The 4th Bought Title

Has just gone to the blue half of Manchester.

Congrats on spending thr GDP of a small country to acheive success Sheik Mansour

Why not 5th ?

Even though I hate Man Utd (used to support them ) I hope they win the title. I hate how City's owners have come in and bought the league, thats why the Premier League means nothing to me.

At least when Utd win it they dont spend £100's of millions on above average players. Hopefully Spurs win it next year, or maybe even Newcastle?


Out of curiosity, who were the other 3? I'm guessing Chelsea...

[quote="CantonJack"
Out of curiosity, who were the other 3? I'm guessing Chelsea...[/quote]
Yep. Only 1 of these 4 bought titles has been noteworthy, Mourinho's ridiculous 04-05 Chelsea, which would have won the treble if not for a joke decision in the CL, but it still stands they've all bought their way to the top.


Mind you, it has broken the Arsenal/Man U duopoly at the very least.

Blackburn bought the title in 1994/95 with Shearer and Sutton etc

Even though I hate Man Utd (used to support them ) I hope they win the title. I hate how City's owners have come in and bought the league, thats why the Premier League means nothing to me.

At least when Utd win it they dont spend £100's of millions on above average players. Hopefully Spurs win it next year, or maybe even Newcastle?


Out of curiosity, who were the other 3? I'm guessing Chelsea...

United have bought succes for years

Blackburn bought the title in 1994/95 with Shearer and Sutton etc

Woy Hodgson soon put that right

well done man city, the proper fans of manchester won the day, bluearmy

the only way to get success in the premier league is to spend big, the gap between the clubs who have had money from the champions league for years and the others was huge , man city had to spend big to catch up just like chelsea had too, lets not kid ourselves if abramovich and now shiek mansoor hadn't spent big man utd would have won even more titles because nobody else would have stopped them, man utd have spent just as much as chelsea and man city broken the british transfer record loads of times fans of other clubs should be gratful to abramavich and shiek mansoor for breaking manure's monopoly on the premier league, it's mostly mancs who moan about clubs buying success because they know it's the only threat to their dominance, eg :arsenal don't spend big and they ain't won f**k all for 7 years

the only way to get success in the premier league is to spend big, the gap between the clubs who have had money from the champions league for years and the others was huge , man city had to spend big to catch up just like chelsea had too, lets not kid ourselves if abramovich and now shiek mansoor hadn't spent big man utd would have won even more titles because nobody else would have stopped them, man utd have spent just as much as chelsea and man city broken the british transfer record loads of times fans of other clubs should be gratful to abramavich and shiek mansoor for breaking manure's monopoly on the premier league, it's mostly mancs who moan about clubs buying success because they know it's the only threat to their dominance, eg :arsenal don't spend big and they ain't won f**k all for 7 years

Arsenal would be a lot stronger now if Man City and Chelsea didn't have the money they do, aswell as Liverpool and any team from Spurs, Everton, Villa and Newcastle.

Because Man City and Chelsea keep pushing the transfer fees and wages up it makes it even harder for a smaller side to break into the top 4.

well thats debatable, as for liverpool dalglish as spent over 100 million in 1 year so i guess thats trying to buy success as well then

Dalglish is just a shockingly bad manager though.

He was lucky at Blackburn because there was no team that was truly dominating at the time.

man citys starting 11 actually cost 8million less than man utds. FACT

man citys starting 11 actually cost 8million less than man utds. FACT

Difference is Man U's was bought over nearly a decade whereas Man City's was all spent in one go.

your never lucky to win a league it's 40 odd games, and i would have said he bought the league just by having shearer and sutton but he's certainly spending big now the problem for the scousers is he's spending the money on shit players

man citys starting 11 actually cost 8million less than man utds. FACT

Difference is Man U's was bought over nearly a decade whereas Man City's was all spent in one go.

true but still utd bought the league for years, personally i couldn't care less, i want city to win it so i can take the piss out of all the plastics around here and the ones i work with

man citys starting 11 actually cost 8million less than man utds. FACT

Difference is Man U's was bought over nearly a decade whereas Man City's was all spent in one go.

true but still utd bought the league for years, personally i couldn't care less, i want city to win it so i can take the piss out of all the plastics around here and the ones i work with

I wanted United to win because there's some bitter plastic Liverpool fans at my place who wank over every Man U loss.

United pushed the transfer fees up for years so they cant grumble

I would like citeh to win it, though I think qpr might suprised them. As for utd since the glazers took over they have spent 185 mill and recouped 175 mill!!!!!!

the last team not to buy the title was leeds in 1991
its the way football works united have broken transfere records for the last 20 years liverpool done the same before them.
money brings success

Surely every title is bought to some degree?

Man Utd have spent big for many years to maintain their dominance, Blackburn spent big and had their moment in the sun, followed by Chelsea and now Man City.

Arsenal have probably been the most financially prudent of the Premier League winners but they've still had to spend to get the title.

Man City bought the title?

Cost of starting United team yesterday: £169m.

Cost of starting City team yesterday: £161m.

United spent over 50 mill on 2 players, veron and vanisteroy, that must be over 10 years ago, the more you spend the more you win, usually