Plenty of people are arguing we should spend for the sake of it. Often seen in forum 'sign anybody they are all upgrades on Jones!!' Or 'sign any left back we don't have a senior left back'
Net Spend
- Thread starter charlenefan
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Yeah, that's been everywhere on this forum recently. Right wing too.
The overall point absolutely does not still stand.
Walker was hardly "late 20's". A player just gone 27 has a good solid 5-6 years in them.
If you look at City's major signings under Pep
Walker (27)
Mahrez (27)
Laporte (24)
Mendy (23)
Silva (23)
Danilo (26)
Ederson (23)
Stones (22)
Sane (20)
Jesus (20)
Can you please explain to me how that's "City are paying what it takes and buying players in their late 20s to win now". I haven't done the math but I would take a wild guess that's probably a lower average age than the player's we signed under Jose.
Not to mention that most of their best established players they already had (Aguero, Silva, KDB) were all signed in their early-mid twenties.
I think you should do some research yourself before continuously spouting pure nonsense.
Walker and Mahrez were/are certainly in their late 20s. Albeit Walker is not 29 as I originally said, he's 28. And at 29 I would imagine a player like Aldeweireld would have at least 4-5 years at the top still. The point is that if City were in this position and needed a player for the first team, they just pay what's required. They're paying what it takes and buying players in their late 20s are two separate points. They're paying what it takes to buy Stones at 50m and Walker at 55m, and Mendy at 50m and Laporte at 65m. United didn't seem to show interest in any of these players when they were available. United are trying to penny pinch by buying players at a level below that which is required. Lindelof might come good. But he's not as good as Stones right now. And that's a problem for United to solve. Spending more on experienced players would have been a good way to do it.
Now you're just backtracking.
Walker and Mahrez were 27 when City bought them. Alderviereld is 29 now aka if we bought him.
27 isn't late twenties, 29 is.
And yes, City have gone out and spent a shitload on defenders, except, it's not like you said, they haven't gone for players in their late twenties to fix their problems. They generally go for younger players.
You can dance around this all you want but your statement was flat out wrong. I don't know why people have to continuously compare everything to Man City and say "well they do it this way so we should too!" And if you are going to say that, at least get it right.
I agree the original statement that Walker was 29 was wrong. He was 27. Again, you seem to be deliberately missing the point: City are buying players that fit their team right now while also preparing for the future. Before this summer and before winning the league by 19 points, they paid what was required to get the deal over the line. United don't seem to be doing the same unless they get a boost in marketing. The facts are clear when you look at the figures being spent by both teams. And to answer your final point - people are comparing us to City because City won the league by 19 points. They have also outspent us in every year but one for the last decade. They continually build upon success on the pitch while our focus seems to be on improving the business at the expense of events on the pitch.
That isn't for the sake of it though, thats upgrading our defence and filling positions so we can strengthen as a club. I don't know how much more purpose you want?
Point is should we go for marginal improvements and pay big money for them. Maguire and Willian arguably are improvements on Smalling and Martial, but should we spent 150m on them just for a marginal improvement at best.
Or should we wait and sign absolute quality? Like we did for example with Pogba, Lukaku and Sanchez?
Seriously, how much difference would have made if we spent that much money on those 2 players? Or swapped Willian with Martial?
Not sure if this point has already been made but....
La!
La!
I find it really frustrating that the short window and World Cup is blamed for a lack of strengthening. It’s not like work on transfers is solely restricted to June and July. Our targets should have been worked on for 6 months leading into the summer knowing that time was short and a we are in a World Cup year.
If Maguire was on the list then he should have been signed for £40m before the World Cup hiked his price up.
If Maguire was on the list then he should have been signed for £40m before the World Cup hiked his price up.
This is what you said
My post after that proved you were wrong. There's nothing more to it. I'm not missing any point, you're trying to create a completely different point instead of accepting that you made an incorrect statement. I didn't compare our spending or transfer policies, all I did was disprove a false narrative you wrote about Man City.
