Even under FFP, stadiums are not counted as they benefit the area around the club and the City/Town its based in as well as the club itself. Its nothing like buying over priced players on a million a month.
Andy Cole £7M - British transfer record 5 months before Collymore, 16 months before Shearer. Veron £28M - British transfer record, eclipsing the previous record by £6M. Ferdinand £29M - British transfer record. Yeah you're right, United did not start the big spending and have never broken the transfer record.
This has nothing to do with FFP rules. Accept the fact that United still benefit today from what was at the time a gift from a source, also known as a 'sugar daddy'! I am not saying that it is wrong, I am just pointing out the fact that United fans criticize Chelsea and City for having financial sources that are not generated by the club, yet United themselves were gifted their ground, a ground that today enables the club to financially eclipse ALL of its rivals with regards to matchday revenue!
Oh strange....I dont recall saying we never broke it. Forgot about Veron as he was hardly memorable to be fair but again this is some 5 years after Shearer. Also as multiple PL champions at the time and with 55000 at every game I think us spending £28million of our hard earned cash isnt a bad thing. We also overpaid to help Leeds out somewhat.........but lets not forget they had already Spent £18million on Rio themselves so you know........we were not the only ones spending big, just the only ones spending our money not someone elses ( banks, owners etc ). Out of interest what point are you trying to make, that over 100 years ago United were donated a figure that in todays money stands at around £2million and should be considered a sugar daddy club? Is there something wrong with us spending the money we make over the spending of someone elses money and corrupting the market. When we signed players we paid fees that were not so far ahead of others, we generally paid for potential so paid a premium. Its high risk aswell when you are using your own money.
In todays money Circa £2million. From this United were renamed, re coloured and given a new home. The club was saved from going bust. £1.8billion. From this Chelsea have spent £600million in fees and £1.2billion in wages. While the club was also saved the subsequent spending was made because of Romans money not because he set the club up in order to make its own money. £2-3billion - From this City have spent some insane money on players and wages aswell as around the ground. City didnt need saving and the owners as yet are not setting City up to make money, thats if they ever will. Its a different world completely.
My point is that United benefited from, and still do benefit from, a gift that was not generated by the club. United fans criticize other clubs for the same thing, do you not see the hypocrisy in this? Also, there is nothing wrong with spending the money you make, however, what is the major source of that revenue? I guess it is the stadium, which was handed to United from a 'sugar daddy'. So, you could say that United are actually spending money which is mainly generated from what was initially a gift, i.e. someone else's money!
How convenient that you want to forget about this! Just because it didn't work out doesn't mean it didn't happen!
By using the inflation rate you come up with £2M, yet you know that is silly. Why not compare the gift to what it would cost today to buy the land and build a huge football stadium on it. Would you be able to do that with £2M? Of course not, the figure would be closer to a billion I would guess.
Commercial streams have over taken the stadium last I heard. Even then, the stadium built then is not the same as the one now, numerous imporvements have been made and the original ground is all but a thing of the past. Its also not hypocritical as I explained, the levels of spending aside the reasons we got the donation was to save the club at a time when clubs were disappearing all the time. City and Chelseas combined spending of around 5billion is the issue. £2million or £5billion......... lot more sugar in one isnt there.
But it wasnt built now so why change the price of the land......... It was a huge figure at the time but nowhere near a billion. Prices are massively inflated now for land as there is less of it around.
Straws and Clutching come to mind, we'll be ok, it's the Glazers raping your club you should be worried about, they will leave you without a pot to piss in, bit like this season come to think about it!
You may well be ok but not as you are now. Surely even you as a City fan can see this. Sales are inevitable and they will be hard. You will lose money on most players and even struggle to sell some without paying their wages at a new club.
You decided to translate the value of the gift into today's money, yet you don't feel it is necessary to compare the actual cost of buying land and building the stadium in today's money! How predictable!
Its a little unfair considering prices of land rise higher and higher the less land there is. Back then there was plenty of land you could buy cheaply as it was in abundance. Now though its not. Going off the prices then and even in todays money its unfair to change the price based on land values today. Maybe other clubs should of built better stadiums a 100 years ago instead of replacing them at huge costs today.....
