Originally Posted by Russ D

But you're missing my point - Liverpool won't do that again for a good few years yet just like United. Gerrard might acheive FA Cup success occasionally but the Premiership and Champions league are honours he won't be experiencing.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Come on who has come throught their youth system in the last ten years, O'Shea who they keep trying to sell, Brown who is always injured and Fletcher who they don't like and whilst I agree that the money Chelsea spend is crass I feel there is more than a little of a pot calling kettle black situation going on.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

no buts because your manager needed years to make the most of them, to me that makes mourinho a better manager then fergie quite simple.

Originally Posted by Russ D

And I feel there's more than a degree of the usual anti-United bias going on! You can't compare United now to the team of the 90s, when the youth policy was more evident (even if you decide to 'forget' Rossi, Bardsley, Eagles, Fletcher etc who are all showing signs of becoming quality players). Our reign then was based on the younger guys alongside the experience of the old guard. Chelsea's success is based on Roman's chequebook.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No I gave Fletcher more of a mention than you manager does these days, the only other real prospects you have are Rossi and Richardson both of which did not come from your youth team but were stolen from other clubs.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Hehe, Fletcher scored the goal which beat Chelsea - he'll always be popular!

What you're forgetting (or is that 'conveniently ignoring'?) is that the kids from the 90s were part of an awesome youth team which no-one has been able to replicate. They went on to create the success which paved the way for United to be able to afford Rio, Rooney, Ronaldo etc.

Chelsea did not earn their success. They simply bought it.

Originally Posted by Russ D

As someone said earlier, just like Gerard at Liverpool, what's he going to win with Arsenal? United proved they would have won the title had Chelsea not bought it again so success is more likely there, but Henry is hardly likely to get a fulfilled end to his career with the @rse.

Originally Posted by Damien

I have to agree with Russ here. United did bring up a lot of youth players and it took time before Man united started to be succesful as they are now. Only then, after united started winning, did they have enough money to spend so much in the transfer market. Since which they have actually been less succesful.

United won more when they didnt spend a lot than they do now.

Chelsea have gone right to the top and stayed there as a direct result of the sudden influx of money. First season, bam. Title. There was no bringing players up though the youth team or slow success. They were doing bad and now they are winning a lot.

They have bought their success. It quite horrible to watch them win the league in such a way which takes the excitement away. Chelsea spend and win everyone else is in a race for secound place.

I would rather United win the league than Chelsea.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Er yes and yes wasn't it the season after you signed Roy Keane the first time you won the league for thirty years ( I admit I am not sure as I seem to remember beating you to hand the title to Leeds can't remember the year though) and your club has continued to spend ever since.