Reminder that United have outspent most of our rivals

[Gordon S]

Last two years are probably not a long enough sample size. It doesn't really say much.
We had a fantastic team 2005-2010, but then the wheels where coming off. Loads of key players were getting old or had injury problems or left. We needed to spend wicked amounts of money around 2009-12 to properly replace those players but we had a number of shocking transferwindows instead. Diouf, Obertan, Owen, Powell, Buttner, Bebe, Jones, Valencia, Smalling to replace players like Ronaldo, Tevez, Giggs, Scholes, Ferdinand, Evra. It left us in a tailspin we haven't been able to get out of. It would cost an absolute fortune to gather a team strong enough to compete with City, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real Madrid now. Spending 70-80m a year is not enough. Hope there are a couple of surprises before the transferwindow closes.

 

[caid]

I think this has to be said.

Over the last two years Manchester United have signed:

Daniel James - 15 million
AWB - 50 million
Fred - 53 millio
Dalot - 19 million
Alexis Sanchez 30.6 Million
140 million (27 million raised in player sales)
Net - 115 million

(Thought Sanchez was free tbh, Mikhitariyan has the same fee coming in so no change to net spend according to Transfermarkt)​

In the same time period:

Tottenham
Ndombele - 63 million
Jack Clarke - 10 million
Lucas Moura - 26 million
73 million (30 million raised in player sales) 99 Million - 30M in sales
Net - 45 million 69 million

Arsenal:
Saliba - 27 million
Martinelli - 6 million
Torreira- 25 million
Leno - 22 million
Sokratis - 14 million
Guendozi - 7 million
Aubameyang - 57m
107 million (10 million raised in player sales) 164 million - 80m
Net - 95 million 82 million
Sold Giroud, Walcott and Coquelin that transfer window bringing in about 70m. So there net spend is about 82m (Mikhitariyan / Sanchez makes no difference to net spend)

Liverpool:
Van der Berg - 1 million
Allison - 56 million
Keita - 54 milion
Fabinho - 40 million
Shaqiri- 14million
Van Dijk - 76million (- 131 for Coutinho)
165 million (55 million raised in player sales) 241 million - 186m
Net - 110 million 55 million

Chelsea -
Kovacic - 40 million
Kepa - 72 million
Pulisic - 57 million
Jorgino - 50 milion
Higuain - 8m
Barkley - 15m
Emerson - 15m
Giroud - 18m (Costa -60m leave a -4m net spend)
229 million (170 million raised in player sales)
Net - 60 million 56million

Man City -
Laporte - 59 Million
Rodri - 63 million
Angelino - 10 million
Steffan - 7 million
Mahrez - 61 million
Palaversa - 6 million
150 million (70 million raised in player sales)
Net - 80 million 139 Million



Over the last two years, we have spent more (net sales wise) than any other of the top six teams. We have spent gross more than Tottenham/Arsenal and equivalent to Liverpool.

I categorically do not like the Glazer family. I think the nature of the buy out and the increase in ticket prices have been catastrophic to the matchday experience. However, by any metric (2 year/5 year/10 year) our net spend and gross spend is consistently in the top 2/3 in the league. If we sign Harry Maguire (currently looking relatively likely) then we have spent the most gross/net out of all the top six clubs.

We would all like more signings. We would all like us to compete with the very best and win leagues. However, spending money above and beyond every other team isn't always the best way to do it.

I added the winter window in red.
Numbers stay largely the same . I couldn't be bothered trying to figure out which of the 40 odd players city sold in 17/18 were sold in the summer or winter window. They're a silly club and im happy enough to disregard them as comparable. It probably drives the point home further that spending poorly is the issue rather than how much were spending.

 

[Wumminator]

I added the winter window in red.
Numbers stay largely the same . I couldn't be bothered trying to figure out which of the 40 odd players city sold in 17/18 were sold in the summer or winter window. They're a silly club and im happy enough to disregard them as comparable. It probably drives the point home further that spending poorly is the issue rather than how much were spending.

Really appreciate that thank you.

 

[Siorac]

It’s not that we haven’t spent in the last 5-6 years, we have, the problem is it’s all a bit late because we spent feck all from 09-13. We literally did not improve the squad at all, and we’re still playing catch up.

No, sorry, that's ridiculous. The problem is that we have wasted an obscene amount since Fergie's retirement. That's not because of insufficient investment before: it's because our signings have been mostly garbage.

Look at Liverpool, they were terrible in 2013 and evidently their recent signings haven't been a 'bit late'.