Again, what you're not addressing here is something I've already said - the buying players in their late 20s and the paying what it takes are two separate but related points. If we can't agree that 27 is late 20s, fair enough. I believe it is. You believe it isn't. A guy like Alex Sandro, I believe City would have paid the 60-70m that Juventus wanted and integrated him earlier in the summer. They likely would have had him tied up before last season ended. United should be doing this kind of thing - instead of waiting until the window is over and saying "Oh, we tried for Varane but he was too expensive so we're not getting anyone for our first team."
How can 'sign anybody' mean sign an upgrade to what we have ?
I'm not failing to address anything, you're failing to acknowledge you are wrong. If you're going to continue to try and dwindle around the issue then I'm done.
Your point about City buying players in their late twenties is wrong and you know it .I didn't dispute anything else with you, only that. It was a baseless claim that was easily disproven. City have largely signed young players. Simple.
Jose has also signed mostly young players. Pogba, Bailly, Lindelof, Fred, Dalot were all 25 or younger when signed. Only Zlatan, Sanchez and Matic were over 25 and two of them were still younger than 30.
The only part we disagree on is whether 27 is "late 20s". Some will say it is. Some won't. Not exactly a baseless claim given that City bought Kyle Walker at 27 and Marhrez at 27. Two who are in their late 20s, if you agree that 27 is late 20s. If not, then it doesn't matter because it's just semantics.
I never said otherwise.
Yeah but I thought I would point that out considering how much stick he has got recently for only wanting to buy old players.
it's something I'm well aware of.
My point re. City wasn't in relation to us. It just irritates me when people constantly compare them to us, as if they're doing everything the way we should be doing it. Fact is that under Pep they have largely operated a very similar policy to us, which is to buy young , even younger than us, actually.
Let's not forget they're the ones who walked away from the Sanchez deal, not us. That poster was stating that unlike us, City have a policy of buying whatever it takes to get the job done which simply is not the case.
Now, obviously they have more resources available to them to splash the cash on these players than us but again, what do people expect? They're owned by a fecking oil country!
24 to 26 is mid twenties, 27 to 29 is late.
Is this the state of affairs post transfer window?!
Is this the state of affairs post transfer window?!
At the risk of bringing this back on topic... 
If you look at our defensive record, we allowed the second least number of goals last season in the prem. That despite an undisciplined midfield (Pogba) that was constantly failing to track back. I don’t think Jose was looking for a CB to improve an already very good defense. Yes, I know that De Gea makes our CBs look better than they actually are, but taken as a whole, it’s still a very good defense.
What I believe Jose thinks he is missing is a talismanic CB that embodies the word of captain. If you look at his history, at every team, he has bought or nurtured this kind of leader at the back. We don’t have this player right now. The closest one is Smalling, but he’s nowhere near the player that Terry or Carvalho or Ramos was. He needs that mentality mix of confidence and never-say-die, I’ll shank you if I have to level of intimidation.
The team failed to get this player, mostly because the asking price was so high. Who wants to pay 75m for a 29 year old CB? I wouldn’t. But in this inflated market, that’s the price for a leader. If there was a target with this makeup at 24 or 25 years old available, I believe they would have splashed the 75 to 100m. Maguire, tho younger, didn’t justify that level of investment, IMHO.
In terms of net spend, I’m less concerned about this and more concerned with our quality of play and attacking football. I think we need a true star where we can channel our attack.
If you look at our defensive record, we allowed the second least number of goals last season in the prem. That despite an undisciplined midfield (Pogba) that was constantly failing to track back. I don’t think Jose was looking for a CB to improve an already very good defense. Yes, I know that De Gea makes our CBs look better than they actually are, but taken as a whole, it’s still a very good defense.
What I believe Jose thinks he is missing is a talismanic CB that embodies the word of captain. If you look at his history, at every team, he has bought or nurtured this kind of leader at the back. We don’t have this player right now. The closest one is Smalling, but he’s nowhere near the player that Terry or Carvalho or Ramos was. He needs that mentality mix of confidence and never-say-die, I’ll shank you if I have to level of intimidation.
