You thought that Villa didn't maximize when they got more than £100m for Grealish? When Leipzig got close to £80m for Gvardiol? Or when Wolves got £53m for Nunes?
Hasn't it been reported that Haaland made something in the region of £850k a week last season after all the bonuses he triggered because of the treble? Do you think he actually made twice that much but half of it was done under the table? Which of their reported wages seems weirdly low?
I don't think it's a coincidence that 2 of those you list are from PL clubs. Grealish was clearly not the example of them under paying so why bring him up?
Again, instead of answering a question with another question why don't you list all these players that they didn't pay enough for?
Dias, Rodri, Alvarez off the top of my head.
Well in terms of wages that makes sense, but for buying players that makes 0 sense.
But they didn't buy big named players, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Rodri? The one they triggered a buy out clause for over £60m when Atleti payed less than a third of that just a year before? Seems really suspicious, yes.
Rodri at 63m, no idea how at the time that's under priced. Alvarez was bought from a very poor south American team who he was loaned back to,
Dais was £60 mil (for a young centre back from a Portuguese club), Rodri was them paying a release clause. Neither of them can be described as "paying suspiciously cheap prices", can they?
I think you'll find players care less about wages and what a team is winning today.
If that's the only comment you have on that whole post, I think you have to concede they are making at least one point you can't refute.
Tell me honestly that you would engage with that chap’s angry ranting! More fool you if you would. I’ve tried to respond to every post on here, whether I agree with it or not, and I’ve remained polite. I’ll engage on that basis with absolutely anyone, but I draw the line at posters with zero emotional regulation, posters who can apparently effortlessly spot the bias in other people’s arguments, but don’t have the basic self awareness needed to recognise it in themselves. I think I’ll pass!
It’s actually ‘ability to waken a sleeping giant’ that they go for!
There’s nothing angry in that post is there? Not that I can see.
His literal first sentence is that i’m
What angry ranting?
What absolute drivel. Please enlighten us all when did Utd repeatedly break the rules and over inflate sponsorships etc. in the 90’s and 2000’s??
Great post.
When did Utd breach the rules of the league and manipulate financial agreements to cover it up?
There’s clear bitterness in your postings on this subject, calling that out isn’t an angry reaction, it’s calling a spade a spade.
Not been following what else you wrote, but surely you are on the wind up with this?
Spot on
It’s an utterly bizarre argument, as if we’d be complaining now about anti competitiveness and cheating if Liverpool were the dominant team, with Leicester, Spurs, Liverpool & Arsenal winning leagues since SAF retired.
When did I SAY they did?!
Didn't say that they did. Nor do I think that they did. I was talking about football achievements like winning the treble, winning three premier leagues in a row, multiple CL finals in a short space of time. If you look you’ll see I was clearly responding to a post about competitiveness, not financial fair play. So my point stands. Everything City have won has been done already by Utd.
Ha ha, ‘clear bitterness’. I think you are projecting there, fella.
in which the context was about competitiveness, not spending. Apooogies if that wasn’t obvious, but it’s been cleared up now.
I do not care that you call me a City-fan. I am just sick and tired of people like you talking about things they have not a clue about. You talk about cheap signings indicating that City officially pay one transfer fee while paying more under the table. That means that the 56 clubs City has bought players from the last 16 years has been part of the fraud accepting money under the table. Don't you understand how braindead that argument is ?
You said City did nothing that hadn’t already been done by United.
Even then if someone takes issue with someones accomplishments because of the underhanded way in which they were achieved would you not say that is slightly different then just being annoyed that they are winning and you aren't?
I’ve no idea how you reach that conclusion from my post? I felt it was researched and reasoned with plenty of acceptance of Uniteds current position, our history and how I feel succes in football should be achieved.
No idea how this fits my post either
It’s braindead if you think the extra money went to those clubs rather than the agents and the player/manager (eg. Mancini).
Angry ranting = you’re right but can’t engage with that.No idea how this fits my post either
Yes and I’d have sympathy with those for whom this is *genuinely* about fairness and consistent respect for the rules. But I have less sympathy for those who hide behind that reasoning when this is just about your rivals going through a period of success whilst your team stagnates.
