Erling Haaland

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
To be fair to the English league as a whole, there probably isn't a single transfer record broken at any time by any club that at least one other club could not have funded

Utd have broken the transfer record more than anyone (6 times) but never to the extent you could say nobody else could have competed. Single transfers aren't the issue to me, it's the overall net spend and the trend of it that matters far more
Agreed, I just see a narrative on here recently often regurgitated even by some United fans that United bought success in the 90's because we broke transfer fees. It's a long running myth.

If Chelsea were to spend £175m on one player, I'm sure if we really wanted to United could stretch to that as well. But as you say overall net spend over a sustained period is a better indicator.

And over the last 20 years there are clubs spending above what even United can seemingly afford and certainly levels above even taking inflation into account what any club could afford to spend back in the 90's.
 

Wilt

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
2,430
For what it’s worth, currently the top three highest PL transfer records....

1. Pogba
2. Maguire
3. Lukaku

ie, There’s no point buying a Ferrari if you can’t fecking drive it.
 

terraloo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
120
Supports
Chelsea
I don't trust the wages that are reported. I might be wrong but I really can't see a LWB signed during a pandemic earning more than Kante, Havertz, Werner etc
So which source is accurate?


Money and everything else being equal, clubs like Madrid, Barcelona, us, always have an advantage because of the name, and in Haaland's case we are all interested.
[/QUOTE]

Such a naive comment
 

Rajiztar

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
142
Supports
Chelsea
Agreed, I just see a narrative on here recently often regurgitated even by some United fans that United bought success in the 90's because we broke transfer fees. It's a long running myth.

If Chelsea were to spend £175m on one player, I'm sure if we really wanted to United could stretch to that as well. But as you say overall net spend over a sustained period is a better indicator.

And over the last 20 years there are clubs spending above what even United can seemingly afford and certainly levels above even taking inflation into account what any club could afford to spend back in the 90's.
I don't know what to say.If SAF still in charge of man utd he would still could have win two or three league titles in between. No matter how much others spend. Importantly he would never resigned Pogba or Maguire with that much outlay but invested better in the man utd squad for sure.

Man utd hierarchy just need to realise SAF not managed the team any more. For better players you have to spend better. That's the reality. For example if united not want spend more than 70 mn for Sancho that player will not be yours.

Best quality of SAF was he utilised the squad better than any one. He had the ability to produce just better output from whole squad. Rarely getting bad results against poor teams even after rotating heavily. If he got bad results he reinvested in squad next window to not allow to happen again.

If he spent few more on world class players such as Zidane,Ronaldo he could have won surely few more champions league too. That's why he won league titles with such ease but only two champions league titles.Elite level cup competition the margin level for error is very small and he could have won two or three more in my opinion if he had better quality of players.But that's greatness of his achievements.
 

Siorac

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
19,861
Location
16th century
So none glad we cleared that up.
At the time we bought Juan Sebastian Verón, Arsenal's (our closest competitor then) record signing was Sylvain Wiltord, for less than half the price of Verón. In fact, Verón's transfer fee broke the British record that United set a couple of weeks before, with Van Nistelrooy.

And no one could have afforded Rio Ferdinand a year later. Arsenal posted a loss in the 2002 financial year, Chelsea were headed for serious financial problems that Abramovich saved them from, Liverpool simply didn't have the money.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
At the time we bought Juan Sebastian Verón, Arsenal's (our closest competitor then) record signing was Sylvain Wiltord, for less than half the price of Verón. In fact, Verón's transfer fee broke the British record that United set a couple of weeks before, with Van Nistelrooy.

And no one could have afforded Rio Ferdinand a year later. Arsenal posted a loss in the 2002 financial year, Chelsea were headed for serious financial problems that Abramovich saved them from, Liverpool simply didn't have the money.
The year we signed Veron for £28m Arsenal spent £28-29m on Wright, Van Bronckhorst and Edu.

