We spent what we made back in player sales, that's the point being made here. It's completely different to spending 200 odd million. Who's moaning by the way? I was merely correcting you as you're making the mistake of equating the two things.
So now you're using the net spend argument. Amazing. You do know it meams absolutely nothing in football dont you? Unless a clubs only transfer income comes soley from transfers.... Oh, that's exactly where chelseas comes from. Im with you now. It suits a badly run clubs argument much like it suited liverpool and tottenhams argument as well.
YOU are the person who referred to United's spend IN THE SUMMER being close to Chelsea's when in fact that is complete and utter rubbish, even if you want to do it your way and discount NET spend. 90-100million is not a small amount.
The net spend thing is just so UIR can beat Liverpool with a stick regarding how much they've spent recently and conveniently ignore they sold one of the best players in the world to fund those buys. You can just ignore net spend. Southampton are defying the odds but most predicted they'd struggle this year despite spending a fair bit of money, why? cos they sold most of their first team.
UIR's point is a valid one, you compare the players bought regardless of what you've sold. Nobody ever mentioned net spend before Rafa came along and then we had Liverpool fans clambering onto it as some piss-poor excuse to justify their mediocrity on how he never spent anything when clearly he had. Easiest way to explain why net spend is the biggest myth in football.... Torres bought for £50m proved to be ****. Whether that year Chelsea had a net spend of £100m or -£1 is irrelevant, the point is that a player you pay £50m for, should justify the price tag. You apply that principle to the teams for Chelsea and United this weekend and that all that matters. The amount you've spent on said players should justify your results.
Bit hypocritical to see Chelsea fans going on about net spend after spending 200 million, completely ignoring the net spend of the previous 10 seasons.
Im still waiting for someone to tell me why net spend matters. Liverpool fans, tottenham fans and now chelsea fans. One of you must be able to tell me why. As i said to the spurs lot. Our transfer fund comes from sponsers. Player sales play little part in it as you simply cannot predict them.
I have tried to tell the mousers about "net spend" before but it didn`t sink in. They take "net" as money spent against what has been raised in sales completely ignoring the fact the sale figure comes from losing an assett. If you sell your old car for 2k and buy a new one for 4k do you tell people the new car was only 2k?
No but you might say you only had to find 2k to get it etc. United ignoring net spend as it suits their agenda. I.e that a 200 million spend with little return in 2 windows is trying to buy the league. Something they have readily accused others of over the years. United post Fergie = just another club.
Net spend or overall transfer spend can't be looked at in isolation, wages form a large part of the equation. For example, United had a number of experienced players leave who were on big wages (Vidic, Ferdinand, Evra etc.), so that frees up a lot of money to spend on both transfer fees and wages. Selling a player for 10 mil who was only earning 40K or so would free up a lot less money. As a very rough calculation for every 20K a week you're earning 1mil a year, so those players earning 200K a week cost you a minimum of 10mil a year, and that's not even including performance bonuses and all the other rubbish. Over a 4 year contract that's close to 50mil, which is usually a lot more than the transfer fee (except for a few players like Di Maria, Suarez, Bale etc. who went for a stackload of money).
Ok take netspend into account for this season only and ignore all other seasons we still made more momore money then Chelsea
This argument about who spent more to get what result or what ranking is totally irrelevant. United performed poorly last season with a s**t squad and a s**t manager. The whole thing needed revamping. To expect to do this with 50million pounds when it was clear we needed to get rid of quite a few players and bring in quality replacements was cloud Cuckoo land. I fully expected a huge amount of money to be spent. But then to expect an instant result, shows how much (or how little ) some here know about football. To me SAF leaving was always going to have serious consequences for a long time. Unless we had bought messi, Ronaldo, and the top 4-5 defenders in the world, there was no way LVG was going to have an instant impact. If LVG or United are crap, they are crap. To me the fact that we have spent £200m plus does not make the situation worse.
Or maybe we could stop being ***gots and just watch the football instead of arguing over who spent what and trying to one up each other. None of us on here influenced what either club spent on players or anything else, so maybe we should all just grow up and focus on taunting each other about ACTUAL football, and not some clubs massive cheque book....... no? Just me then