 

[Lee565]

This is still on the owners, they have overseen such stupid decisions like going from one extreme with a manager to another and we get left with a mish mash of a squad, there is no clear vision at this club on the footballing side if things, it's just reactive rather than pro-active, they messed up contracts by giving out extensions to deadwood whilst allowing other contracts of players that are worthwhile being at the club to dwindle down where they allowed the situation of Herrera being available to snapped for for free and selling fellaini for 6 million whilst looking like we wont be replacing them either by the new season and let's not forget the club not sanctioning the purchase of maguire at a cheaper price last season, then there was the case of selling a ton of players under van Gaal for stupid cheap prices and yet most of them players would be better options than the contract extended deadwood we still have at the squad.

Woodward and the board have overseen an absolute shambles of player/manager In's and out's at the club since fergie left but even in fergie's last 4 or 5 years we kept the transfer spending very tight to help the greedy glazers with the huge debt they had burdened the club with.

 

[Henrik Larsson]

So many people here come into threads with their own bias. I made this thread to show we spend money. That’s it. Fruitful discussion has sprung up.

Well that's true for sure. For me the ridiculous spending under Van Gaal in the summer of 2014 and 2015 was the most problematic and has set back the club the most.

The market at the time was much less inflated compared to 2017 and onwards so there was literally so much more value for money available. In hindsight many great players were still available at reasonable fees and would even be worth more now if we'd managed to sign them. Sadly we're stuck with guys like Darmian and Rojo instead, flogged off most others like Di Maria, Depay and Schweinsteiger with a loss. But for example us paying 30 million for Shaw was a world record fee for a teenager in 2014 - actually looks really cheap now.

During the Mourinho period we hardly did better, though you could argue that Pogba was decent business. Pogba might be the only player Woodward will ever sell with a good profit. Zlatan on a free was excellent as well (and got you a nice name change!), and we might even recoup a good chunk of Lukaku's money. It was also more difficult to do sensible business because of the ridiculous inflation compared to just two years earlier, (I think nearly half of Mourinho's spending was on Pogba and Lukaku alone?), but that's not a proper excuse and all things considered it was pretty shit.

Those two periods are a big factor as to why the club wasn't willing to risk investing more money last summer I think, despite having just finished second and making the FA Cup final. We've spent an awful lot since SAF retired, and failed terribly at recouping much of the money the club invested. With little business being done this summer again, it seems we are really paying the price for the previous inability to make the correct investments.

 

[2 man midfield]

No, sorry, that's ridiculous. The problem is that we have wasted an obscene amount since Fergie's retirement. That's not because of insufficient investment before: it's because our signings have been mostly garbage.

Look at Liverpool, they were terrible in 2013 and evidently their recent signings haven't been a 'bit late'.

We have wasted an obscene amount? I’m not saying we haven’t. But the reason we’ve thrown good money after bad is because of the drop off post Ferguson, which in turn was because we failed to invest in his final years. Moyes was left with an ageing team and Cleverley, Young, Smalling and Jones to take over.

There was such a massive amount of ground to make up that it forced us to panic buy. 6 years on, we finally seem to be taking our time and doing things properly.

 

[Untd55]

I have always found it ridiculous that people believe we have not spent much money when evidence is to the contrary. However, just because significant money was spent in the past does not mean we do not need to spend quite a bit now, so it does not mean people are 'entitled' just because they want us to spend more.

I think it is the same as generating new ideas for products in companies. The minute that a company stops/reduces spending on innovation is the minute they are at risk of drifting from their objectives. After all, how many companies have/have almost collapsed due to such a scenario? Resting on your laurels and continuing to stick with the same products is not an option, especially if those products are not performing well.

In the same way, if Manutd stop/reduces spending on building new teams and bringing in new players, whilst trying to push the same old failing players, we will drift away from the objective of winning the Premier League title. Even though our transfers have not worked out as well as hoped, refusing to spend the necessary funds to reach the desired position (Top four this season) will negatively impact finances.

Particularly, our deals with Addidas and Chevrolet (I think they have the same clause) will be impacted if we fail to get the Champions League this year. Manutd will lose about £30m in revenue from Addidas, according to the BBC. Of course, they will also lose the Champions League money for the following season, albeit, I am not really sure how significant this amount is.

 

[Smores]

We have wasted an obscene amount? I’m not saying we haven’t. But the reason we’ve thrown good money after bad is because of the drop off post Ferguson, which in turn was because we failed to invest in his final years. Moyes was left with an ageing team and Cleverley, Young, Smalling and Jones to take over.

There was such a massive amount of ground to make up that it forced us to panic buy. 6 years on, we finally seem to be taking our time and doing things properly.