The year we signed Ferdinand for £29m Liverpool spent £28m on players.
 

Siorac

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
19,861
Location
16th century
The year we signed Veron for £28m Arsenal spent £28-29m on Wright, Van Bronckhorst and Edu.

The year we signed Ferdinand for £29m Liverpool spent £28m on players.
Arsenal spent €32.7m in the summer of 2001. That's less than one Verón; €10m less, in fact. And we signed Van Nistelrooy the same summer. This is a bit like saying we could have afforded Mbappe in 2017. We spent almost as much as PSG spent on him, after all.

Liverpool spent €31.5m in the summer of 2002. That's €15m less than Ferdinand's fee.

(these are in euros, rather than pounds, because of transfermarkt, but that doesn't really matter; they use the conversion rate of the year in which the transfer happened).
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Arsenal spent €32.7m in the summer of 2001. That's less than one Verón; €10m less, in fact. And we signed Van Nistelrooy the same summer. This is a bit like saying we could have afforded Mbappe in 2017. We spent almost as much as PSG spent on him, after all.

Liverpool spent €31.5m in the summer of 2002. That's €15m less than Ferdinand's fee.

(these are in euros, rather than pounds, because of transfermarkt, but that doesn't really matter; they use the conversion rate of the year in which the transfer happened).
I wouldn't go off the fee's listed on transfermarkt mate. A quick check and they're claiming we signed Ferdinand for £41.4m. Which is obviously not right.

But I've dragged the thread off topic so we can discuss it elsewhere sometime.
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
12,136
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
Agreed, I just see a narrative on here recently often regurgitated even by some United fans that United bought success in the 90's because we broke transfer fees. It's a long running myth.

If Chelsea were to spend £175m on one player, I'm sure if we really wanted to United could stretch to that as well. But as you say overall net spend over a sustained period is a better indicator.

And over the last 20 years there are clubs spending above what even United can seemingly afford and certainly levels above even taking inflation into account what any club could afford to spend back in the 90's.
You lot pay massive wages though which most other clubs can't match. As well as being the one club that regularly breaks transfer records.
 

0le

Full Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
4,129
Location
UK
You lot pay massive wages though which most other clubs can't match. As well as being the one club that regularly breaks transfer records.
Lots of clubs pay massive wages. United's wages when reported in the media however often include all bonuses which are often not met. An example of this was Sanchez's wages, which became a running joke regarding how much it would increase in the next media article.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,173
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
I wouldn't go off the fee's listed on transfermarkt mate. A quick check and they're claiming we signed Ferdinand for £41.4m. Which is obviously not right.

But I've dragged the thread off topic so we can discuss it elsewhere sometime.
You're using current exchange rates. In July 2002 one euro was 0.639 GBP. 30m GBP at the time was 46m euros.
 

Siorac

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
19,861
Location
16th century
A quick check and they're claiming we signed Ferdinand for £41.4m.
They're claiming we signed him for €46.5m and their .co.uk site uses today's exchange rate, giving you that £41m figure which is obviously nonsense.

In the exchange rate of 2002, €46.5m was around £30m, as you can check it yourself with any number of historical currency converters. So the numbers are accurate and we were really just that much richer than the competition back then.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
They're claiming we signed him for €46.5m and their .co.uk site uses today's exchange rate, giving you that £41m figure which is obviously nonsense.

In the exchange rate of 2002, €46.5m was around £30m, as you can check it yourself with any number of historical currency converters. So the numbers are accurate and we were really just that much richer than the competition back then.


Richer yes but we didn't regularly spend more than other top clubs, in fact we rarely did. Think it was only 2 of Fergie's PL seasons where we were the biggest spenders.

Liverpool spent £35m in 1999-00, Leeds nearly £50m a year later so we weren't the only team who could have afforded Ferdinand circa 2002 which was my point.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,173
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Ah apologies! Then it seems their UK site is using today's conversion rate then.

