The only difference between United and Chelsea is media perception hence perception of the sheeple. Chelsea have done no differently to United but only it's in the space of 10 years instead of 20. We're just the big winners in their game and they don't like it. The money UEFA and Sky unfairly pump into the CL qualifying clubs will continue to create a huge imbalance in the league. It's affecting smaller leagues much more but it's happening everywhere.
Only one who was actually good enough was Pogba, and left for a combination of money and first team football. He wanted the wages a first team player would get and then wanted first team football. Had he stayed, I bet he would have been starting most games alongside Carrick this season, and the offered a nice new contract with the money he wanted. Morrison had the talent, but didn't have the attitude. Rossi just wasn't going to be able to cut it in the premier league. I don't get why certain fans pretend we don't spend big, we obviously do. Sure it was money the club had earned, but the top of the table is more competitive now that you City have built up your team. Some people are just upset that you're a threat, because you have an owner with money he's willing to spend.
So the share issue that first bought you success and therefore brought you fans which brought you more money to spend is all forgotten is it?
Good response. Chelsea and City both admit and acknowledge we'd be nowhere without our owners but we reject derogatory remarks about our lack of "history" prior to them joining. They are part of the club's history, not THE club's history.
Sure they've spent big in the past, very big indeed, but it takes more than that as it did/does for Chelsea. Who was the last team to have major success in this country without being a massive spender (in relative terms)? Arsenal possibly, though they didn't have the extra bit to do it in Europe like United and Chelsea. Possibly you'd have to go back as far as Forest but someone older than me would know better on that. Chelsea and City are labelled as 'buying' success, rightly or wrongly, more so than United because the money was a more important part whereas United relied more on the youth than the other two, though of course big money was still required. Just my humble opinion anyway. Will probably be called a pikey **** who knows **** all and should **** off in an hour or so.
Some money is always required, but then it also has to be spent well. You could say Utd's early success under SAF was without being massive spenders in relative terms - between 91 and 96 we spent about the same as City and less than Liverpool and Arsenal. Yet Liverpool and Arsenal went from league champions to also rans, and City went from finishing above us in 91 to being relegated in 96. But then those clubs spent more than others in the top flight, so they did spend a lot in real terms. Likewise with Arsenal under Wenger - they weren't spending as much as Utd and Newcastle at the time, but still spent a lot more than most of the division. Even in recent years, when they've had little transfer spending, they've still outspent most of the other clubs in the division for wages. Oh, and Clough definitely had the money - first manager to ever spend £1 million on a player, and he bought a lot of expensive dross after the European Cup wins with no real success to show for it. Perhaps the most recent club to have decent success whilst operating at a big financial disadvantage was Everton in the 80s. They were a way behind Liverpool, Utd, Spurs, Arsenal and other top clubs, but still finished 13 points clear.
What relative terms? You were spending more than most and breaking the transfer record at the time. The fact that it was less money than today is immaterial you were one of the biggest spenders at the time.
Good post. Personally I think a lot of it was to do with the media. I still remember the outrage and outcry in The Sun of Chelsea "ruining football" and the cash incentives being offered out to any player that scored against us (this actually happened). The PL is pretty much scripted. Arsenal and United were supposed to be battling it out every year with Liverpool fluttering in the background. When Abramovich came in, Sky and Murdoch's media didn't know what to do or what would become of their cash cow especially re: viewing figures so they panicked and did everything possible to stain our reputation. Media reporting on Mansour and Abramovich moreso is hugely skewed, never do they get good press. In contrast, never did Fergie get bad press. Fergie was praised for the signings of Rio Ferdinand (from arch rivals Leeds), Rooney (from boyhood club) and RVP (from boyhood club + former competitor) yet when City and Chelsea do it, it's seen as evil and snatching a player from the club as opposed to the promotion like its seen with United. I have absolutely no doubt the media have heavily influenced perception of all 3 clubs. Since the golden generation of Scholes, Giggs, Butt, Beckham and the Neville's all United have done is poach the best players off their rivals for extortionate fees, no different to what Bayern are doing now or what Liverpool did in the 80s. What Sky and the media have successfully done is convince football fans that heavy spending is a recent phenomenon when it isn't and goes back since the beginning of football history.
