Fair. Must've been when it happened. If I remember correctly the Neuer to Bayern deal happened a few weeks before the De Gea transfer, no?
According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_(association_football)#Highest_fees, Neuer was one million more than de Gea
Wasn't De Gea's deal £18 million? And I think Neuer's deal was under €20 million, which was probably closer to £16 million.
Matth, Did you know that United were known as 'Moneybags United' during their early years? They were able to build Old Trafford only due to a very sizeable 'donation' from John Henry Davis, the chairman at that time! So, seeing as United now receive double, treble, or at the very least half again of what all other clubs receive from ground revenue, and as such (and have in the past) benefit from what can only be described as money from a 'sugar daddy', do you not think it is fair that other clubs use such means, i.e. a 'sugar daddy'? Without OT and the finances that that ground generates, United would not be in the position they are, yet they were only given this opportunity from a 'sugar daddy' who bankrolled the construction of the stadium! It seems a bit shallow when you criticize other clubs' sources of finance when United themselves benefited from the very same thing that you find to be a 'sad indictment' on the game!
True, I stand corrected...to save any confusion, let's just call him the first ever 'sugar daddy'. So, United benefited from the 'first ever sugar daddy'...he enabled the building of OT, a ground that now enables United to outfinance their rivals...yet we have United fans complaining about other clubs who have benefited from 'payments' from 'sugar daddy's' when United would probably not exist if it was not for Davies, a 'sugar daddy'! How hypocritical is that? I can actually forgive United fans who don't know their own clubs history and thus say... Know your club...
Your beloved FFP created the situation whereby City had to spend quickly, as for no business plan, wait and be amazed!
Hey Matt, your old Hero robbo was facilitating the selling of these clubs ot rich foreign owners wasn't he? Wasn't Fergie implicated too? Smoke.. fire
I get what you are saying. However, it is a fact that United benefited enormously from someone pumping a huge amount of money into the club and that money enabled them to earn the name 'moneybags'. I didn't make that name up, it was apparently coined because United were far and away the biggest (in financial terms) club in the land at the time and that money and what it did, i.e. built OT, still enables them to be successful today, there is no getting away from that fact. Also, I think the fact that United were spending £25M plus on players like Rooney and Ferdinand inflated the market, that was at a time when most other clubs record fees were less than £15M, and in most cases less than £10M. Fergie famously cites the inflation of the transfer market as a reason for United not being able to compete for big names, yet he wasn't complaining when United were blowing every one else out of the water with huge fees...
Okay mate, as for your first point, all I was saying is that United did and still do benefit from a 'sugar daddy' type of figure, regardless of whether he got his money back or whether it was a business deal is immaterial to the fact that United did indeed receive a huge amount of finance from a source that was not generated by the club, the same as City and Chelsea have done in recent years. Secondly, yes City and Chelsea can NOW buy big, but United were doing that for years at the expense of nearly all other clubs. Being able to outbid other clubs was a key ingredient for United getting Rio and Rooney and others, regardless of whether the money was club generated or not, it does not mean that United were working in the 'market' (as you put it). How many other clubs could have paid the amounts United paid for these players at the time? The answer is none, so even if United were spending their 'own' money, that money inflated the price. As an example, imagine if there was a similar player to Rooney who emerged a few years after United bought him, obviously the going rate for that player would be similar to Rooney's fee, who could afford that? I guess nobody could at the time realistically afford him, except United, and the reason for that is because United inflated the price for an emerging young British talent. Anyway, things have changed, there is a reason why Fergie complains now that the market is inflated, and that is that he cannot realistically compete, yet he offered no complaints when he and United dominated the 'market'!
your first point is nonsense, we don't operate in a 'sugar daddy' way, we don't spend £35 million pounds on a striker, we buy potential also we spend the money we earn each year.
You have missed the point of the conversation, I am talking about the fact that United's ground was built and financed by a source that was not generated by the club. If a club today received a plot of land and the finances to build a huge stadium without having to input any money into it all at the outset, what would you call that? I would call it benefiting from a 'sugar daddy', that is exactly what happened and United still thrive from that un-generated source of income today, would you not agree? Also, United spent £30M on Berbatov, it's not quite £35M but it is close enough to say that United do indeed splash out and don't rely on 'potential' as you put it!
You're wasting your time BBT,he's not programmed to accept negativity and Man Utd in the same sentence.
Actually Newcastle and Liverpool were the clubs who started the massive spending era. Collymoore and Shearer were at the time of purchase far ahead of everyone else in terms of transfer fees. We didnt catch up until RVN was signed some 5 years after Shearers 15million move to Newcastle. We were not the first to spend a million. Was it not a Leeds signing? I know Clough once refused to go over £999,999,99p or something like that prior to it. Weve rarely blown anyone out of the water and when we have spent big, over the course of a players time here it often works out at £3million a year at the very most.
