They became a plc. That's it.
No one gave them unlimited funds, it's utter bollocks to suggest that was the case.
Match Day Thread General matchday thread.
- Thread starter Libby
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
They became a plc. That's it.
No one gave them unlimited funds, it's utter bollocks to suggest that was the case.
You've spent an absolute fortune season by season for a decade or more... as have Chelsea and Citeh ... difference has been in both the quality of signings and the manager ... whilst Ctieh have evolved as a club, United have, at best, stagnated in comparison ... and Chelsea have most recently just gone daft ...
Other than that ... you have a point ... unfortunately Citeh continue to take all 3 ... which more or less sums it up
Ponky still searching for his "unassailable lead repair kit" whilst Bobby just gave him another puncture ...
You've spent an absolute fortune season by season for a decade or more... as have Chelsea and Citeh ... difference has been in both the quality of signings and the manager ... whilst Ctieh have evolved as a club, United have, at best, stagnated in comparison ... and Chelsea have most recently just gone daft ...
Other than that ... you have a point ... unfortunately Citeh continue to take all 3 ... which more or less sums it up
You're the one who referenced Rio Ferdinand. Which is a when I was talking about.
But we're back to talking about the last decade to prove your point now are we?
Not really mate... United's history of spending the most money to gain success goes right back to the start of the Fergie era (thanks for setting that up so nicely) ... refence to the last decade is purely in relation to the new kids on the block coming along in that time who could then match or, indeed, beat you, moneywise, to those stellar signings ... and ... surprise, surprise, you're not as successful as you were when you were the top spenders (and neither are Liverpool) ... perhaps there is a corellation?
... so back to my original point ... throughout my lifetime the club able to spend the most money generally gets the most success ...does it bother me that it's now Citeh and Chelsea (and perhaps Newcastle) rather than United, Liverpool and Arsenal? ... not one little bit .. still the same obstacles facing clubs like mine that have always existed... fun bit is, as it always has been, giving the rich and powerful a bloody nose once in a while ... oh ... and finding it ironically funny that the biggest bleaters on how unfair Citeh's 'financial advantage' is, seem to be fans that enjoyed that same advantage for decades ...
Last edited:
TL;DR - I agree 100% but with caveats.
Don't disagree with that, all fair enough. Of all the teams people could have issue over spending money I'd put clubs like Man Utd and Liverpool near the bottom as they clearly generate the money they spend. Lots of things that make comparison (between Man Utd 2000odd and Man City now) a touch unfair, not least you'd had a stable manager for 15-20 years at that point, I'd hazard a guess (and it is only a guess) that he changed the squad more in his early days, plus the expectations on City for the last decade have been "win the league or you're at risk of the sack". That's not luck though Ferguson was an exceptional squad builder, people point at his mistakes but his successes dwarf them massively.
That said, in my opinion, it is harder to compare the way things were 20 or so years ago for two main reasons.
1 - The game is faster now and you need a larger squad. I understand this isn't just a "fact" but I also don't think it's a controversial opinion. The outcome being that whilst in the 90's you could get away with 16-18 players (and half of them could be average for the league) to win things you need more now so teams playing catch up are going to spend proportionally more than they did. It's this which is why i can see Newcastle and Arsenal both dropping off next season with the champions league whereas Liverpool, Tottenham and Chelsea should come back stronger.
2 - Transfer windows. When you could buy players any time of the season you didn't have to stock up so much. Pretty sure that in two years between 1999 and 2001 Man Utd only actually bought 1 player (Bartez), it's impressive but I also doubt Ferguson would have gone a full season without signing a player in the modern game when you need to have your back-ups signed "just in case".
Not really mate... United's history of spending the most money to gain success goes right back to the start of the Fergie era (thanks for setting that up so nicely) ... refence to the last decade is purely in relation to the new kids on the block coming along in that time who could then match or, indeed, beat you, moneywise, to those stellar signings ... and ... surprise, surprise, you're not as successful as you were when you were the top spenders (and neither are Liverpool) ... perhaps there is a corellation?
... so back to my original point ... throughout my lifetime the club able to spend the most money generally gets the most success ...does it bother me that it's now Citeh and Chelsea (and perhaps Newcastle) rather than United, Liverpool and Arsenal? ... not one little bit .. still the same obstacles facing clubs like mine that have always existed... fun bit is, as it always has been, giving the rich and powerful a bloody nose once in a while ... oh ... and finding it ironically funny that the biggest bleaters on how unfair Citeh's 'financial advantage' is, seem to be fans that enjoyed that same advantage for decades ...
You said United have always spent big, referenced Ferdinand, as if it's just exactly the same as City and always has been.