That's my point. One of the biggest, but not the biggest. It depends how you define relative terms - Chelsea were obviously massive spenders in relative terms when you won titles under Mourinho cos you were spending £100m plus per season when other clubs were spending around £20-30m a season and Chelsea had the highest wages in the league. It was similar to Utd from 99 to 2003 - we had the most money and spent the most money - Stam, Yorke, Rio, RVN, Veron etc - and so dominated the PL with four league titles and the treble. But prior to the treble season Utd were spending around £5m a season on average, which was around the same as Liverpool, Arsenal, Newcastle, Blackburn, Chelsea, Everton and City before they were relegated. Obviously we wouldn't have won four league titles in that period had we been restricted to spending much less than those clubs, but we didn't need to spend more than them to dominate. It's been a similar situation for the past seven years - since summer 2006 Utd, Chelsea and City have all spent a similar amount of money on transfers and wages (when you discount the money City spent to get to the same level as Utd and Chelsea), but Utd have won five league titles vs one for City and one for Chelsea. The extra money the three clubs have has prevented any other clubs from really challenging for the title, but Utd have spent their money better and thus won more titles I think it was more to do with the uncertainty about Abramovich as a person and his aims, as well as the volume of money he spent. Sky were happy as Larry when Jack Walker and John Hall came in with their millions to promote their local clubs and challenge Utd. The media always love an underdog story - I remember the hours of footage they devoted to showing people reacting to Blackburn's title win in 95 when compared to the rather offhand "they've done it again" coverage of our title wins in 97, 00 and 01. Chelsea never really had that underdog image as they were so dominant both financially and on the pitch for Mourinho's first two seasons. SAF's had plenty of bad press from the media - he gets crucified in the press every time he says anything about a ref, and the whole Preston loan incident etc. I think a lot of the bad press for Abramovich and Mansour comes from the experiences of the young English players they sign. Players like Terry, Lampard and Cole were already established internationals by the time Abramovich took over, but other players the media were bigging up like Parker, Sidwell, SWP, Johnson, Bridge, Sinclair etc went to Chelsea and couldn't get past the foreign internationals in the team. And the media always love a juicy little "brave British players being squeezed out by nasty foreigners" story. That's probably the one area where Utd under SAF have really triumphed in the media - taking relatively decent English players like Welbeck, Fletcher, Evans, Cleverley etc who would probably be ditched by another PL club and turning them into good players who play regularly. Even average players like Gibson got a decent shot at Utd before being moved on. It's almost guaranteed to get a good media reaction and image, particularly from the red tops.
Breaking record fees for a CB Paillister, CB/CM Keane. Saffa spent a lot of cash to catch the dippers. And then spent a fortune on RVN, Veron, Rio etc to catch Real/Barca but never did. That spending spree secured three more prems though
I meant to put British! Ultimately the media loves an underdog story, and all those four players mentioned, along with Brown, Butt, O'Shea etc, were slated as being not good enough at one point of another, but Utd stuck with them whereas Chelsea and, to a lesser extent, City have been willing to drop those kinds of young players in favour of the expensive imported fix. And Liverpool spent a similar amount on Beardsley, Rush, Saunders, Clough and Ruddock around the same time. Then spent even more on Babb, Scales and Collymore. We still caught 'em, even without a big financial advantage
I don't get why ManU fans are so reluctant to admit that a 200M share issue followed by big spending isn't what ultimately put them ahead. All this 'money we earned' is just bollocks.
We'd happily admit that. If this £200m share issue ever actually happened. What actually happened is we raised £6.7 million in 1991, half of which went on making the ground all seater and Edwards pocketed much of the rest. We then raised more in 95 to expand the North Stand and again in 2005 to expand the NE and NW quadrants. Our big chance of raising lots of cash from a share issue was blocked when BSkyB tried to buy us. Do you have any evidence of this mythical £200m share issue?