Here's their main site:
https://www.transfermarkt.com/rio-ferdinand/profil/spieler/3235

And here you can find the exchange rate on July 22nd, 2002 - 0.6394 euros per GBP:
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/b...rical-spot-exchange-rates/eur/EUR-to-GBP-2002
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Ah apologies! Then it seems their UK site is using today's conversion rate then.

Here's their main site:
https://www.transfermarkt.com/rio-ferdinand/profil/spieler/3235

And here you can find the exchange rate on July 22nd, 2002 - 0.6394 euros per GBP:
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/b...rical-spot-exchange-rates/eur/EUR-to-GBP-2002
No worries mate, that's why personally I'm always wary of Transfermarkt for fees as they tend to mess up quite a lot of exchange rates.
 

Jibbs

Full Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
1,366
I wouldn't be surprised if he chooses Chelsea over United (if we are ever in for him). Why would a top player want to waste his time with a mediocre manager.
 

hellhunter

Full Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
2,042
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Supports
Karlsruher SC
I wouldn't be surprised if he chooses Chelsea over United (if we are ever in for him). Why would a top player want to waste his time with a mediocre manager.
Help me out here, who was the manager of Real Madrid when Ronaldo moved there?
 

hellhunter

Full Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
2,042
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Supports
Karlsruher SC
Real was Ronaldo's childhood dream club.
Yeah no, at one point it was Barca, then Madrid. Manager may play a role, but they're really not that significant for a player choosing a club. After all, chances are Haaland would be here way longer than Ole or Tuchel at Chelsea.

Was Chelsea Hazards boyhood club, when Di Matteo was their coach 2012?
 

Jibbs

Full Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
1,366
Yeah no, at one point it was Barca, then Madrid. Manager may play a role, but they're really not that significant for a player choosing a club. After all, chances are Haaland would be here way longer than Ole or Tuchel at Chelsea.

Was Chelsea Hazards boyhood club, when Di Matteo was their coach 2012?
Chelsea has just won the champions league and has one of the best coaches in the world. We have not won anything significant for almost a decade and have a mediocre manager. Add to it the lure of London over Manchester.
United can not be compared with Madrid or Barcelona.
 

hellhunter

Full Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
2,042
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Supports
Karlsruher SC
Chelsea has just won the champions league and has one of the best coaches in the world. We have not win anything significant for almost a decade and has a mediocre manager. Add to it the lure of London over Manchester.
United can not be compared with Madrid or Barcelona.
You focused on the manager, which I think is way overrated as a factor. Agree with the rest.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Chelsea has just won the champions league and has one of the best coaches in the world. We have not won anything significant for almost a decade and have a mediocre manager. Add to it the lure of London over Manchester.
United can not be compared with Madrid or Barcelona.
Any player choosing to go to Chelsea of all places to work under a specific manager is a fool. As other than Mourinho no manager has been there longer than 2 years in almost 20.
 

sebsheep

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
4,841
Location
Here
Arsenal spent €32.7m in the summer of 2001. That's less than one Verón; €10m less, in fact. And we signed Van Nistelrooy the same summer. This is a bit like saying we could have afforded Mbappe in 2017. We spent almost as much as PSG spent on him, after all.

Liverpool spent €31.5m in the summer of 2002. That's €15m less than Ferdinand's fee.

(these are in euros, rather than pounds, because of transfermarkt, but that doesn't really matter; they use the conversion rate of the year in which the transfer happened).
We signed nobody the year before Veron and RVN. United's net spends aren't that much different to a few teams in the league around those few years.

The Mbappe comment is the most significant bit really because if your club is in a position where you just really need to sign 1 top player you can concentrate your spending there.
 