You're correct in that we had a lot of natural turnover due to aging players so our expenditure is bound to be high. Further the ones who carried on after Fergie weren't up to standard, in contrast to other teams who had big players carry on for years more. If we'd had a Hazard or Aguero to see us over the transition it's a very different picture.

We really haven't spent ridiculous amounts considering the above we've just made several poor purchases and failed to replace them quick enough where they fail.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

We also have the second highest wage bill in world football.

 

[Rozay]

I think this has to be said.

Over the last two years Manchester United have signed:

Daniel James - 15 million
AWB - 50 million
Fred - 53 millio
Dalot - 19 million
140 million (27 million raised in player sales)
Net - 115 million
​

In the same time period:

Tottenham
Ndombele - 63 million
Jack Clarke - 10 million
73 million (30 million raised in player sales)
Net - 45 million

Arsenal:
Saliba - 27 million
Martinelli - 6 million
Torreira- 25 million
Leno - 22 million
Sokratis - 14 million
Guendozi - 7 million
107 million (10 million raised in player sales)
Net - 95 million

Liverpool:
Van der Berg - 1 million
Allison - 56 million
Keita - 54 milion
Fabinho - 40 million
Shaqiri- 14million
165 million (55 million raised in player sales)
Net - 110 million

Chelsea -
Kovacic - 40 million
Kepa - 72 million
Pulisic - 57 million
Jorgino - 50 milion
229 million (170 million raised in player sales)
Net - 60 million

Man City -
Rodri - 63 million
Angelino - 10 million
Steffan - 7 million
Mahrez - 61 million
Palaversa - 6 million
150 million (70 million raised in player sales)
Net - 80 million

Over the last two years, we have spent more (net sales wise) than any other of the top six teams. We have spent gross more than Tottenham/Arsenal and equivalent to Liverpool.

I categorically do not like the Glazer family. I think the nature of the buy out and the increase in ticket prices have been catastrophic to the matchday experience. However, by any metric (2 year/5 year/10 year) our net spend and gross spend is consistently in the top 2/3 in the league. If we sign Harry Maguire (currently looking relatively likely) then we have spent the most gross/net out of all the top six clubs.

We would all like more signings. We would all like us to compete with the very best and win leagues. However, spending money above and beyond every other team isn't always the best way to do it.

Bang on from first to last paragraph. The thing is, moaning fans actually use these facts when it suits them. The criticism on a Monday is that we are right, on a Tuesday it would be ‘watch Ed go sign Bale for £100m’ or something to that effect, in acknowledgment of the fact that we have spent money.

I must admit, the summer periods feel so long, and as I grow older, the transfer obsession becomes increasingly grating. As you said, we all want the team to be strengthened, but some have gone overboard. It’s signings above the actual football team for many. People want to protest or boycott if they don’t get their fill of transfers.

For me, we need players, but we need a fecking clue most of all, which I’ve felt for years. How many times have fans approached a window feeling pessimistic that whoever we signed would not make much difference? Because it’s a feeling I’ve had the last couple of years. Signings won’t fix us until we fix us, unless we get very lucky with a perfect storm.

Liverpool bear Barcelona 4-0 with an XI which included Matip, Henderson, Milner, Shaqiri and Origi. Meanwhile we just want to buy more and more. With nobody we sign ever improving once they get here. Pochettino manages to get a tune out of Moussa fecking Sissoko, yet half our fans even want Paul Pogba out. We need to formulate a plan first then get the players to grow it. Ole has already said that it can’t all be done in one window, so I think we should stop expecting/demanding that.

 

[Rossa]

God I hate net spending when you only factor in players bought and players sold. Do you think that are the only two variables that make up the finances of a football club? It's a ridiculously simplistic way of looking at it.

United have the greatest revenue of English clubs by some distance. That Chelsea, city and Liverpool were able to spend more does paint a picture. What if you look at sum spent on players in relation to their gross revenue?

United had a revenue of 666m EUR in 2018. City 568 m EUR, Liverpool 517 m EUR and Chelsea 505m EUR, all according to Dwloitte. Liverpool had a revenue of 77% of that of United. For them to spend more money than United on players, it goes without saying they had to sell players, thus generating an income, as part of their revenue. Even with those sales, they still do not come close to United. So, one might argue that despite a spending spree, compared to the other top English clubs, United are a little stingy.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

So you are basing your opinions on 1 game that we didn't invest in CM. and how do you know for sure that it was the glazers who didn't want to buy. Like didnt we spend recordtransfer for berbatov at that time?

There's much more than "1 game" worth of evidence in my previous post.

