Rival watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Citizen Kane. said:
I have to laugh at the United fans bleating about the Glazers not investing in the club. £73m on Sancho and Rafael Varane on the brink of a deal. £80m on Maguire, £60m on Fernandes and £50m on Wan Bissaka. They even spent £40m for Van der Beek to sit on the bench.

They are so utterly full of entitled bullshit.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to see media

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?
 
KingHotspur said:
You must log in or register to see media

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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: "Thanks for that Brian", humanbeingincroydon and KingHotspur
PleaseNotPoll said:
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.
Click to expand...

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’
 
  • Like
Reactions: Citizen Kane.
KingHotspur said:
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’
Click to expand...
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. <whistle>
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
littleDinosaurLuke said:
The stats look a bit dubious because Utd having 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.
Click to expand...

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
 
KingHotspur said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
KingHotspur said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
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 I particular seem to operate under their own rules.
Click to expand...

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?
 
KingHotspur said:
...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: remembercolinlee, humanbeingincroydon and KingHotspur
KingHotspur said:
You must log in or register to see media

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
remembercolinlee said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon and remembercolinlee
KingHotspur said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingHotspur
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back