That sounds like an excuse to me to be honest. Wolves net spend was £81m so was higher.Aston Villa outspent everyone. Wolves had a lower net spend I believe. Neither have a wage bill remotely close to ours, or have spent remotely close to us over the past 5 seasons.
Agree. I tend to disagree with their opinion plenty...It comes down to this which is an opinion not a fact, other people may have a different opinion including the club.
And Neither have as much turnover as us. Actually you could add both their turnover wouldnt be anywhere near as ours.Aston Villa outspent everyone. Wolves had a lower net spend I believe. Neither have a wage bill remotely close to ours, or have spent remotely close to us over the past 5 seasons.
With tears at the end of the game, and a United tattoo on his back to celebrate with.So much of a breakthrough that he will still play tonight
I generally do too but I don't know enough about Fernandes to pick a side. Maybe they are right or maybe you are.Agree. In tend to disagree with their opinion plenty...
^ This 100%. Maguire is a solid deffender but was he worth 80m and is he THAT much of an upgrade on smalling? The 80m should have been spent on 2 CM options.We spunked 80 million for a defender when that type of money should be buy an attacker.
Just pay the 60 million and bonues.
Regarding our pre-Glazer spending I'd argue you are being far too selective. The only clubs who even come close to our spending in the 90s and early 00s were one or two Italian teams (Serie A was awash with cash at the time). Domestically we were light years ahead of the competition until Abramovic arrived, followed by the Glazers within two years, and a combination of petro dollars and Glazernomics turned the tide drastically.We broke records but I wouldn't consider it regular, not when we basically spent 10 years in the 90s with one british record but maybe I'm being too selective. And I mentioned the Glazers because you did, I don't think that there is a difference between the previous PLC, which isn't surprising since they were part of it, the main difference is that we got rid of the wage structure that prevented us from signing some players.
And I don't know if it's an interesting question, we kept spending relatively big with the likes of Hargreaves, Carrick, Nani, Anderson, Berbatov who were expensive players at the time, what we spent on Van Persie was important when you consider that he was in the last year of his contract. The main thing for me is that we didn't had a lot of room for new players until 2009-2010, we really messed up with the Ronaldo money.
And the rest.We’ll get him. Problem is. We need 3 more
You just know Burnley will score a set piece tomorrow.Bring Smalling back and we might actually be able to defend corners.
Roma conceded from a freekick the other day where Smalling misjudged a header.Bring Smalling back and we might actually be able to defend corners.
No, it sounds like an inconvenient truth, and one you will readily shrug off.That sounds like an excuse to me to be honest. Wolves net spend was £81m so was higher.
The fact we are even being compared in the same sentence to that club tells you everything. The way this club has been ran has been shocking from top to bottom.
In that they’re back at a deadlock instead of being plain deadTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Another 48 hrsIs this deal ever going to happen?
I give it to the end of the month, if it doesn't before then I doubt it'll happen this month.Is this deal ever going to happen?
No chance, Smalling is the English Baresi. Until he comes back to play for us again, and then everyone will remember his actual ability level.Roma conceded from a freekick the other day where Smalling misjudged a header.
He just read the Mirror article, or is he the author of it?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit!I give it to the end of the month, if it doesn't before then I doubt it'll happen this month.
And the only two teams higher than us in world football in terms of turnover are well below us over the past 5 years and the past 10 years in terms of spend. Since 2015, Liverpool and Madrid both have a lower net spent than Bournemouth. Both favourites to win their respective league. Liverpool actually turned a profit in the summer. Putting things into perspective, the numbers ain't all that bad. How we've spent it is inexcusable.And Neither have as much turnover as us. Actually you could add both their turnover wouldnt be anywhere near as ours.
Putting things into perspective, we probably have a lower wage to turnover ratio than both the clubs.
The Glazers business model with us changed 2 years ago. The big spending on Transfers and wages effectively ended with the Alexis Sanchez signing. Since then we have spent barely anything on transfers in comparison to what we make, and have gutted the squad to the sorry pathetic state it is in now, all to save money on wages seemingly. If it was any other business you would look at it and say the decks are being cleared before the company went bust. Thankfully for the Glazers they will still get their dividends so they will stay owning the club, all while keeping costs down now.No, it sounds like an inconvenient truth, and one you will readily shrug off.
You're cherry picking at this point and ignoring every other club at your own convenience.
Since 2015 only City have a higher net than us in world football. Over the past 10 seasons only PSG and City have a higher net spend in world football. We spent the most in the summer transfer window. In terms of net spend, Wolves was £62m, ours £74m. Villa was an outlier this season which they won't repeat again. We also spent the highest single fee on a single player, all while having the second highest wage bill in the world. Our spend had consistently been amoung the highest in Europe. This isn't up for debate.
Conversely, top of the league and European champions Liverpool don't even make it into the top 10 highest spenders since 2015. That's a net spent lower than Bournemouth. Real Madrid are even below Liverpool and Barca come in at 7. These are the two teams you held up as an example.
I'll reiterate. It's not the amount we've spent that's the issue, it's how we've spent it.
We spent 150m odd last summerThe Glazers business model with us changed 2 years ago. The big spending on Transfers and wages effectively ended with the Alexis Sanchez signing. Since then we have spent barely anything on transfers in comparison to what we make, and have gutted the squad to the sorry pathetic state it is in now, all to save money on wages seemingly. If it was any other business you would look at it and say the decks are being cleared before the company went bust. Thankfully for the Glazers they will still get their dividends so they will stay owning the club, all while keeping costs down now.
How anyone can still talk about what we spent 3,4 and 5 years ago at this point is unreal.
Why are you so determined for this to be bullshit? If the deal does go through, are you prepared to look foolish?"According to sources in Portugal"
Sources who are telepathic and know exactly what Manchester United's negotiation strategy will be.
I read your post and don't necessarily agree but still accept your point. But the light years part is questionable for example if I'm not mistaken between 1990 and 2000 United spent 107.5m€ while Arsenal spent 109m€ and Liverpool spent 146.67m€ but interestingly between 2000 and 2006 we spent 298m, Arsenal spent 189m and Liverpool 216m. And that's kind of my point here, during the 90s we weren't light years above the rest in terms of spendings and not close to Italian clubs but it's true that we spent big in the early 2000 particularly between 2001 and 2005 which coincedes with Arsenal giving us a real run for our money.Domestically we were light years ahead of the competition until Abramovic arrived, followed by the Glazers within two years, and a combination of petro dollars and Glazernomics turned the tide drastically.
It’s probably more to do with the shitty newspapers “sources” rather than wanting the deal to fall through.Why are you so determined for this to be bullshit? If the deal does go through, are you prepared to look foolish?
No, we simply didn't - we sold Lukaku for 50% of that amount and did you not notice that we didn't complete the Maguire deal until the ink was dry on Lukaku's transfer? Funny that isn't it, considering that the fee was known for some time prior to us confirming the deal. If we didn't sell Lukaku, Maguire would 100% have not been signed, and our overall spend would again have been around £70m. The same as the summer before after Jose came 2nd.We spent 150m odd last summer