I'm basing my opinion on the total spend each season over that period of time. Its not about individual transfers it's about total spend versus our competitors. Look it up on transfermarkt website.

Combined with the fact we sold Ronaldo and never re invested. We are slowly slipping behind due to lack of investment during key times. Yet some fans are scrambling to make excuses for the owners. Owners who've taken billions out of the club to pay their debt that could've been spent on players. Give me strength!

 

[Lebowski]

I have read the opening post twice and I have no idea what the point of this thread is or what it is trying to achieve.

Are you saying that people shouldn't be so down about this transfer window (and our owners lack of desire?) because we have previously spent a lot of money?

There's a lot of dissatisfaction about how dismally this transfer window has gone so far. Is explaining that our squad is among the most expensively assembled in modern football supposed to make people forget how abject it was last season? Are you arguing that people shouldn't expect us to sign a right winger and a replacement for Herrera because we've thrown away money in the past?

I might be missing the point, but beyond explaining to a member who has just woken up from a 10 year coma that we have spent money like a drunken sailor and are still shit and saving them a trip to transfermarkt I don't really see what the relevance of the opening post is at all?

Ps- I think you have missed out Aubameyang, VVD and Laporte from your list.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I mean at the time where United sold the best player in the world only to replace him with Valencia, Owen and Obertan. Then subsequently neglecting to renew the squad which is partly the reason for United’s post-Ferguson troubles. United let the others catch up and only started to spend big once they realised they were in danger of deopping out of the top four.

Nail on head.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

We also have the second highest wage bill in world football.

More evidence of terrible management by our board.

 

[Leftback99]

Well that's true for sure. For me the ridiculous spending under Van Gaal in the summer of 2014 and 2015 was the most problematic and has set back the club the most.

The market at the time was much less inflated compared to 2017 and onwards so there was literally so much more value for money available. In hindsight many great players were still available at reasonable fees and would even be worth more now if we'd managed to sign them. Sadly we're stuck with guys like Darmian and Rojo instead, flogged off most others like Di Maria, Depay and Schweinsteiger with a loss. But for example us paying 30 million for Shaw was a world record fee for a teenager in 2014 - actually looks really cheap now.

During the Mourinho period we hardly did better, though you could argue that Pogba was decent business. Pogba might be the only player Woodward will ever sell with a good profit. Zlatan on a free was excellent as well (and got you a nice name change!), and we might even recoup a good chunk of Lukaku's money. It was also more difficult to do sensible business because of the ridiculous inflation compared to just two years earlier, (I think nearly half of Mourinho's spending was on Pogba and Lukaku alone?), but that's not a proper excuse and all things considered it was pretty shit.

Those two periods are a big factor as to why the club wasn't willing to risk investing more money last summer I think, despite having just finished second and making the FA Cup final. We've spent an awful lot since SAF retired, and failed terribly at recouping much of the money the club invested. With little business being done this summer again, it seems we are really paying the price for the previous inability to make the correct investments.

I've said before that if you could undo every transfer decision LVG made we'd arguably have a better squad (Martial/Shaw/Rojo/Darmian vs Zaha/Keane/Evans/Rafael) and £200m+ to spend. He blew it at a time when we still had a significant financial advantage which we not longer have.

 

[MackRobinson]

Post SAF- (From 2013/14- Including this window)
All figures in million pounds. Data from transferleague.co.uk

City
Spend: 988
Net: 648.4

Chelsea
Spend:979.1
Net: 357.7

United
Spend:807.3
Net:593.85

Liverpool
Spend:682.9
Net:197.4

Spurs
Spend:490.25
Net:57.05

Arsenal
Spend:487.54
Net:265.09

I remember when Spurs fans used to hate Levy. Football fans should really stick to singing songs and banter rather than becoming internet CEOs.

 

[Denis79]

We have wasted an obscene amount? I’m not saying we haven’t. But the reason we’ve thrown good money after bad is because of the drop off post Ferguson, which in turn was because we failed to invest in his final years. Moyes was left with an ageing team and Cleverley, Young, Smalling and Jones to take over.

There was such a massive amount of ground to make up that it forced us to panic buy. 6 years on, we finally seem to be taking our time and doing things properly.

Spot on, during the initial 8 years of the Glazers take-over Clubs like City, Madrid, Barca and Chelsea outspent us by almost half a billion pounds each. 500M pounds each during a period when players like Ronaldo went for 80M. Of course we have some catching up to do and unfortunately for us, prices are so inflated now that 100M gets you almost nothing. Us outspending our rivals by 10-20M pounds is peanuts in todays market, even less considering the rebuild on our hands.

