Rival watch

The Glazers are a bunch of ****ty thieves though, to be fair.
Utd have bought the four most expensive players in Premier League history, but their revenue is enormous.
Having owners that didn't use it to pay off the debt that was created from them buying the club would be a massive advantage.

 

Oh boy, Man Utd fans on Twitter are more concerned with trying to ratio any mention of Ryan Giggs than make any mention of Sancho

How utterly unsurprising...

 

Say what you like about Mourinho, but his take on Giggs was spot on.

 

In the space of two hours, Man Utd's Fringe players have gone from being world class to ****e that should never play again

Hmm, I wonder what caused that sudden flip-flop...?

 

But it’s Man City ruining football right?

or do we not count Man Utd’s spending because they have won trophies and they have lots of fans?

 

Utd have the four most expensive signings in Premier League history, too.
Pogba, Maguire, Sancho and Lukaku.

Hard to assess the net spends of Chelsea and City because of their dubious finances, though.
Lots and lots of youth transfers, largely sustained by questionable money.

 

Don’t get me wrong, Man City and Chelsea spend a lot of money and it’s from their dodgy owners but Man Utd clearly spend just as much but never get as much ‘abuse’

 

It's partially because it's their own money and partially to do with the protection they get in the media.
Much like the Scouse, it's full of their ex-players, who all want to talk about how great the club is/was.
Better use of their time than battering their girlfriends though, I guess.

 

The stats look a bit dubious because Utd have done a lot of selling over the past few seasons and also shipping out squad players even if on frees.
If you think The Glazers are spunking their profits on transfers, you need to read up on the Glazers a bit more.

 

Net spend it’s still the most.

If this is the Glazers being tight then I’d love to see how much they’d spend on players if they weren’t

 

They are still servicing the debt and neglecting the stadium. They don’t bankroll the club by nefarious means like City or Chelsea. They spend the income the club generates. I’m not sure what the point is here- Utd spend within their means because their owners dictate that. The argument about whether some clubs should have more money to spend than others raises different issues about the structure of our game, capping of budgets etc. If I was a Brentford fan, I could make snide remarks about Spurs’ extravagant spending, Leyton Orient might feel the same towards Brentford. There are haves and have nots in football- and TV has created huge disparities. At least Utd have to operate within the club’s means like most others. Chelsea, City and Real Madrid in particular seem to operate under their own rules.

 

They really have been. Utd's revenue is nearly double ours.
If they had competent owners that weren't using the club's money to buy the club, then they'd have more.

 

The income the club generates? So it’s ok to get an external company to give you hundreds of millions for a shirt sponsorship or stadium name sponsorship etc but if the club owners decide to spend a shed load of money then that’s not on?

 

The Empire tends to be self-financing (usually as a consequence
of the financial "virtuous circle" that an Empire by definition creates) .

Citeh are NOT the Empire : they are a Sugga Daddy FC.

 

I don’t get what you’re saying

 

3 years is arbitrary...in the previous 2 years City spent nearly £450m...in total they have spent over £850m in 5 seasons (since he who must be called Pep took over).

Over the same period they received £289m.

£570m net spend .... the 3 year period was specifically chosen to include the 2018-19 season when they spent the least.

2016-17... spent £194m and sold £35m
2017-18 ... spent £289m and sold £56m
2018-19 ... spent £71m and sold £64m
2019-20 ... spent £144m and sold £52m
2020-21 ... spent £155m and sold £82m

All figures from ;

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/alletransfers/verein/281

That spending is staggering, especially when you consider they already had Aguero, Kompany, Debruyne, D Silva, Stirling and Fernandinho when he who must be called Pep arrived.

IF they buy Kane they'd have spent over £1 BILLION since July 2016.

This is with the two forces of them being allowed to ignore FFP.

So imho they ARE killing football.

BTW uniteds spending

2016-17 ...spent £166m and sold £43m
2017-18 ... spent £178m and sold £41m
2018-19 ... spent £74m and sold £27m
2019-20 ... spent £212m and sold £73m
2020-21 ... spent £76m and sold £17m

That makes £710m spent and £194 in making £516 net spend.

 

Now chuck wages in and wonder how we're vaguely supposed to compete with these teams.
That we get stick for not winning **** when up against them, plus 3 other clubs that outspend us is ludicrous.

 

That's pretty much exactly the ffp regulations.

 

Why is one way ok but the other isn’t?

If your owners wanna spend silly money then is that any different to having the largest stadium and more ticket sales or a lucrative sponsorship deal etc

 

It's a matter of opinion.
Some people see it as earning a position by growing into it, rather than just spending cash.
City/Chelsea could easily have been Stockport/West Ham with the same dodgy oil money, for example.