And Kagawa wanted to play for United. Hummels will probably play for Barcelona and Gundogan will play for Real.
Thats exactly why it is their policy. They almost went bust so they are now sensible and look how its paid off. Of course a one off major buy doesnt change their overall policy. Take United for example, for the past 7 years one of our policies has been to buy cheap with a view to a sell down the line. At times we have ventured from that path but its remain a major policy overall. Tottenham won the League Cup not long back. Its not one of the big three but I guarantee Chelsea were planning to tap the worldwide markets long before they won a League cup
yet they will bring in new players and challenge bayern again next season. Also another thing to consider is its Bayerns policy to buy up the best players from their nearest rivals.
Maybe but thats more likely to be down to the point I made above regarding Bayerns transfer policy. Buy off our nearest rivals.
UnitedinRed you're insane calling Spurs title contenders and pointing to league cups is just desperate debate
Eh? Purley said they had not wont anything. They have though. I also said they would of been title contenders had it not been for Chelsea and City. Based on the progress they have made I think its possible at least. We could consider them outside chances for the Premier League even now using the criteria you put above ( good manager, team and luck etc ).
Seems like this will have good and bad effects. The good thing is that the new TV money should be split evenly across the clubs, which will narrow the relative gap between rich and poor. Instead of Utd having six times as much revenue as Wigan, we will only have around four times. Still a big gap, but the smaller the gap the more competitive the league, in theory. Should also make a big difference at the top - instead of Everton only having a third of the revenue of Arsenal they will have closer to a half, and so potentially a better chance of top four, similar story with Spurs. The bad thing (depending on your perspective) is that the match going fan will become even less important when clubs make decisions. City and Chelsea's post season US friendlies have already shown that they see their overseas fans as more important than their domestic match going fans, even tho' Chelsea make a decent amount of cash from matchday income. For clubs like Wigan, City, West Brom and Stoke, whose match going fans only contribute around 10% of their revenue, you wonder if they will even care about matchday fans once the TV revenue becomes even bigger. I reckon at some point in the next few years clubs like City may start pressing for the ban on televising 3pm Saturday games to be lifted, figuring that they'd actually make more money from beaming their games around the world than they actually do from the punters coming through the turnstiles. Maybe that's actually a good thing, if it means fans from round the world can watch, but I can't help feel that football will be worse off if crowds and atmosphere in the ground are sacrificed for the sake of TV (even more so than they are now). Tho' I suppose in the case of City they can afford to keep subsidising ticket prices at the ground to keep people interested.
United spent more than City last season And in almost every season bar 3 that the PL has been going as well?
Well lets not forget City havent always been in the Premier league but often where they feel more at home ( Division 2 ) and while we may of outspent them on a number of occasions we did so using self generated money. You may also want to check the spending of each cub. Its much closer than you would imagine. Again like Chelsea, for a club with no money to their name they didnt half like to splash the cash frequently. Oh and its more like 8 seasons they have outspent us in the Premier League. What other clubs should we look at, Liverpool perhaps. Or would that be too embarrassing?
Never realised how much Arsenal spent either. Jesus, no wonder they havent spent much the last 10 years. Splashing 20million year after year in the early to mid 90's. Liverpool as well not far behind. Shows how good United really were back then.
No we didn't. Utd spent £48 million, City spent £54 million. Rodwell, Nastasic, Sinclair, Garcia and Maicon didn't suddenly appear by magic. And that was City cutting back on their spending too! City outspent us in 93, 94, 01, 09, 10, 11, 12 and 13. We outspent them in 95, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07 and 08. We spent around the same in 96 and 97 (despite City being in Div 1 in 97!) Pretty even in other words, and we only outspent them from 03 to 08 as they had spent six years bouncing around the lower leagues in financial trouble whilst we'd spent those years winning four league titles and a fair few other pots too.
Are you saying you being happy depends on whether you perceive a few forum posters to be wound up or not?
It's a full life. We do seem to have been infested by bitter Chavs recently. Do they spend as much time on their rivals' boards?
Thanks for that, wasn't sure or stating facts hence the ? Surprising actually seeing as where they were in those years that they outspent ye as much as you lot them.
