But at the moment you have no fit senior right back, 1 left back who hasn't played in a while and only 2 centre halves - assuming Chambers is out as suggested. Therefore if Mertesaker pulls a hamstring during tonight's game, then you'd love to have Dawson on your bench.
Chambers is a right-back and he's your only vaguely experienced back-up in that position, unless you do a Wenger and start playing everyone in unfamiliar roles. Vermaelen played 21 games for you in the last campaign, which is more than half of a league season. I'm sure that you still ended up doing something odd, like playing Sagna at centre-back and Jenkinson in his place in a couple of games. Didn't Flamini end up in there somewhere, too? Wenger just seems to be stuck in this strange mindset where he has to do things that are different just to prove people wrong. He buys endless attacking midfielders and then moves them into other positions, trying to turn them into wingers for the most part. He then tries to turn wingers into strikers and fullbacks, rather than just buying the finished article in the role that needs filling. It's almost like he's compelled to do it because it worked out so well with Henry and he can't contemplate doing things like everyone else.
Ok, how about Alderweireld on loan for a season, who instead went to Southampton? Or, you know, ****ing anyone? Just seems bizarre and naive by Wenger.
Wenger's always been slow to react, hasn't he. He was slow to start spending big, he was slow to get Arsenal moving the ball quicker and more direct, slow to bring in a new striker and will continue to be stubborn and slow. It's no great surprise and leaves Arsenal difficult to predict as they have a great first 11 but a patchy squad. It was lucky for them that Giroud got his injury whilst the transfer window was open but they're still one injury to a striker away from trouble, as they were at the start of the season. By rights Arsenal should finish well above us this season but there's a fragility there and no shortage of teams to take advantage if injuries leave Arsenal short, and players who have been overrelied on struggle as the season draws on.
Its relevant if we can include all revenue and spending. Spurs need to sell im order to buy. United dont. We make vast sums without a yard sale every summer. Why should that go against us in order to support your strange views? Because ir makes it look like spurs have wasted a **** load of money and achieved absolutely **** all from it? Tough, thats the reality.
See? Just totally irrational and bizarre. Don't like figures as they don't suit your argument? Just ignore them and use the ones that you like. Utd spent tons of money, totally outspent virtually everyone for years on wages and transfers and did very well because of that and having a good manager, as well as some other less savoury advantages. Liverpool did the same before that, Chelsea and City have done it since. Why this is news to anyone is beyond me, frankly. I'll be very surprised if anyone can have sustained success in English football in the modern era without a significant financial advantage. It seems extremely unlikely.
If you werent talking bollocks you might have a point. You should take a look at the figures. Gross and net. You might be surprised at what you find. Heres a sample, 92 to 98 net spend of -40000. Behind newcastle, chelsea, arsenal, spurs, city and more. Bang goes your early years rubbish them pnp...... Ps, net spend used for your benefit. I know how important it is to you
That's an interesting sample. Could you have cut it off at that exact year because your net spend in the next season was £26m, by any chance? You then averaged about £20m a season for a number of years. You also edited out the comparatively large spending of Ferguson's first five years, in which he spent over £14m. The youth program that was supporting your side for most of the early Premier League years (Class of '92 and all that) wasn't followed up with many significant breakthroughs. Probably because other clubs worked out how you were 'acquiring' these assets, like Giggs and Beckham. Getting all of your information from Republic of Mancunia probably isn't the best idea if you want a balanced look at things. How about 1992-2003 spending, including wages? Man Utd are top, surprising absolutely nobody. Leaving out various facts and cherry picking years is great though, isn't it? Really easy to ignore reality, then.
Its a five year sample. Pretty standard. And yes go to 2003 and we were top. Fast forward another 5 years and once again, a number of clubs, not all bankrolled are ahead of us. Im not saying we havent spent. We have, considerably so. But in respect to our rivals weve spent our money better than all of you. 4 titles in 5 years with a negative net spend shows we didnt buy **** all either. When we did spend we did so on the back of immense domestic success. And yes, rep of manc have a thread on this. As do redcafe and its all available elsewhere from united and non united sources. I got it from redcafe myself.
Oh and yes, fergie spent 14million in his first 5 years. Less than spurs in the same period. Liverpool too. So yeh.
You spent heavily in the five years before your success. Why are you writing that off as some irrelevant trivia? You're also ignoring wages again, which is where most clubs spend the majority of their money. Teams don't miss out on the top players because they can't afford the fee, but because they can't afford the wages. You also built up a massive brand on the back of the sport's largest promoter in this country having a stake in the club. Sky relentlessly pushed you, as it made them money. A completely unethical arrangement, which is why it was blocked, eventually. Ferguson was a good manager, don't get me wrong. His behaviour was often appalling and he was rarely punished significantly for it, but he was a good manager. The main factor in Utd's success it the same as Liverpool, Chelsea, City, Barca, Bayern or Real's, though: Money. Sustained spending, stability and a club that's pulling in the same direction are the factors that will consistently win trophies. I'm not sure why some Utd fans seem to struggle with that.
And where did you get those figures from? Plus, again, wages. Just ignore that part, as it's not mentioned in any of your source material.
http://www.mehstg.com/transfers.htm A pain to add up the fees as its not in date order but about 19million from late 86 to summer 92.
This is another gross figure, isn't it? Seriously, how does someone buying your best player for say £3m and you bringing in a replacement for £200k end up as spending in this twisted view? It's ridiculous. One obvious example would be Clive Allen. Bought for £700k in '84, sold for £1m in '88. How is that spending £700k? Chris Waddle, bought for £650k, sold for £4.5m. Richard Gough, brought in and then sold at a profit within the time frame, yet this is down as a negative. Where are the equivalent figures for Man Utd and Liverpool?