ThierryHenry14

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2015
Messages
1,080
Supports
Arsenal
Agreed, I just see a narrative on here recently often regurgitated even by some United fans that United bought success in the 90's because we broke transfer fees. It's a long running myth.
It is not a myth. It is the truth. Before the chelsea take over Man Utd spent the most in net transfer spend and wages, it is still true right now.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Last edited:

Commentary

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 28, 2021
Messages
26
You must be new to the rodeo.

United have consistently broken the British transfer records over the past decades. Let's not whitewash our past of being the richest club around and when other clubs then felt the same way as we do now.

Its just the case of the shoe on the other foot.
I may be mistaken, but growing up I recall it was other clubs like Blackburn Rovers spending big on Alan Shearer or Arsenal on international starts like Bergkamp and Thierry Henry, while Alex Ferguson was bringing in young players and building United's wealth up naturally into one of the wealthiest clubs in the world, so they could go out and buy players like Ruud Van Nistelrooy.

Yes United is guilty with escalating wages, particularly under the Glazer ownership & who spend big on players (Paul Pogba) to make fans happy, but then let everything else in the club go to pot, because they can't afford the upkeep.

I just think transfer fees have gotten way out of hand, and it's ruining the sport. All that matters now is the personal wealth of a club's owner.

Jurgen Klopp is a perfect example as to why. I would consider him the closest thing to an Alex Ferguson of our time, he built a championship team on a budget, but they are pretty thin outside their starting 11, and it showed this year when they virtually collapsed with injuries, while Pep can get whoever he wants at the snap of his fingers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sultan

dinostar77

Full Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
1,045
If Chelsea want to pay £150mil this summer for haaland and pay him 500k a week or something then good luck to them. Surely the last striker they bought from germany should make them think twice before going all in.
 

theklr

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
1,835
I dont understand why everyone here automatically assumes he’ll go even if Dortmund will accept a monstrous bid, when he can pick and choose next summer?
 

Acheron

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
1,744
Supports
Real Madrid
If can't come to Real Madrid then Chelsea isn't that bad of a prospect for him, that team has a lot of potential but I'm sure he's staying another season at Dortmund.
 

roseguy64

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
8,484
Location
Jamaica
I dont understand why everyone here automatically assumes he’ll go even if Dortmund will accept a monstrous bid, when he can pick and choose next summer?
Because we're disrespecting the mighty Chelsea FC. Of course he would choose them over any other club like Man Utd or Barca.

He'll rush to them this summer instead of waiting for the best offer next one.
 

ZolaWasMagic

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 14, 2018
Messages
1,291
Supports
Chelsea
I dont understand why everyone here automatically assumes he’ll go even if Dortmund will accept a monstrous bid, when he can pick and choose next summer?
because if he joined us and performed to his abilities, those offers would likely come back around, especially Madrid. You cant act in "what if's" during your career.

Plus, roughly 300 grand a week for arguments sake, has some persuasion
 
Last edited:

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
645
Letting your contract run down is kind of a dick move also. If he re-signs then he's in the same position next year anyway
 

Nori-

Full Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
901
I cant see him coming to United and that makes me sad. This guy is a generational talent.

Next summer with his release clause he will have the pick of any club in Europe.

Our only hope is.......If we have a great year and win a few things he will feel he can achieve success with us, plus the possibility of playing with Sancho again (If we sign him) and working with Ole, his old manager. Oh.....and the big wages we can offer.
 

dinostar77

Full Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
1,045
Because we're disrespecting the mighty Chelsea FC. Of course he would choose them over any other club like Man Utd or Barca.

He'll rush to them this summer instead of waiting for the best offer next one.
Hazard chose Chelsea over us because they won the CL. Whats to say Haaland wont do the same. If his camp are smart they will look at the projects on offer. Chelsea is a good project with a good squad coming together. If you had half a brain cell as a representative of haaland you tell them to steer clear of Madrid and Barcelona for a few years, theres a rebuild job with massive debt at both those clubs.

So it wouldn't be a bad call to go to Chelsea for 2-3 seasons then off to Madrid/Barcelona when they have got their house in order.