The team failed to get this player, mostly because the asking price was so high. Who wants to pay 75m for a 29 year old CB? I wouldn’t. But in this inflated market, that’s the price for a leader. If there was a target with this makeup at 24 or 25 years old available, I believe they would have splashed the 75 to 100m. Maguire, tho younger, didn’t justify that level of investment, IMHO.
In terms of net spend, I’m less concerned about this and more concerned with our quality of play and attacking football. I think we need a true star where we can channel our attack.
HahaAt the risk of bringing this back on topic...
If you look at our defensive record, we allowed the second least number of goals last season in the prem. That despite an undisciplined midfield (Pogba) that was constantly failing to track back. I don’t think Jose was looking for a CB to improve an already very good defense. Yes, I know that De Gea makes our CBs look better than they actually are, but taken as a whole, it’s still a very good defense.
What I believe Jose thinks he is missing is a talismanic CB that embodies the word of captain. If you look at his history, at every team, he has bought or nurtured this kind of leader at the back. We don’t have this player right now. The closest one is Smalling, but he’s nowhere near the player that Terry or Carvalho or Ramos was. He needs that mentality mix of confidence and never-say-die, I’ll shank you if I have to level of intimidation.
The team failed to get this player, mostly because the asking price was so high. Who wants to pay 75m for a 29 year old CB? I wouldn’t. But in this inflated market, that’s the price for a leader. If there was a target with this makeup at 24 or 25 years old available, I believe they would have splashed the 75 to 100m. Maguire, tho younger, didn’t justify that level of investment, IMHO.
In terms of net spend, I’m less concerned about this and more concerned with our quality of play and attacking football. I think we need a true star where we can channel our attack.
I think what we wanted was someone who could sure up the defence in order to allow our attacking players more freedom. Jose doesn't want to have his attacking players play key defensive roles. He wants to unleash them. Having a higher quality defence would have allowed that. I agree that Maguire's not worth 75m just yet but there are a number of defenders globally that fit this specific profile (a leader, future captain material at 25/26 and available for less than 100m).
Yes, better CB play is important too. But I really think that he needs a presence on the field that can stare down Pogba and demand he do his job defensively. This squad is missing a Roy Keane, a Rio, a Vidic, that is just out and out nasty. Godin would have been perfect.Haha
I think what we wanted was someone who could sure up the defence in order to allow our attacking players more freedom. Jose doesn't want to have his attacking players play key defensive roles. He wants to unleash them. Having a higher quality defence would have allowed that. I agree that Maguire's not worth 75m just yet but there are a number of defenders globally that fit this specific profile (a leader, future captain material at 25/26 and available for less than 100m).
So according to transfermarkt, the net spend for this season looks like this:
1) Chelsea - €156.4m
2) Liverpool - €143.7m
3) Fulham - €107.5 m
4) West Ham - €91.85m
5) Wolves - €89.7m
6) Everton - €76m
7) Brighton - €75.06m
8) Arsenal - €75.1m
9) Bournemouth - €68.9 m
10) Cardiff - €51.2m
11) United - €47.35m
12) Huddersfield - €38.37m
13) Southampton - €38.35
14) Burnley - €25m
15) City - €22.99m
16) Leicester - €18.8m
17) Newcastle - €16.43m
18) Palace - €10.7m
19) Spurs - -€5.5m
20) Watford - -€21.3m
1) Chelsea - €156.4m
2) Liverpool - €143.7m
3) Fulham - €107.5 m
4) West Ham - €91.85m
5) Wolves - €89.7m
6) Everton - €76m
7) Brighton - €75.06m
8) Arsenal - €75.1m
9) Bournemouth - €68.9 m
10) Cardiff - €51.2m
11) United - €47.35m
12) Huddersfield - €38.37m
13) Southampton - €38.35
14) Burnley - €25m
15) City - €22.99m
16) Leicester - €18.8m
17) Newcastle - €16.43m
18) Palace - €10.7m
19) Spurs - -€5.5m
20) Watford - -€21.3m
You can not look at finances over a one year scale. We can miss out on one target or sell one player and it skewers all stats.
Over the last three years what is our net spend? Over the last three years what has happened to our wage budget.