 

[MackRobinson]

Folks on this forum know full well where OP stands, there are number of thread based on similar notes where he's preaching to this board that things are not as grim at the club, how we should be optimistic yada yada.

This thread is on the same lines where he has provided summary of money spent by us compared to rivals to justify the current window. I pointed out those numbers work against OPs argument, they only signify how inefficient we are when it comes to managing our squad and funds. Again I'm repeating for 3rd time, majority of players in our squad are not good enough. Yet, we've only recouped £27m in players sales in 2 seasons. Shouldn't we be raising more money to fund future transfers by getting rid of those who aren't good enough? It IS affecting our spending power. But once again, due to our own incompetence of handing them huge contracts we are unable to shift them on. Also, OP conveniently left out transfers of Aubameyang and van Dijk which puts both Liverpool and Arsenal spend above us.

Also, you seem to be mis-interpreting my original post. I wasn't asking for boards head because they aren't spending the money, instead I was asking for better management of resources because they aren't recouping money by selling players who aren't good enough. Given the squad we currently have, our net spend should be looking a lot more healthy with good amount of players being shipped out but that hasn't happened. A) It could be because they are simply incompetent or B) They are smart and they don't want to spend a significant sum of money instead preferring to do things on cheap by renewing players who should be getting sold.

How about 3 successive rubbish managers? Why no mention of them?

 

[JJ12]

And? The club needs better players. If they feck up with signings then sticking with shit isn't the way to go. They need to be better at targeting the right players and making them work out.

I think that's sort of the point

 

[Josep Dowling]

You can see trends from the net spends though. Liverpool and Spurs net spend is hardly anything over the period of time the OP is talking about and look at the quality of their squads. Not just the quality but the style of football.

Having the right manager in can make a massive difference. I’m not confident we have the right man but I’m ready to give Ole a chance purely because he wants to play football the right way. That’s the first manager since Ferguson - probably our biggest issue since Sir Alex retired. 2 defensive managers and one more obsessed with possession than scoring goals.

Why as a club do we always have to over pay for players though? I know other clubs do get rinsed but I cant remember the last time we got a real bargain. Even with someone like Zlatan on a free you just know we paid him a ridiculous salary. We haven’t had a real bargain since the likes of Vidic and Evra.

 

[Johan07]

Well that's true for sure. For me the ridiculous spending under Van Gaal in the summer of 2014 and 2015 was the most problematic and has set back the club the most.

The market at the time was much less inflated compared to 2017 and onwards so there was literally so much more value for money available. In hindsight many great players were still available at reasonable fees and would even be worth more now if we'd managed to sign them. Sadly we're stuck with guys like Darmian and Rojo instead, flogged off most others like Di Maria, Depay and Schweinsteiger with a loss. But for example us paying 30 million for Shaw was a world record fee for a teenager in 2014 - actually looks really cheap now.

During the Mourinho period we hardly did better, though you could argue that Pogba was decent business. Pogba might be the only player Woodward will ever sell with a good profit. Zlatan on a free was excellent as well (and got you a nice name change!), and we might even recoup a good chunk of Lukaku's money. It was also more difficult to do sensible business because of the ridiculous inflation compared to just two years earlier, (I think nearly half of Mourinho's spending was on Pogba and Lukaku alone?), but that's not a proper excuse and all things considered it was pretty shit.

Those two periods are a big factor as to why the club wasn't willing to risk investing more money last summer I think, despite having just finished second and making the FA Cup final. We've spent an awful lot since SAF retired, and failed terribly at recouping much of the money the club invested. With little business being done this summer again, it seems we are really paying the price for the previous inability to make the correct investments.

This is an interesting opinion/argument.
What LvG tried to do is what many people are advocating that we should do now. Get rid of "deadwood", whatever that is, and replace them with youth instead.
What Van Gaal got hit with is the reality that you cant go through a PL-season with 5-6 unproven youngsters in a squad of 25; because when injuries hit - and they inevitably will - you might be OK for one game or two. Not more.
If one looks at Moyes and especially Mourinho they seem to have prioritised depth and experience in the squad. OGS seems to be somewhere inbetween so far. Losing Herrera, Valencia and Fellaini is a lot of experience gone. I would assume that Darmian and probably Rojo will be gone as well.
There is not a right answer to this and I wish there would be a more sensible discussion around this. That said: this is a pretty sensible thread so far.

 

[Lebowski]

How about 3 successive rubbish managers? Why no mention of them?

Well you can get angry and shake your fists at the sky cursing how bad each of them were, but why waste the time, they have all already been sacked.

