dont they owe millions to their chairman?

Quoted from 1600

Gutted, pulled out of a £2 Wigan 1-0@25/1  

How do you "pull out" of a bet?

Quoted from 1054

How do you "pull out" of a bet?

Guessing he went to the bookies, thought "Ahh that looks a nice bet. Just a shame I'll miss this £2 too much."

Back in the day, "Pulling out of a bet" was called "not putting a bet on"!

Quoted from 1054

Back in the day, "Pulling out of a bet" was called "not putting a bet on"!

Define back in the day?

Quoted from Neilo83

Define back in the day?

Like. .   . forever or something!?!!

Quoted from 1054

Like. .   . forever or something!?!!

Oh right, thought as much but why didn't u state that instead of putting "back in the day"? Along the same lines as pulling out of a bet and not putting a bet on surely?

Quoted from Neilo83

Oh right, thought as much but why didn't u state that instead of putting "back in the day"? Along the same lines as pulling out of a bet and not putting a bet on surely?

I was using the term 'back in the day' very much with my tongue in my cheek and it was done to pour scorn on 80's post. . .

jeez. . . have you ever heard of sarcasm?

Other things you may wish to ponder n3il in your hyper-literal way. . .  

old skool. . . . Way back when. . . . old as the hills. . .   when i was a lad. . . yesteryear. . . . the old days . . .

(N3il's head explodes while he is screaming "what school? which hills? When who was a lad? Year?  aaaaaaaaaagggghhh does not compute. . . Aaaaaaagggggghhhhh")

Quoted from 1054

I loathe Murdoch with a passion. . . I cant really see al jazeera buying it, espn barely have a presence in the uk. . . maybe someone woylf snap it up but i cant imagine any being able to match the sums sky have put in!

I would love to see a big club go to the wall. . . Liverpool would be funny as fu(k. . . dont they owe millions to their chairman?

Very true, but the Premier League would give them that. What was Sky before 1992?

Quoted from Abdul19

Very true, but the Premier League would give them that. What was Sky before 1992?

It was part of the biggest media empire that britain and the world had ever seen. . . as it continues to be!

Quoted from 1054

It was part of the biggest media empire that britain and the world have ever seen. . . as it continues to be!

Part of, but it was shit and no-one bought it!

Quoted from Abdul19

Part of, but it was shit and no-one bought it!

Murdochwas pretty much at the height of his powers, swaying the british electorate, choosing governmentd. . . he has always been a ruthless man. . . The sun, news of the world, the times, sunday times, ausyrslian and american media interests, the money to put space hardware into orbit. . . with that kind if money, sky could hardly fail could it?

Quoted from 1054

Murdochwas pretty much at the height of his powers, swaying the british electorate, choosing governmentd. . . he has always been a ruthless man. . . The sun, news of the world, the times, sunday times, ausyrslian and american media interests, the money to put space hardware into orbit. . . with that kind if money, sky could hardly fail could it?

Good question, but I can't see people paying £50+ per month for a tv package without football on. I wouldn't anyway!

I reckon pre sky the whole idea of paying money to watch footie on telly was almost unthinkable. .. . 20 years on test cricket, f1, rugby league, tennis, golf, boxing isnt seen in most households in the uk. . .   he's a bad man that murdoch. . .  

I remember when Sky Sports first started. It was originally on BSB (British Sky Broadcasting) with the squarial, before they merged with Sky (as it is today) and it was originally a free channel. I remember having a massive argument with a mate who insisted that you would never have to pay to watch football on TV.

There's probably not much less football on terrestrial tv now than there was 20 years ago.

Tennis; I'd hazard a guess that Wimbledon was the only stuff ever on and that's still there.

Definitely agree with you on cricket and boxing. Couldn't give a shit about the other stuff!

Quoted from Les Brechin

I remember when Sky Sports first started. It was originally on BSB (British Sky Broadcasting) with the squarial, before they merged with Sky (as it is today) and it was originally a free channel. I remember having a massive argument with a mate who insisted that you would never have to pay to watch football on TV.

I think bsb (british satelite broadtcasting) were the rivals and were bought out by sky. . . sky had round dishes. . . bsb had the squariel

You could watch first dividion football live every sunday. . . am sure there is more football on terrestrial than ever now but back then it seemed to still be, to a certsin extent, the people's game!

quote=618] I remember having a massive argument with a mate who insisted that you would never have to pay to watch football on TV.[/quote]

He probably took some solace in that thought that even if you were right you'd probably have forgotten by then and certainly wouldn't still be going on about it twenty years later  

Quoted from 1054

Murdochwas pretty much at the height of his powers, swaying the british electorate, choosing governmentd. . . he has always been a ruthless man. . . The sun, news of the world, the times, sunday times, ausyrslian and american media interests, the money to put space hardware into orbit. . . with that kind if money, sky could hardly fail could it?

As I recall prior to the purchase of football rights the Murdoch empire was on the brink of collapse. He certainly held politicial sway with his highly profitable British newspaper interests but the launch costs of Sky and his purchase of 20th Century Fox saddled News Corporation with enormous debt which, in the early 1990's, suddenly became very expensive as interest rates began to crawl up.

He managed to re-organise the companies borrowings and even find new capital to purchase the rights to TV football. The takeover of BSB was in fact a merger as this too was suffering under enormous start-up costs but without the reputation of Murdoch to give the lenders any confidence.

Quoted from 1054

I think bsb (british satelite broadtcasting) were the rivals and were bought out by sky. . . sky had round dishes. . . bsb had the squariel

Sorry. yeah it was British Satellitle Broadcasting. We were one of the first in Grimsby to have one installed and up until about a year ago we still had the squarial dish on the front of our house even though it had been obsolete for the last 10 years or so. It was a far superior system to the original Sky box too. A bit similar to the Betamax Videos which were far superior to the VHS system which took over.

