The Official Manchester United Thread (Vol2)
Discussion
anniesdad said:
HeatonNorris said:
It is a fair point, though - since Mansour arrived, City have spent £200m more than Fergie has spent in the entire history of the Premier League.
For real? Since 1992, United's net spend is £177m
Since 2006, City's net spend is £418m.
If you go on gross, they've spent £531m since 2006, yet we've only spent £483m since the inception of the EPL.
If you roll back to the start of the EPL, City have spent £649m gross.
That's a bloody huge gap in spending, no matter how you look at it.
It's a surprise we're still in it, when up against that level of spending, but I'm still really hacked off that we've thrown it away.
GentleFellow said:
United have made tens of millions more than City from Champions League television rights over last 15 years. United have made millions more than City in global merchandising - all of which has helped them out-attract and out-buy City, until three years ago. It isn't fair City have limitless cash, but take them and Chelsea's owners out, and United would still be richest club in the world wouldn't they? And, just like the nineties, no United fan would think that unfair.
So united have made cash from performing, whereas city have made cash by, well, being given cash?Utd been in champions league because they were successful, likewise teu sold merchandise off the back of it. Self generated cash...
Like i said I'm pretty impartial but when it comes to the discussions on money there's a lot of crap being chatted.
Wacky Racer said:
Sheikh Mansour bought Manchester City in 2009...not 2006.
Well, it's the closest figure I can put my hands on - and I don't recall any really silly spending between 2006 and 2009.The facts are still that City have really spent ludicrous amounts of money to stumble to a title win against one of the worst United sides I can remember since we won our first EPL title.
HeatonNorris said:
Wacky Racer said:
Sheikh Mansour bought Manchester City in 2009...not 2006.
Well, it's the closest figure I can put my hands on - and I don't recall any really silly spending between 2006 and 2009.The facts are still that City have really spent ludicrous amounts of money to stumble to a title win against one of the worst United sides I can remember since we won our first EPL title.
Secondly, United have a great side, compare their points tally with teams below them, even Roberto Mancini acknowledges this.
Should be an interesting two weeks.......
HeatonNorris said:
The facts are still that City have really spent ludicrous amounts of money to stumble to a title win against one of the worst United sides I can remember since we won our first EPL title.
Do you want a pint of bitter to go with those sour grapes?What did you want City to do with that money? Pay off the Glazers debt? Get real FFS, any team would have taken that money and bought the best players available, City are no different. The league title is all about points and goal difference, there is no mention of net spend.
Thom987 said:
HeatonNorris said:
The facts are still that City have really spent ludicrous amounts of money to stumble to a title win against one of the worst United sides I can remember since we won our first EPL title.
Do you want a pint of bitter to go with those sour grapes?What did you want City to do with that money? Pay off the Glazers debt? Get real FFS, any team would have taken that money and bought the best players available, City are no different. The league title is all about points and goal difference, there is no mention of net spend.
Thom987 said:
Do you want a pint of bitter to go with those sour grapes?
What did you want City to do with that money? Pay off the Glazers debt? Get real FFS, any team would have taken that money and bought the best players available, City are no different. The league title is all about points and goal difference, there is no mention of net spend.
When football becomes a monopoly game of who has the richest owner, it ceases to become the sport we've grown up to know and love.What did you want City to do with that money? Pay off the Glazers debt? Get real FFS, any team would have taken that money and bought the best players available, City are no different. The league title is all about points and goal difference, there is no mention of net spend.
RichB said:
Thom987 said:
HeatonNorris said:
The facts are still that City have really spent ludicrous amounts of money to stumble to a title win against one of the worst United sides I can remember since we won our first EPL title.
Do you want a pint of bitter to go with those sour grapes?What did you want City to do with that money? Pay off the Glazers debt? Get real FFS, any team would have taken that money and bought the best players available, City are no different. The league title is all about points and goal difference, there is no mention of net spend.
City aren't underdogs anymore, united are. No surprised city are where they are but it's hardly that impressive when the coach is in danger of losing his position if they don't win because they have spent that much. Bought it.
HeatonNorris said:
Thom987 said:
Do you want a pint of bitter to go with those sour grapes?
What did you want City to do with that money? Pay off the Glazers debt? Get real FFS, any team would have taken that money and bought the best players available, City are no different. The league title is all about points and goal difference, there is no mention of net spend.
When football becomes a monopoly game of who has the richest owner, it ceases to become the sport we've grown up to know and love.What did you want City to do with that money? Pay off the Glazers debt? Get real FFS, any team would have taken that money and bought the best players available, City are no different. The league title is all about points and goal difference, there is no mention of net spend.
Wether we like it or not, football is a big money game and United are a big part of that. City have had to spend big to compete and all this talk of net spend, rich Sheikhs and whatever is all a side show. United got tanked this evening and Whiskey Nose has lost the plot. 'kin hell, but I could have picked a better team, he set United up for a draw and as a neutral, or as neutral as a Liverpool supporter can be, United were lucky to get 0.
I suspect the recent years of inflation in the transfer market of fees and wages are a reason why Utd spend is so low.
Example: Keane for £3.75 million, Cantona £1.2million etc.
If these were done today (which is what City have effectively had to do) I suspect they might cost just a tad more than that.
Still all credit to Ferguson, he has done a great job at Utd.
Example: Keane for £3.75 million, Cantona £1.2million etc.
If these were done today (which is what City have effectively had to do) I suspect they might cost just a tad more than that.
Still all credit to Ferguson, he has done a great job at Utd.
vonuber said:
I suspect the recent years of inflation in the transfer market of fees and wages are a reason why Utd spend is so low.
Example: Keane for £3.75 million, Cantona £1.2million etc.
If these were done today (which is what City have effectively had to do) I suspect they might cost just a tad more than that.
Still all credit to Ferguson, he has done a great job at Utd.
Forget the past. Even now the team ain't great and at the top. Example: Keane for £3.75 million, Cantona £1.2million etc.
If these were done today (which is what City have effectively had to do) I suspect they might cost just a tad more than that.
Still all credit to Ferguson, he has done a great job at Utd.
I like united and city because they're both Manchester clubs. Weird I know but I'm a Manchester lad and proud we have the two top teams in this country.
I cant stand Chelsea and I'm starting to see a bit of them in city. Money ain't an issue if its earned but it's not impressive or commendable to just be given success
vonuber said:
Yazza54 said:
No one denies united havent been very good. But the only reason United are in sniffing distance is because of the asian market buying so many shirts.
Pays your money etc.Like I said, self generated money. Not some random tycoon making the team his new plaything.
vonuber said:
I suspect the recent years of inflation in the transfer market of fees and wages are a reason why Utd spend is so low.
Example: Keane for £3.75 million, Cantona £1.2million etc.
If these were done today (which is what City have effectively had to do) I suspect they might cost just a tad more than that.
Still all credit to Ferguson, he has done a great job at Utd.
Plus the sizeable and alightly fortuitous cheque from the deep pockets of Real Madrid for Ronaldo. That's a none too common occurrence which skews the figures somewhat.Example: Keane for £3.75 million, Cantona £1.2million etc.
If these were done today (which is what City have effectively had to do) I suspect they might cost just a tad more than that.
Still all credit to Ferguson, he has done a great job at Utd.
One would expect City to do a bit of pruning at some point, which would also affect the difference.
BTW, has anyone mentioned a near doubling of the British record fee paid for one JS Veron
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff