Man Utd poised to lose Gibson, O'Shea, Brown, Kuszczak, already lost Scholes and Hargreaves and maybe if the papers are right to lose Evans. Teams usually attempt to replace players leaving. Well that's what I've been told. Not really rocket science.
Fair play to any club that spends money to gain success.Its called competition.If one club doesn't spend it gets overtaken.Simple as,clubs need to spend in order to stay ahead,if they don't,they get left behind.If a club is in a position of strength,it must spend or it will be overtaken.You just can't stand still.Its dog eat dog.There is always someone out there that will kick your ass,you need eyes at the back of your head.A wise man once said ''Keep your friends close..and your enemies ever closer''.''Do onto others before they do it to you''.
The main differences, imo, are: a) Man Utd spent the revenue they earned from their fans. By buying tickets and shirts and supporting the team, our fans have funded our success. Which, imo, is how it should be. Chelsea on the other hand, are purely spending the money of one bloke, who wasn't even a fan until he bought the club. b) Since 2003, Man Utd have spent a net amount (sales less purchases) of around £50 million. Chelsea have spent a net amount of around £390 million. The amounts don't even compare. c) Abramovich's desparation for the CL has meant that Chelsea have dumped most of their youth players in favour of expensive exports. Also, players like Glen Johnson, Wayne Bridge, Scott Parker, Shaun Wright-Phillips and Scott Sinclair have been hoovered up, badly used, and then dumped a couple of years later. They've gone from being some of the brightest prospects in the game to being rejects having wasted some of their best years cos they weren't world class from day 1. Personally, I don't like that approach at all.
It's simple, United spend what they make as a club, Chelsea spend what Roman gives them. The debt is irrelevant, if I have £800 on a credit card and have £400 in the bank, the £800 I owe doesn't mean I have no money to spend. I still have £400, out of that I would pay an agreed percentage of what I owe back and the rest I can still spend as I wish. That's what we're doing, which is vastly different to what Chelsea and City are doing, which is making less money than they spend but not being in debt because the money they are spending is coming from super rich owners and not thier operating profits.
United can't win We were supposedly a team in decline and "skint" Now we're buying the title. Love the bitters.
Cheers for all your points of view as i said makes no odds to me really as i don't think Ipswich will be buying the title for a while lol. Good luck Next season
People don't understand our financial situation and it is not as bleak as people have been saying. The real issue about the Glazers apart from the debt was that they would take club funds to finance their PIK but they have done that without club money. If we are talking about how much money we have in cash to spend, then we are talking about over 180m. Our successful season on the pitch this season has helped us generate, operating profits of over 110m, mainly because our commercial revenue has increased by 30% and is set to break the 100m barrier. I don't expect us to spend the full 180m in the bank as that would be crazy but I expect us to spend a chunk of it as we need to. It is our well earned money from our success on the pitch. Can the same be said for City and Chelsea?
Also very little of the transfers carried out these days involve the monies being paid upfront. Alot of tranasfers are paid in installments etc. Therefore even if United spent 100 million this summer it would all neccassarily be coming out of current funds but also from future revenues
To be fair to the other teams out of the champions league,it's now practically impossible to get amongst it all without a sugar daddy as it's simply not possible to compete on a level playing field financially with the wealth the CL brings and also for competing for the top players.Without wealthy owners its just a closed shop where the big guns just get bigger and the gap widens every year. Can you really see Everton getting anywhere near a CL place now for example without a massive injection of cash? If nothing else it's made the prem a bit more interesting than which of Chelsea,Utd or arsenal will win it this year?
You say that, but if you took the influence of all these super wealth owners away then yes, Everton would have a chance. As it stands, clubs like Chelsea and City are preventing clubs like Everton from having a chance because they have just leapfrogged into title challenging teams without building any infrastructure behind their club. Their situation is also a dangerous one to be in because City without Mansour and Chelsea without Abramovich would have to sell like crazy to stay afloat with their current running costs. Should Roman leave Chelsea, yes he'd be able to sell the club for £400 million or whatever, but that doesn't mean the new owner is nearly as wealthy as Abramovich and he might not be able to keep plugging the fiancial gaps after a while let alone fund the level of transfer targets that Chelsea have been going for lately.
It's far too easy to look out below from the ivory tower,the way the money is set up in the champions league is designed to keep the big clubs on that pedestal,which means for the last however many years you've been able to reap the rewards,if you didn't make vast profits it could only have been through poor management of the finances,whereas everyone else has been made to struggle to make ends meet or gamble irresponsibly like Leeds to try and get on the gravy train
This is largely true, although Everton managed to get Liverpool's CL place at the height of the Abramovich spending, albeit only for one season, and Spurs managed to grab Liverpool's CL place last season and could have held on to this season had it not been for City's millions. But ultimately, Utd and Arsenal don't have such a stronghold on their CL places purely on the basis of the extra revenue the CL offers. They have them because they have built up strong fan bases and infrastructure over the years. Utd and Arsenal in particular make much more revenue from their large sold out stadia than they do from the CL. Both clubs have the largest stadia, but also the fewest empty seats on average in the whole PL: http://itv.stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/PR/attend.html They've also built up sustainable business models based on bringing through young players, and so they haven't needed to spend all that their revenue would allow them, hence the large cash piles both clubs have. Utd can afford to go for players like Sneijder and Sanchez this season, cos we went for Hernandez and Smalling last season, and made a £68 million profit on Ronaldo the season before (who was funded by a £25 million profit on Beckham). So whilst I agree that a fairer distribution of revenue is needed from the CL to lower clubs (the PL distribution is actually very fair), sugar daddies are not the solution. If anything they are part of the problem by bidding so high for players that non CL clubs with no sugar daddy have even less chance of getting decent players.
Chelsea spent 80 million in January alone last year. So far we have spent 16.5 million and we are trying to buy the title. If the other 2 signings go through - say Young for 10 million and De Gea for say 20 million, we have still only spent 46.5 million. I don't need to put out this is less than Chelsea spent on Torres alone ( but I will ) You simply cannot put United in the same spending brackets as Chelsea and Citeh now.
Quite a bit less than both Spurs and Liverpool. In fact, over the past five seasons, we have only spent £15 million net, although that's obviously skewed a fair bit by Ronaldo. Over the last five seasons only Arsenal and possbly Everton and Bolton come close in terms of amount spent versus relative success levels imo.
It's quite simple really if a team is successful then they will invest, just like any good "business" The money is in most cases invested wisely to grow that succcess, United have a history of doing this, as has Liverpool and Arsenal, and to varying degrees over the decades the likes of Everton, Spurs, Blackburn, Forest, and many others I could refer to all night. This does not apply however th the current Chelsea and City sides, where they do not operate as a Business, but basically Billionaire's Monopoly games! We (United) have always had a mix of procuring young /potential players and established players too ie in the early sixties we set a record with the purchace of Denis Law, later in the 70's Jordan & Mcqueen, 80's Robbo etc ... you should all know the rest. So to wrap up United do not buy success they work for it, embrace it, nurture it, bask in it and develop it.
ignoring the spent/relative success stuff, i'm interested on how our transfer spending relates to tottenham, pool. Scousers might be a bit high after the Suarez/Carroll bollocks
Well explained and said, now "WEIGHTY CRIMSON PLUM " do us all a favour and jog the f**k on pal..........