The poster you quoted was talking about the factor that not only was a constant through all three of the regimes you cited but more importantly is still in place and shows no sign of changing.

 

[Web of Bissaka]

Quantity of spending (how many and how high) isn't the problem. We have been spending big post-saf years anyways.

Sensibility of quality planning in spending is the questionable issue. Is there some kind of master plan or just some random thing every seasons.

Maybe it's getting better, idk.

Overall, I do like the transfer dealings of the recent/last 2 years.
Sanchez is an unforeseen circumstances, but you can argue it's sort of "free" i.e. no money spent and a swap (getting rid of another problematic players) at that, though the high wages hurts in the long run. Fred not working out so far is another thing not predicted. No idea if there are actual master plannings here, but then Fred is a quality player at a prime age, Sanchez is suppose to use his exps and talents well to improve our squad, and the other 3 are interesting youngsters who shall hopefully be important players (one of them sort of already did). All of those 5 signings are reasonable.

Another problem is of course the management of deadwood players, a lot still remain and they're being maintained longer than they should be. Again this is similarly inconsistent eg. huge deadwood removal during LVG's first season but some remains, then maintaining them plus adding more, Mou's first season then remove some... while still maintaining the remainings.. then add more and continue keeping 'em. Keeping many of 'em continues during Ole, though just one left so far not being given new contract.

 

[automaticflare]

I think this has to be said.

Over the last two years Manchester United have signed:

Daniel James - 15 million
AWB - 50 million
Fred - 53 millio
Dalot - 19 million
140 million (27 million raised in player sales)
Net - 115 million
​

In the same time period:

Tottenham
Ndombele - 63 million
Jack Clarke - 10 million
73 million (30 million raised in player sales)
Net - 45 million

Arsenal:
Saliba - 27 million
Martinelli - 6 million
Torreira- 25 million
Leno - 22 million
Sokratis - 14 million
Guendozi - 7 million
107 million (10 million raised in player sales)
Net - 95 million

Liverpool:
Van der Berg - 1 million
Allison - 56 million
Keita - 54 milion
Fabinho - 40 million
Shaqiri- 14million
165 million (55 million raised in player sales)
Net - 110 million

Chelsea -
Kovacic - 40 million
Kepa - 72 million
Pulisic - 57 million
Jorgino - 50 milion
229 million (170 million raised in player sales)
Net - 60 million

Man City -
Rodri - 63 million
Angelino - 10 million
Steffan - 7 million
Mahrez - 61 million
Palaversa - 6 million
150 million (70 million raised in player sales)
Net - 80 million

Over the last two years, we have spent more (net sales wise) than any other of the top six teams. We have spent gross more than Tottenham/Arsenal and equivalent to Liverpool.

I categorically do not like the Glazer family. I think the nature of the buy out and the increase in ticket prices have been catastrophic to the matchday experience. However, by any metric (2 year/5 year/10 year) our net spend and gross spend is consistently in the top 2/3 in the league. If we sign Harry Maguire (currently looking relatively likely) then we have spent the most gross/net out of all the top six clubs.

We would all like more signings. We would all like us to compete with the very best and win leagues. However, spending money above and beyond every other team isn't always the best way to do it.

absolutely horrendous record in the transfer market. I don't believe the glazers are the root of the problem but Woodward is.

For example:
Why did he let Moyes buy Fellaini for more than his release in a panic
Why did he let him buy Mata when we already had plenty of #10s (or 9.5's as RVP said) after giving Rooney armband and we had Kagawa too
Why did he allow LVG to buy an aging Bastian
Why did he allow LVG to completely imbalance the squad by getting Falcao and Di Maria
Why did he allow LVG to bring in Martial and Depay in the same position
Why Rojo and Blind
Why make Sanchez most expensive player when we already have MArtial and Rashford competing and playing relatively well on the left wing
Why did he give Jose a new contract then fail to back him by buying a center back but is now willing it seems to spend 70m on one under Ole

None of this makes sense, but it is consistent inconsistency, and consistent spending, but all under Woodwards watch.

 

[UnitedObsession99]

The problem with looking at money spent is its an awful way to manage a business.

The money spent is a sunk cost and yes you can nature that talent and should, but also you have to look at the best potential return on investment.

It's understandable that Mourinho got pushed back in the summer on signing aging players, as it seemed a little early in the life cycle of the previous investments to be doubling down.

However, by January it was clear Mourinho was right and at which point the club should be comparing a small upside from old investments versus a massive upside from a new RW or CB. Koulibaly for example would have likely guaranteed top 4 last year and significantly helped for many years to come. The certainty of this return would look significantly higher than Jones or Smalling suddenly improving.

