Manchester United

And in Manchester, you have two choices. The all conquering Mighty Reds with their famous stars who appear in Smash Hits with Dani Behr, or the Sky Blues, Manchester City. You make a choice. The noble underlings or the vile scum sucking glory hunting capitalist pig dogs of Man. U.

I am proud to have chosen the former! There are enough supporters of Man. U in Bejing to make the loss of one wee local(ish) supporter not exactly a hideous loss.

So that's why I supported Man. U.

Of course, I grew closer to Preston as the years went on and now my team is and probably always will be, Preston North End. Still got a soft spot for City though. Unless they play PNE in which case they go DOWN.

Like I say, contrary to popular conception, I don't think I can think of a single MU fan that I know.

Apart from New Football Fan Tom Ewing.

Me? I like Gillingham.

It is the team supported by the last-named - Manchester City, if you'd forgotten - and Oldham Athletic, who are Greater Manchester's true work of the devil: petty pathetic little whippet-owning Northern ethnic authenticists who moan that everyone supports MUFC and NOBODY KNOWS WHO THEY ARE and isn't it a pity that everything's so huge and globalised nowadays and there's no room for the small man blah blah?

Bernard Manning. Les Dawson. Noel Gallagher. Both touched by the hands of Joe Royle. The evidence is clear: Oldham and especially Man City are the teams of tedious sub-racist provincial bitterness. Against that, who *wouldn't* choose a global corporation who actually have ambitions and, at their best, live up to them?

Not bitter.

What confuses me is that people keep writing things in praise of Man Utd, as if they're about to go and win something. But they're not. (cf eg today's Guardian, in which a Neville says they're a better team than in 1999.) I can't quite work out what's going on - why their ongoing descent is being so relentlessly denied.

This is the nub of the matter why they're both loved and loathed in equal measure, ok maybe loathed more. They're the football equivalent of Macdonalds or Nike. An aspirational mega brand with a well defined set of values, success, glamour, history, 'northern' grit' etc.

I find it a bit galling that one of my local teams (York City) is handing out a cap begging for funds while you can't move for Yorkshire born and bred Man U supporters. It makes you long for the war of the roses.

I don't think it is. Early in the season (when Liverpool were actually on top of the league, ah those were the days etc.) people were already saying that Arsenal had taken over from Man United as the major force in English football. I thought this was a little rash statement to make. People are perhaps assuming that a single team must be all-dominant, just cause Man Utd have been for the last decade.

"well bar maybe another striker man utd have the best squad they have ever had and prob the premiership has ever seen"

I disagree with zemko here, though. The best United team I've ever seen is the '94 vintage. I'd have loved to have seen how this team could have performed in Europe without the restriction of 'foreigners' that affected English teams (with their traditional reliance on Scottish, Irish and Welsh players) more than anyone else. And I never saw the '58 or '68 teams.

The suggestion about Fergie and Keane being the problem is laughable. I don't know how old you are, but if you don't remember United pre-Ferguson (or even early Ferguson, before his changes had had a chance to work) then a simple perusal of the record books should provide the evidence to counter your claims.

But seeing as you mention the pair of them in relation to the question of decline, I think the mid-term success of United depends largely on a couple of factors that have emerged in the last couple of weeks. On the one hand, both Ferguson and the United board have expressed a desire for him to stay on beyond the end of his current contract. Which is a good thing. The other factor is the state of Roy Keane's hip. He's been so important for United over the last few years that it's hard to contemplate a United without him, or with a diminshed version of him. Recent league games have seen him unable to impose himself upon the match with the power of old. Last night was very interesting - a further demonstration of his abilities at centre back. But his future still seems uncertain.

But Juve still should have got a couple, Nedved was on fire.

'squad' does not equal 'team', ya get meh? and this is my point; the team spirit is riven because simply put stamping and shouting and intimidation do not work on well-paid professionals or hell, men even. the 94 team was good i'll agree (all a bunch of bastards like robson, hughes, keane and ferguson actually), but would have fizzled out eventually had there not been that remarkable crop of kids on which the modern united is built. with a young meek set of players to bring up at once they were all powerful, fanatical even. now ferguson seems impotent, cantankerous, keane well as you say his hip is fucked and he can barely get around the pitch. both useless old men waving their fists at the moon. captain beckham is in charge now; he is staging a player's coup

Ferguson has not fundamentally changed in this regard since the Aberdeen days. It's obviously not his only method of motivation, but as an important part of his management tactics it's proved pretty successful over the years. Including this season. After the city defeat there was plenty of shouting and 'intimidation', if you want to call it that. Followed by victories over Newcastle, Deportivo, Liverpool and Arsenal that transformed the season. The press he gets depends on results. Win, and it's "the great motivator"; lose and he's "out of touch with modern football management". One of the many great things about Ferguson is he doen't allow his image outside the club to worry him one bit.

As for your comments about Beckham, the dynamic between him and Ferguson is obviously very interesting, but there will only be one winner of a 'battle' at United. Beckham flexes his muscles every now and again but he knows the score. Players who think they're bigger than the club or bigger than Ferguson don't last at United, and he's well aware of that.

They've looked the best this season, you're right, but that's with injuries hampering Rio's attempts to settle in. Long term, who knows?

Alternatively, "oh, you always rise to the bait" = "congratulations, you have just won the argument" ;-)

i just feel that ferguson is irreparably just slightly 'outside' of what happens nowadays, that successes at the moment are more to do with talented and capable players gelling themselves into a unit (whilst still wary of ferguson granted). they are taking him and keane with a pinch of salt now i think. like i mentioned above beckham and veron seem to have a terrific understanding and mutual respect which has become the real drive of the team

Chelsea will win the league for the rest of time, unless Abramovitch goes to prison.

whta like blackburn carried on winning for the rest of time? er.....