Over the last three years what is our net spend? Over the last three years what has happened to our wage budget.
If it’s not looked at on a yearly basis, how will anyone win the Levy Cup?
this.
So we should have extra funds for next summer. Woody himself said 100m was available for a CB.
So we should have 250m to spend in the summer.
As if.BTW our wage bill is low compared to Real,Barca ie the clubs who want to win the CL regularly.
Also before the Glazers and Woodward came in we topped the revenue table every year. Now we are third. So much for claim that they are doing a great job on commercial revenue.
Last edited:
I wouldn’t be surprised to see us spend 250 million in the summer.So we should have extra funds for next summer. Woody himself said 100m was available for a CB.
So we should have 250m to spend in the summer.
BTW our wage bill is low compared to Real,Barca ie the clubs who want to win the CL regularly.
Also before the Glazers and Woodward came in we topped the revenue table every year. Now we are third. So much for claim that they are doing a great job on commercial revenue.
Fair enough.
I think next summer will tell us a lot about where the club is headed.
It's also the lowest in the premier league as a percentage of turnover, apart from Spurs who are building a new ground.So we should have extra funds for next summer. Woody himself said 100m was available for a CB.
So we should have 250m to spend in the summer.
BTW our wage bill is low compared to Real,Barca ie the clubs who want to win the CL regularly.
Also before the Glazers and Woodward came in we topped the revenue table every year. Now we are third. So much for claim that they are doing a great job on commercial revenue.
It's puzzled me over the years, in Glazer threads and the like, how often Caftards bring up the wage bill as evidence of United spending high, when it's actually the opposite, considering turnover.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17
Fans have been saying for years that we'll spend a ton and transform the team before a window. Then when the window closes we're once again left with dead wood to clear.Bang on. We have not spent more than 150m net in one window post-SAF despite having the financial clout to do it. That is because we have reactive and low risk management at the top that wants their financial security. We could easily spend 250m net to transform the team then spend a small amount the next season to compensate, but that involves risk and less dividends.
Depressing just thinking about it. How good we could/should be.
Bang on. We have not spent more than 150m net in one window post-SAF despite having the financial clout to do it. That is because we have reactive and low risk management at the top that wants their financial security. We could easily spend 250m net to transform the team then spend a small amount the next season to compensate, but that involves risk and less dividends.
I think it will depend on who we end up with as maanger. If Poch comes I can see us spending a fair bit, as I think one reason he might move is promises of a large transfer budget which he cannot get with Spurs. If we go with Ole, we will sign one or two bigger name players to add some star power but lean into Ole playing/promoting youth.
Ole would want to play youth but as much as I am a romantic, we need to spend big to compete at the highest table nowadays. We will though, I am confident about that.
I am more puzzled about some posts in this thread.
The Guardian-article are old numbers. We surpassed City wage-wise with the Sanchez-transfer. With new contracts to Martial and hopefully De Gea as well; we will be even more in front and probably over or just around 50 percent of turnover which is a perfectly fine turnover/wage ratio.
Its also an increase that is acceptable within the regulations of the PL that governs how much you can increase your wage bill every year. With new contracts to De Gea and Martial there will not be much more room left though.
This idea that we can increase our wage bill without complying to existing regulations is quite naive tbh.
Also: Barcelona (which weirdly has been put forward as some great example in this thread) has a wage bill that is bordering to 100 percent of turnover. I really hope that we will never put ourselves in such a situation financially.
Given the style of football Olé promotes, I'd actually love this. Sancho's the dream... as well as a centre back.
I have City's net spend this season as around 4.5m as Angelino and Matondo aren't included in the transfermarkt list.
So Liverpool can stick their PL trophy up their arses! It's the net spend trophy that really counts.
So Liverpool can stick their PL trophy up their arses! It's the net spend trophy that really counts.
Yeah same here.
Considering just how much catchup we need in terms of squad quality and depth, it's gross misconduct by our board! In a footballing context at least.
If we don't invest heavily this coming window I am going to be pissed.
If we don't invest heavily this coming window I am going to be pissed.