And Mata and Lingard simply aren't right wingers!

With the investment other clubs are now making, you have to say we look in a scrap for the 4th spot. Maguire and Fernandes would almost certainly change that to on track for 4th. That is a decent first year return. We really need to be looking forward. There is also the multiplier effect, more competition and better results pushes everyone forward and increases overall value.

 

[Siorac]

We have wasted an obscene amount? I’m not saying we haven’t. But the reason we’ve thrown good money after bad is because of the drop off post Ferguson, which in turn was because we failed to invest in his final years. Moyes was left with an ageing team and Cleverley, Young, Smalling and Jones to take over.

There was such a massive amount of ground to make up that it forced us to panic buy. 6 years on, we finally seem to be taking our time and doing things properly.

No, we weren't FORCED to panic buy, we just went ahead and did it anyway. An ageing team could have been rebuilt two times over since 2013 had we targeted the right players and given them the right coaching and system. Yes, the lack of investment after 2008 made it tougher for Moyes and arguably Van Gaal but as Klopp demonstrated, it's very much possible to build a good team from less than stellar foundations in less than half a fecking decade.

Yeah, we should have invested more and wiser in the squad in the years before Sir Alex's retirement. No, it's absolutely no excuse for the amount of money we have wasted since then, nor is it an excuse for the three failed managers.

I hope you're right about the "doing things properly" part. At the very least we're not trying to sign the likes of Perisic or Willian so that's undoubtedly an improvement.

 

[ayushreddevil9]

man city raised 70m from player sales? Who did they sell?

 

[Wumminator]

man city raised 70m from player sales? Who did they sell?

Delph,
Ruiz,
Dunn,
Diaz
And other youth prospects really.

Delph and Diaz have raised them like 30 million this summer.

 

[christinaa]

Let's see if we sell Pogba - then we probably won't have outspent anyone!

 

[AUnitedOpinion]

I would like to say not to spend money every year but since Fergie left what decent players have we brought in?

We keep having to spend money every summer because the recruitment in the club is not good enough. We have seen countless times players we brought in are not up to scratch.

City/Liverpool/Spurs haven't needed to spend as much as us because they are picking up the right players. Everyone would be happy if we only spent £50mil in the summer but brought in players that would better our squad, but i don't see this happening any time soon under our current structure.

 

[Mac Asimov]

yawn Not your money. Cant see why some folk ( mostly liverpool fans) get so hung up on player sales profits yet totally ignore all other profits / revenue etc from said club. Positivty comes hard to some folk on the cafe

 

[jadajos]

God I hate net spending when you only factor in players bought and players sold. Do you think that are the only two variables that make up the finances of a football club? It's a ridiculously simplistic way of looking at it.

United have the greatest revenue of English clubs by some distance. That Chelsea, city and Liverpool were able to spend more does paint a picture. What if you look at sum spent on players in relation to their gross revenue?

United had a revenue of 666m EUR in 2018. City 568 m EUR, Liverpool 517 m EUR and Chelsea 505m EUR, all according to Dwloitte. Liverpool had a revenue of 77% of that of United. For them to spend more money than United on players, it goes without saying they had to sell players, thus generating an income, as part of their revenue. Even with those sales, they still do not come close to United. So, one might argue that despite a spending spree, compared to the other top English clubs, United are a little stingy.

Only looking at revenue seems equally simplistic though, as United for starters also have the highest wage bill in the Premier League - at least as of June 2018 (https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...guide-2017-18-accounts-manchester-united-city). Net debt in that linked list is also double that of Liverpool by the way (of course you can also afford a higher net debt with a higher revenue stream), Arsenal don't even have any net debt, whereas Tottenhams net debt is towering at £366m due to the new Stadium which explains the low spending and exceptionally low net spent (they basically had to), sugar daddy clubs City and Chelsea cannot be compared here for obvious reasons.

Not to forget United also pays out £22m in dividends to its shareholders annually. Plus, there's depreciation, interest and loads of other details. So as you say, there's a lot to it and fans doing calculations like "we sold player X for amount Y and got him off the wage bill so now we can spend Z amount of Pounds" is quite naive.

You can always argue whether the owners should be more risk-seeking with their investment, but it seems in the end all the non-sugar-daddy-owners of United, Liverpool, Tottenham and Arsenal just gauge how they can get the best margins by making the most money with the lowest possible investments, so basically like any capitalist who owns a company. Even Abramovic seems to go that way lately and who knows, maybe that might even be or become the long-term plan for the crazy UAE City owners.

