Statistics are meaningless. Xavi played 31 games in La Liga last season and got 3 goals and 7 assists. That would make him worse than Chris Brunt, who got 4 goals and 11 assists.
Couldnt believe it after the Champions league games when Sky Sports news were comparing him to messi!! But in the current climate I would say he probably is worth that! i.e 35mil for Carrol, striker who played half season in Premier League
Not that many luke, I know you'll say Bentley for starters and I'd agree. But there's a reason for that, he was bought by a certain Damien Comolli...where's he now?...what prices is he negotiating?...funny that eh!
Man Utd inflated the market repeatedly since Ferguson's arrival at the club, whereas Spurs clearly haven't. You've inflated the wages in that period, too.
It's worse for you because you're dreading a star player leaving. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Not as much as you're dreading being snubbed by anyone worth having.
Rubbish, Lidls. Figures from the notoriously inaccurate Transferleague site and they don't include inflation or wages. A £2.3m fee for Bruce in '89, for example, was the record between English clubs. What would that get you nowdays? Getting £80m for Ronaldo totally wipes out numerous record-breaking signings and completely distorts the truth.
More distortion of history and a blatant lie about moderate spending. Man Utd weren't maintaining any advantage when Ferguson took over, the £300m is easily explainable by inflation and Spurs have had success with lower league players, one of which you bought from us for £18.6m. The record fee spent by an English club when your manager took over was £1.5m, ironically by United for Robson. You continued to break record after record until you started winning titles again and eventually European trophies. You're holding a moral objection to your own club, as they've clearly bought success.
Clearly untrue. Ferguson has been an exceptional manager, but trying to claim that Man Utd's spending hasn't been the driving force behind their success is just ridiculous.
A 70m sale helps that net spend figure!! and the only reason your buying figure is lower, is because the many players you'd like to have signed in recent seasons, didn't...because THEY didn't want to. That figure would certainly have been higher, taking you into Chav/Citeh territory...stop kidding yourself.
with very limited success so far? ---------------------------------------- Further strengthening that notion that success is proportional to spending. Rio £30m...Veron 30m...Berbatov 30m...such spending follows you throughout your recent history. Btw, we're not bothered at all, just enjoying putting you straight!
Good player, wouldnt wanner pay more than 20-25 mill for him. Would you guys want to cash in on him if a big bid came along?
During the Sugar years we spent comparatively little money on mostly average/poor players while Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea spent freely and Arsenal had a stable back 4 (as opposed to consistent failure with a new back 4) so could concentrate on attacking players
While we did misspend, the vast outlay of Man Utd is being massively downplayed here. Ridiculous excuses and outright lies.
Yes, I would. As much as I like the lad, and he is a decent player there is no doubt, I do not think he is as good as the hype suggests. I don't rate him as even the best midfield player in the team. In my opinion, it makes sense to cash in while his stocks are up, as I fear his price may have peaked. Play the market I say. A big ticket price for Bale will help to finance other purchases.
As much as I hate to say it, I think it would be wise to cash in now. Let's be honest, pretty much the whole Prem has found him out now, and they know that doubling/trebling up on him pretty much nullifies his threat. He is seen as being a LB as his prominent position, but his defending is questionable. Plus with his back problems, which hardly ever get better, now could be the time to strike and have a nice wad of cash to purchase NEW STRIKER!