Quoted from Les Brechin

Sorry. yeah it was British Satellitle Broadcasting. We were one of the first in Grimsby to have one installed and up until about a year ago we still had the squarial dish on the front of our house even though it had been obsolete for the last 10 years or so. It was a far superior system to the original Sky box too. A bit similar to the Betamax Videos which were far superior to the VHS system which took over.

An iconic collectors item if ebay is anything to go by!

Serious Q - in what ways were the ridiculed Betamax better than VHS?

Smaller cassettes! Better pic quality

Quoted from GTFC R MASSIVE

Serious Q - in what ways were the ridiculed Betamax better than VHS?

The first Sony Betamax videos made were far superior in picture quality to the first VHS recorders and the tapes were smaller and more compact (still the size of a bloody brick though). However Sony tried to keep the Betamax format a private in-house system solely for them but JVC made the VHS system freely available meaning more manufacturers could make the VHS machine making them far cheaper to buy, hence Sony shot themselves in the foot and the Betamax format soon fizzled out and Sony switched to VHS.

There was also the early Phillips 2000 machines where you could record upto 8 hours on a 2-sided tape but they didn't stay around for long at all.

All i remember from being a kid is that owning a Betamax rather than a VHS system meant you got pelters in a massive way!  

Quoted from Les Brechin

The first Sony Betamax videos made were far superior in picture quality to the first VHS recorders and the tapes were smaller and more compact (still the size of a bloody brick though). However Sony tried to keep the Betamax format a private in-house system solely for them but JVC made the VHS system freely available meaning more manufacturers could make the VHS machine making them far cheaper to buy, hence Sony shot themselves in the foot and the Betamax format soon fizzled out and Sony switched to VHS.

There was also the early Phillips 2000 machines where you could record upto 8 hours on a 2-sided tape but they didn't stay around for long at all.

The Betamax system didn't die out completely. It's size and superior quality lent itself ideally to the broadcast industry, particularly the increasing market in hand-held cameras used for electronic news gathering. The Sony Betacam was the industry leader for professional news organisations for two decades and this time Sony learnt its lesson; it licensed other firms to use its' technology.

Quoted from kingofthekippers

The Betamax system didn't die out completely. It's size and superior quality lent itself ideally to the broadcast industry, particularly the increasing market in hand-held cameras used for electronic news gathering. The Sony Betacam was the industry leader for professional news organisations for two decades and this time Sony learnt its lesson; it licensed other firms to use its' technology.

You sir are a fount of knowledge and I take my hat off to you!

Quoted from barralad

You sir are a fount of knowledge and I take my hat off to you!

An ex of mine, her brother used to be a service engineer for Sony travelling the country fixing and serviving the things. What that lad didn't know about the Betacam wasn't worth knowing; didn't get invited to many parties though.

And the only reason Betamax went down the drain when competing with VHS was the porn industry, same as how HD DVD lost out to Blu Ray.

A quick interesting read for anyone interested:

http://skeptics.stackexchange......ry-in-the-format-war

Quoted from 2075

And the only reason Betamax went down the drain when competing with VHS was the porn industry, same as how HD DVD lost out to Blu Ray.

A quick interesting read for anyone interested:

http://skeptics.stackexchange......ry-in-the-format-war

W@nker!

Quoted from 1054

W@nker!

Mean Its one of the only things I remember learning in media at college.  

Quoted from 2075

Mean Its one of the only things I remember learning in media at college.  

I thought it was something most teenage lads figured out for themselves - and they say modern courses aren't very academic!

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

I thought it was something most teenage lads figured out for themselves - and they say modern courses aren't very academic!

Most teenage lads figured out themselves? I'm a bit young for betamax, so it's something I had to learn about.

Quoted from Abdul19

Hopefully, though City's recent away form (2 wins in 10) suggests that Norwich away on Saturday is far from a formality. Plus Aguero will be in Bennett's pocket! Man U will beat Villa at home on Sunday so any slip by City and that's probably that.

D'oh!

It was Elliott Ward's fault  

Man U will still win tomorrow though (unfortunately).

In Mancini has Ferguson finally found someone who is not drawn in to his end-of-season mind games? In fact, given his recent claims that United have already won the title and are far better than City, is it now possibly the other way around?

An unexpected, but pleasant, surprise. Liverpool losing as well rounded the day off nicely.

Hang on, sorry, I meant boo Premiershite rubbish etc etc!

It's a very tight mid table at the minute. There's a very real chance Liverpool could finish as low as 14th  

Quoted from AdamHaddock

It's a very tight mid table at the minute. There's a very real chance Liverpool could finish as low as 14th  

It was great to see Liverpool reach the FA Cup Final. It's always nice to see a run-of-the-mill mid-table team get there instead of one of the big teams.

Quoted from Abdul19

Hopefully, though City's recent away form (2 wins in 10) suggests that Norwich away on Saturday is far from a formality. Plus Aguero will be in Bennett's pocket! Man U will beat Villa at home on Sunday so any slip by City and that's probably that.

Have you got this weeks Lottery numbers too?  

This week is dragging already, roll on Monday evening ...... Tevez winner anyone?  

Just goes to show how stupid The Premiership and Sky are really.

The biggest game of the Premiership season so far and they put it on a Monday Evening!!

Quoted from NorfolkImp

Have you got this weeks Lottery numbers too?  

This week is dragging already, roll on Monday evening ...... Tevez winner anyone?  

The tongue was slightly in cheek with that one! How Kyle Walker beat Aguero to young player of the year is beyond me.

And yes!