 

[Gehrman]

The problem is almost all our transfers post-Saf have been flops. Managers like Fergie, Klopp and Pep are the masters at getting players performing to their highest level with a few exceptions.

Nearly every signing post-saf has performed below expectations.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

Yes, we have a bigger Net spend. Because we have absolute no value in our squads, or crap negotiating to get value from players we are selling.

It shows how incompetent the board is, if we sold better we would have maintained the same net spend with 1 or 2 additional players in the squad.

We have no value in the players we sell because we sell players that we don't want. The only time you get value for selling a player is if it's a player you want to keep or don't have to sell. Look at Pogba for example. We don't want/need to sell him, so if Real Madrid or Juve want him, they have to spend big bucks to get him. But who in the past 10 years have we sold that we wanted to hold onto? Ronaldo. And we made big profit from that. Other than that, it's been dead wood that we have sold. But even at that, we still hold out to get a bit of money for a player. Just look at Darmien. There are no plans for him in our team but we still have him because nobody has made a proper bid for an Italian international...

 

[AshRK]

I've said before that if you could undo every transfer decision LVG made we'd arguably have a better squad (Martial/Shaw/Rojo/Darmian vs Zaha/Keane/Evans/Rafael) and £200m+ to spend. He blew it at a time when we still had a significant financial advantage which we not longer have.

Van gaal's transfer dealing were the worst. We just added more bodies who ultimately were crap or didn't want to be here. Jose wasn't great himself but atleast he was not that bad like LvG.

 

[Andycoleno9]

Yeah, lets use time frame which proves your point....
Why not go only 6 months more in the past( when we bought Alexis) and put Van dijk, Auba and Lacazette, Emerson, Barkley, Giroud, Laporte deals in all this story? Or last 10 years?

 

[caid]

Yeah, lets use time frame which proves your point....
Why not go only 6 months more in the past( when we bought Alexis) and put Van dijk, Auba and Lacazette, Emerson, Barkley, Giroud, Laporte deals in all this story? Or last 10 years?

Van Dijk was bought at the same time as Coutinho was sold, they made a decent profit that window. Chelsea sold Costa and Arsenal sold a few players same window, leaving both roughly the same. City probably sold a dozen players that never started for them that window and broke even. We didn't spend enough under Ferguson but its not that relevant to the team today, 10 years is long enough to address fecking up if you dont continue fecking up.

Numbers are listed in 2nd post at the top of this page anyway

 

[Stacks]

I think this has to be said.

Over the last two years Manchester United have signed:

Daniel James - 15 million
AWB - 50 million
Fred - 53 millio
Dalot - 19 million
140 million (27 million raised in player sales)
Net - 115 million
​

In the same time period:

Tottenham
Ndombele - 63 million
Jack Clarke - 10 million
73 million (30 million raised in player sales)
Net - 45 million

Arsenal:
Saliba - 27 million
Martinelli - 6 million
Torreira- 25 million
Leno - 22 million
Sokratis - 14 million
Guendozi - 7 million
107 million (10 million raised in player sales)
Net - 95 million

Liverpool:
Van der Berg - 1 million
Allison - 56 million
Keita - 54 milion
Fabinho - 40 million
Shaqiri- 14million
165 million (55 million raised in player sales)
Net - 110 million

Chelsea -
Kovacic - 40 million
Kepa - 72 million
Pulisic - 57 million
Jorgino - 50 milion
229 million (170 million raised in player sales)
Net - 60 million

Man City -
Rodri - 63 million
Angelino - 10 million
Steffan - 7 million
Mahrez - 61 million
Palaversa - 6 million
150 million (70 million raised in player sales)
Net - 80 million

Over the last two years, we have spent more (net sales wise) than any other of the top six teams. We have spent gross more than Tottenham/Arsenal and equivalent to Liverpool.

I categorically do not like the Glazer family. I think the nature of the buy out and the increase in ticket prices have been catastrophic to the matchday experience. However, by any metric (2 year/5 year/10 year) our net spend and gross spend is consistently in the top 2/3 in the league. If we sign Harry Maguire (currently looking relatively likely) then we have spent the most gross/net out of all the top six clubs.

We would all like more signings. We would all like us to compete with the very best and win leagues. However, spending money above and beyond every other team isn't always the best way to do it.

Net doesn't count. Haven't you heard? Also United are expected to spend according to percentage of revenue generated.

In all fairness I think last Summer was disgusting. To finish 2nd by 20 points and that Summer get outspent by the likes of Everton West Ham etc suggests that there was no intention of pushing on. At the same time it had become nearly impossible to trust Jose with further funds as he was clueless so they were between a rock and a hard place