Where is 2008 to 2011? and UTD make there own money, and dont have a mega rich sugar daddy, A rab to bank roll them. http://therepublikofmancunia.com/stats-uniteds-spending-vs-arsenal-chelsea-liverpool-city/ so your thread fails, yet again
You keep telling yourself that, it would seem you are in a huge minority. http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/98021-Hi-City-Fans
I thought the cost of a transfer fee was spread across the length of the initial contract for FFP purposes, so City's big buys will still be costing them for at least a couple of years even before you factor in wages.
Thanks for that well thought out response, i wondered how long it would be before you added to the thread, you are nothing if not predictable.. I will ask again - Look at your spending over the years below, do you honestly think you would have done so well if we had all been on a level playing field financially speaking? Year - Manchester United - Manchester City 98/99... £27,750,000................ £1,480,000 99/00... £17,800,000l................£7,450,000 00/01... £0............................. £13,250,000 01/02... £57,000,000................ £32,700,000 02/03... £29,050,000................ £10,250,000 03/04... £53,350,000................. £9,800,000 04/05... £27,200,000.................. £0 05/06... £19,500,000................ .£9,750,000 06/07... £18,600,000................. £2,400,000 07/08... £61,750,000................. £45,820,000
I suggest you take a look at the difference in expenditure then, and look at the difference in expenditure in the period of time you've conveniently left out of your list. Even with the rate of inflation, there's a massive difference. United spent alot more than city in those ten years, but in recent years City have completely blown United and other big spenders out of the water with expenditure. So, for me,your argument is hardly valid.
We appear to be going round in circles - I am not discussing weather you earned it or not what i am discussing is the fact having got yourselves into a position where you were regularly winning the PL and playing in the CL you were getting and continue to get tens of millions which has enabled you to stay at the top therefore almost guaranteeing more money to keep you there. So my question (You appear to keep avoiding) is - Look at your spending over the years below, do you honestly think you would have done so well if all teams had been on a level playing field financially speaking? 98/99... £27,750,000................ £1,480,000 99/00... £17,800,000l................£7,450,000 00/01... £0............................. £13,250,000 01/02... £57,000,000................ £32,700,000 02/03... £29,050,000................ £10,250,000 03/04... £53,350,000................. £9,800,000 04/05... £27,200,000.................. £0 05/06... £19,500,000................ .£9,750,000 06/07... £18,600,000................. £2,400,000 07/08... £61,750,000................. £45,820,000
As stated before Jack, in 1991 City finished 5th and Utd finished 6th. City then outspent Utd from 1991 till 1998. Over that period Utd won four league titles and two FA Cups. City got relegated twice. And from 1990-2011 Liverpool have spent as much, if not more, than Utd. They have gone from dominating English football to being also rans in pretty much every season, whilst Utd have done exactly the opposite. And Chelsea have been way ahead of us financially for the past eight years, but way behind us in terms of success. Money has definitely played a part in our success, and has kept us at the top of the game. But its far from the only reason we've been successful, and there have been precious few seasons when we were the top club in terms of ability and willingness to spend.
Why don't United concentrate on their $1 billion debt? They also haven't earnt any of their money either. It is the Bank's money not theirs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SoDCkCDfzU&feature=youtube_gdata_playerCity's owner has pumped approx 800 million pounds into the premiership whilst manure's jewish owners have taken out almost 500 million pounds. If i were a manure fan(spits) i would look at the success the red dippers had in getting rid of the yank parasites and curse the fact that most manure "fans" are plastic armchair "fans". Seems you "fans" like to take it without lubrication. As a great man once said in the heat of battle.................................TAKE IT TAKE IT TAKE IT!!!
Ah, the irony! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-European-failure-740-million-and-rising.html £739.5 million = $1.16 billion Ah, double irony! http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/12/manchester-city-bluffers-guide At least our plastic fans don't need to be told the names of our players, and the club isn't desperate for them to fill the ground!
No, you idiot. That debt is due to the owners borrowing money to buy the club, it has nothing to do with spending on players or wages
This is hilarious, United fans winging about the fact City have money for the 1st time ever.United were spending £30 on players 10 years ago on Rio n Veron , and 7 yrs ago on Rooney.Its ok when they spend obscene amounts of cash, but its just not cricket when someone else does it, its ruinin football. I say good luck to City and there fans , stickin with there team after 35/40 yrs of misery.They deserve every bit of success they get.And they have a TRILLION times more grace than United fans every have or ever will have
We earnt our way to titles and regular Champions League qualification which earnt us more money with earnt us more success and so on. City on the other hand have been given their money and any subsequent success. They have earnt **** all and deserve **** all.
Another idiot who doesn't understand the difference between spending money you've earnt and spending money you've been given. Yeah City fans are great, that's why they've only started to fill out their ground since the money came rolling in.