I pointed out that we used to make a marquee signing every other season or so during the Fergie era. Sometimes even none.
I am right, you are wrong. Feel free to look it up.
Last decade, was not my point. Nor was it yours initially.
Last edited:
Looked it up ... you had the highest net spend of any club in Europe over the last decade ... Citeh the second ... proves both my points ... spending the most brings you success ... but unfortunately for you... Citeh have spent it much better and have a much better manager ...
I was right ... and you are just demonstrating the typical arrogance of Manchester Unuted fans that Big Ern recently alluded to ...
Other than that, I hope you are having a nice weekend ... I know I am.
You're welcome
Not really mate... United's history of spending the most money to gain success goes right back to the start of the Fergie era (thanks for setting that up so nicely) ... refence to the last decade is purely in relation to the new kids on the block coming along in that time who could then match or, indeed, beat you, moneywise, to those stellar signings ... and ... surprise, surprise, you're not as successful as you were when you were the top spenders (and neither are Liverpool) ... perhaps there is a corellation?
... so back to my original point ... throughout my lifetime the club able to spend the most money generally gets the most success ...does it bother me that it's now Citeh and Chelsea (and perhaps Newcastle) rather than United, Liverpool and Arsenal? ... not one little bit .. still the same obstacles facing clubs like mine that have always existed... fun bit is, as it always has been, giving the rich and powerful a bloody nose once in a while ... oh ... and finding it ironically funny that the biggest bleaters on how unfair Citeh's 'financial advantage' is, seem to be fans that enjoyed that same advantage for decades ...
Didn't you have to pay a fine of over £3m because of a FFP breach. I do find it ironic that the only reason you are in the PL is because you cheated but still play on the “little old Leicester” bit.
Nope... we chose to pay it because it cost a lot less than trying to contest it ... so we paid it 'without prejudice' but nice attempt nonetheless...
Nope... we chose to pay it because it cost a lot less than trying to contest it ... so we paid it 'without prejudice' but nice attempt nonetheless... and £3 million ... oooer ... United's net spend over the last 10 years was over a billion... not just 'poor little Leicester" ... poor little most clubs when compared
Looked it up ... you had the highest net spend of any club in Europe over the last decade ... Citeh the second ... proves both my points ... spending the most brings you success ... but unfortunately for you... Citeh have spent it much better and have a much better manager ...
I was right ... and you are just demonstrating the typical arrogance of Manchester Unuted fans that Big Ern recently alluded to ...
Other than that, I hope you are having a nice weekend ... I know I am.
You're welcome
So we had the highest net spend in the last decade, even though you referenced Rio Ferdinand, who signed 20 year ago, to 'prove' we've always spent the same as City.
K'den.
Just the same.
Like becoming a plc is just the same as being owned and bankrolled by an oil emirate.
It's becoming like Twitter this place, an idiot makes something up and the next thing you know it's fact.
So you did have net spend of over £1 billion in the last 10 years and you did spend £20 million on Rio Ferdinand? ... KDEN
... and so we can all agree that the clubs that spend the most money generally have the most success ... which is where we started ... and that Chelsea and Citeh doing it now is only what United and Liverpool were able to do in earlier decades?
See ... that was quite easy in the end ...
You keep referring back to the last decade, which I've already said I don't contend.
However, your original point was that we've always spent in the same manner as City.
Which you're wrong on, and you know it, and now you only want to talk about the last decade.
The year we bought Ferdinand, we sold Beckham and Veron for more than his cost.
You're welcome.
[HASHTAG]#justthesame[/HASHTAG].
However, your original point was that we've always spent in the same manner as City.
Which you're wrong on, and you know it, and now you only want to talk about the last decade.
The year we bought Ferdinand, we sold Beckham and Veron for more than his cost.
You're welcome.
[HASHTAG]#justthesame[/HASHTAG].
Well spotted and why I posted it. Including the state of Winthorpe there.
2 nil up against Liverpool... drew 2-2
2 nil up against West Ham... drew 2-2
Drew 3 all with relegated Southampton
Lost 3 nil at home to Brighton
Lost to nearly relegated forest
Lost 4-1 to city
15 points lost...all in their last 9 games
Not a bottle job?????
You won't get any sense out of Fosse. What you're seeing here from posters like him and Ern is decades of butthurt they've had to endure during United's success and now using City's rise to have a pop at us. The same dickheads who were probably claiming we were buying success now defending City. It's laughable.
Personally I don't give a fck about the money as I've said countless times on here. It's up to us to better ourselves and meet the challenge. I think that's how Fergie saw it and how we should approach it. It can be done during Pep's reign but he's the single biggest reason for their success and it'll probably become more achievable after he leaves.