I'd like to take comfort from Blackburn's rapid collapse, but I don't think it's the same thing. When Jack Walker arrived on the scene (in 1991?) his personal fortune seemed like a hell of a lot of money. Don't forget Michael Knighton had nearly bought United for about £20M a couple of years before (until it turned out he didn't have the money). By the time Blackburn were defending their title in 95/96 the Premier League had become far richer than it was before and Walker's wallet didn't seem nearly so impressive.

It's difficult to see the same thing happen to Chelsea. It's pretty much impossible that Abramovitch's billions will be matched by any other club, or that the premier league is about to experience another boom which will make his billions seem like small money.

Ok, wtf. Have Chelskov kidnapped a player so Man U can't sign him? Any Norwegians around the boards who can shed more light on what the hell is going on here?

Perhaps this thought is not very new.

Can anyone recommend a history of the rivalry between United and City?

"A-Z of Manchester Football 100 Years of Rivalry 1878-1978"

"The Pride of Manchester - History of Manchester Derby Matches"

They're both ancient though (1978), i don't know of any covering up til modern day. can't recommend either, as i've not read, but i was looking nfor sometihng similar for a brother's birthday lately and i think these were all i found

Hey, thanks! I'm gonna check these out asap...

np, just as i said i can't stand over the quality or anything

do you have some specific interest in this roxy? afaik the traditional rivalry is w/ liverpool (east/west lancs rivalry traceable to victorian era resentments if not before) and to a lesser extent w/ leeds (yorks/lancs)

since man city were taken over by some sovereign wealth fund the rivalry w/ utd has been exploited for commercial ends

i dunno about leeds 'to a lesser extent' than liverpool, which is mainly based on jostling for success, geographical proximity notwithstanding. utd-leeds have had strong mutual antipathy going back to at least the 70's, where i'm not sure that there was any great footballing rivalry with liverpool until united's 90's resurgence?

could be 100% wrong about liverpool/utd rivalry, tbh, just wouldn't underestimate the rivalry with leeds relative to it.

yeah the leeds rivalry is supposedly rly intense but they have that nf rep

the only leeds kid i knew at school was a huge fan and srsly racist, it's kinda a weird city cuz there's plenty of wealth around there and quite a large jewish population

not sure either of those things preclude racism tbh, but we're digressing

One thing about Man Utd and Liverpool is I can't think of any players in recent history that have moved from one club to the other. With Leeds though you've got Cantona, Rio, Alan Smith etc, all the way back to yer Joe Jordans. There's like there an embargo on Liverpool players at Old Trafford.

Talking about direct moves there btw, not yer Michael Owens.

it's more that finances and pride have never reached the relative ebb it would take between liverpool/united in the past ?20? years.

leeds, well they've needed the money.

phil chisnall, 1964 last direct transfer between two clubs, and we all remember how he turned out, right?

Yeah, haha Phil Chisnall, shit yeah.

saying that re: leeds having to sell to utd- maybe they still felt that they owed them after getting johhny giles tbh

o that crazy phil chisnall, what a guy

At Liverpool he only managed nine appearances and two goals, before moving on to Southend United in 1967. He finished his career with a season at Stockport County before retiring from professional football in 1972, when still only 29.

Hmm didn't fair too well did he?

compared to n'gog he's not too bad, rly

i mean nobody really expects n'gog to still be getting wages out of this craic when he's 29- do they?

there wasn't rly a big wealth/prestige gap when cantona moved

Cantona wasn't all *that* expensive at the time either iirc, it's not like they made all that much out of it.

£1.2 million apparently, fucking bargain.

can't remember the story behind that, think wilkinson had called ferguson to bid for someone (maybe irwin, tho i may be getting that mixed up cos they'd released him earlier in his career) and ferguson basically says 'na no sellin but a'll gie ye a million for yon french cunt ye have' and wilkinson just went for it out of the blue to the surprise of all concerned. cantona probably spoiling for a move at the time, maybe

yeah as told it was all done w/ a few phone calls, which would never have happened w/ liverpool or city

admittedly that's more to do with rafa's bills not being paid by the yanks in the last few months i'd say

to answer the q i read a book that talked a little about red v blue rivalry and how it seemed to go along class lines and lines of spec. neighborhoods in the 70s. so yeah, a specific interest i suppose

ok then in that case an older history will prob be a lot more along those lines anyway- the big rise in the profile of english football (and especially united) would have skewed the type and demographics of the rivalry from the 90's onwards.

(tho united have always had p widespread international attention i suppose)

Just briefly: the 'traditional' rivalry is definitely with City. The most intense rivalry, certainly over the last 30 years or so, has been with Liverpool. Leeds are third on the list of rivals, but the hatred from Leeds towards Man Utd is much stronger.

^ well yeah, but I see the Liverpool rivalry as becoming more or less equivalent to the Leeds rivalry for much the same reasons, and maybe even less once they get relegated.

One thing about Man Utd and Liverpool is I can't think of any players in recent history that have moved from one club to the other. With Leeds though you've got Cantona, Rio, Alan Smith etc, all the way back to yer Joe Jordans. There's like there an embargo on Liverpool players at Old Trafford.

There's an embargo on selling to Liverpool.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2318053/Alex-Ferguson-No-Liverpool-move-for-Heinze.html

"Ferguson's position is that he will not sanction the first transfer between Manchester United and Liverpool since Phil Chisnall joined Bill Shankly on Merseyside in 1964."

Then again he wouldn't sell Real Madrid a virus so things can change when you're $1bn in debt.

My favourite way to wind Liverpool fans up is to tell them they're not the enemy any more.

yeah the people running up the $1bn debt are the really enemy

for which club?