Strangley Barca. Richards is again way overrated and tbh possibly better as a CB. But that's another arguement. But hey good debating point man, City have got great RB's. They must have an incredible squad as a result. You've convinced me!! Well done
please log in to view this image Don't try telling me Man U haven't spent as destructively as anyone else here. Your fans usually don't stoop that low and instead opt for the laughable "yeah, but we only spend what we earn", and insodoing forget what a ridiculously unfair amount of that revenue comes from Sky's TV subsidies and also the numerous loans you've had to take out to prop you up. I'm not saying it's the beginning of the end like Leeds fans tend to do after every unsuccessful Man U season, but it sure doesn't look good for you boys. Exciting escapade, tovarich.
Nice try. But those weren't the teams for yesterday. Replace £0 Richards with £23m Nasri, £18m De Jong with £24m Silva and £27m Dzeko with £45m Tevez. Add for a grand City total of £208 million. Then replace £10m Smalling with £0 Evans, and £10m Hernandez with £0 Giggs. Add for a grand Utd total of £149 million. Then remember than Utd's team took 20 years to assemble, at an annual cost of around £7.5m, and City's took three years to assemble, at an annual cost of around £70m. Then try much harder next time
Can someone explain how spending fortunes over a long period is more noble than spending fortunes over a short one? Either way, it's all down to money.
If it's all down to money, then why have Utd spent less than Chelsea, City and Liverpool over the past twenty years, and yet still won much more? And spending £7.5 million per season hardly classes as a fortune in the current football markets. That's around 0.2 of Andy Carroll, 0.14 of Fernando Torres, or 0.09 of Cristiano Ronaldo.
I think an almost starting 11 that were quality and stayed a long time. That prevented various Veron's Barba's and others being signed every few years in various positions. I reckon without scholes keane and Giggs you would have spent 160m on those positions in 20 years alone if you wanted similar qualities So dont be puting it all down to shrrewd transfer dealings
I put it 50% down to shrewd transfer dealings (Irwin, Keane, Vidic, Evra, Ferdinand, Ronaldo, Schmeichel, VDS) and 50% down to excellent recruitment, training and use of youth players (Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, Evans, Brown, O'Shea, Fletcher, Butt, Beckham, Nevilles, etc). And add a dash of extreme loyalty to his players, just to make sure we keep them that much longer than anyone else. There you have the recipe for success
So if it's not down to money, why accuse Citeh of buying the title, surely such a thing is not possible.
Stop being obtuse It's not all down to money, but money can make a big difference. A good manager can win titles with superior financial resources, a great manager can win them without it. Money is still useful, but never the be all and end all. Besides which I've never accused City of buying the title. A **** manager can spend all the money they want and still not win the title. For all the money they spent, City still had to go the distance, and Mancini still had to get the big decisions right. I guarantee you Rafa Benitez would have found a way to throw it away even with all the money
Someone remind me.... how much did Xavi, Iniesta and Messi cost Barcelona? Money doesn't buy what Barcelona have.
Really? Then why do Barcelona have the highest wage bill, not just in Football, but in the whole World of Sport? Why did they pay Inter £37m (PLUS Samuel Eto'o) for Zlatan Ibrahimović or £35m to Arsenal for Cesc Fà bregas, £34M to Valencia for David Villa, £23M for Sanchez, £23M for Dani Alves, £25M for Mascherano... It's always about the money
