Rival watch

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
PleaseNotPoll said:
This is another gross figure, isn't it? <doh>
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?
Click to expand...

Feel free to provide the outgoing figures then.

Uniteds gross is 17million. Net is 10million for the same period. http://manchesterunitedtransfers.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/early-ferguson-years-1986-1992.html?m=1

Liverpools from soccerbase.
 
As i said pnp. Net spend is irrelevant. United rarely buy to sell. A few youngsters come and go but so many of our players retire or go for one last season elsewhere. Ronaldo aside few havent already peaked at united before being sold.
 
UnitedinRed said:
Feel free to provide the outgoing figures then.
Click to expand...

Spurs had a net spend for that period of -£4.89m. Yep, the club made nearly £5m and Man Utd spent over £10m, yet we 'outspent' you. <doh>
That's the sort of thinking that Redcafe and Republic of Londonia are promoting. Brilliant.

It's interesting to note that you've ignored wages again, though.
Feel free to compare club spending on this to the league table. It's frequently a very close match. That's not a coincidence.

UnitedinRed said:
As i said pnp. Net spend is irrelevant. United rarely buy to sell. A few youngsters come and go but so many of our players retire or go for one last season elsewhere. Ronaldo aside few havent already peaked at united before being sold.
Click to expand...

Gibberish. You don't make any money on selling players (though you do), so it's irrelevant? That's just demented.
 
I've forgotten what the issue is here (if there is one).

Of course Utd have spent loads of money on players (and their wages) - and more than Spurs over the years. Of course that spending has been a factor in the success. But these arguments are overly simplistic. There's a lot more to winning than spending money. And how you spend it is more important than how much you spend. As the top clubs become richer and richer then the correlation between spending and success becomes more apparent, but being able to buy the best players has always been essential to success. Even Brian Clough, hailed as unique because of his success with smaller clubs which apparently lacked the clout of the big clubs, broke the transfer record at Derby and then again at Forest. He paid big money for Shilton, smashed the record for Francis and spent very big on players who were perhaps not of the highest class like Fashanu and Wallace. Nothing has changed in principle.
 
Net spend can be used to skew figures to suit just like gross can. For example, we once had an annual net spend of -45million. We won the league and reached the champions league final.
 
UnitedinRed said:
Net spend can be used to skew figures to suit just like gross can. For example, we once had an annual net spend of -45million. We won the league and reached the champions league final.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's best to use net spending over a significant period of time, along with wage bills.
 
UnitedinRed said:
You can look at wages in many ways. As a proportion of turnover for example.
Click to expand...

I doubt that anyone, here, would truly try to argue that United isn't a bigger "business" than Spurs - more fans, more merchandise sold, larger stadium, greater revenue from recent glories, etc - and with a much greater turnover.

But, that's the very reason you are able to be so successful - ie. it enables you to pay far greater wages than we do.

Therefore, you agree that United's net spend is far, far greater than Spurs.

I rest the case for Spurs, M'lud. Take him down.
 
I caught the last 25 mins of Pool vs Cigarettes and I thought the minnows were very unlucky, had two golden chances before they got their initial equaliser. Pool were very, very fortunate to win that match from what I saw, ridiculous defending at the end by the away side though, you could see the penalty happening the moment the defender played the dodgy back pass, should've just hoofed it up the field.
 
Ludo will fancy their chances against 'Pool, back in Bulgaria. If I were the Ludo coach, I'd be playing them clips of when 'Pool got tonked by Brentford Town, a couple of seasons back, and telling the boys, "you lot are better than Brentford Town - just - so go out there and prove it!"
 
UnitedinRed said:
You can look at wages in many ways. As a proportion of turnover for example.
Click to expand...

You can, but why would you?
That'd be like someone claiming that their car was more fuel efficient than someone else with an identical one, because they get paid more, so it's a lower proportion of their revenue.

Even if you did, Man Utd would've been fairly average until recently in this area, though I think that their recent spending will have put them back in the pack again this summer.
Spurs and Arsenal have generally done very well, balancing out the wage bill at around 50% of the revenue for each club.
QPR's most recent figure puts theirs at a staggering 128%! <laugh>
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
You can, but why would you?
That'd be like someone claiming that their car was more fuel efficient than someone else with an identical one, because they get paid more, so it's a lower proportion of their revenue.

Even if you did, Man Utd would've been fairly average until recently in this area, though I think that their recent spending will have put them back in the pack again this summer.
Spurs and Arsenal have generally done very well, balancing out the wage bill at around 50% of the revenue for each club.
QPR's most recent figure puts theirs at a staggering 128%! <laugh>
Click to expand...

Yes, City used that trick for a few years. I don't think Fernandez is quite in the same financial league though.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
You can, but why would you?
That'd be like someone claiming that their car was more fuel efficient than someone else with an identical one, because they get paid more, so it's a lower proportion of their revenue.

Even if you did, Man Utd would've been fairly average until recently in this area, though I think that their recent spending will have put them back in the pack again this summer.
Spurs and Arsenal have generally done very well, balancing out the wage bill at around 50% of the revenue for each club.
QPR's most recent figure puts theirs at a staggering 128%! <laugh>
Click to expand...

So spurs and united are identical? Not sure i agree.

And ours is 50%. Yours 65%. According to the latest figures. Ours has been around this level for quite some time if you bothered to check. The club reports wages have dropped this season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back