More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
- May 13, 2010
There's definitely truth to this, but it's also only really fans that started watching the prem post Chelsea that say it. United were one of the wealtheir clubs for sure, and there were several instances where an individual player signing was a record, but overall United spent less than Liverpool in the 90's.Ummm didn’t Man Utd own the league for quite a while because they were a wealthier team than the rest of the league and bought top talent?
And if you at wages, the top 5-6 teams used to be much closer than they are today.
When Chelsea got purchased by Abramovich, they changed the game. For 5 season they out-spent the whole league, and eventually won it. But even that isn't a scratch on the amount more that City have spent than everyone else in the past decade and a bit.
If you ignore the absolute failings of our club, City have spent twice as much as another team in the league over the past 10 years. Twice. (https://www.transfermarkt.us/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1)
Ie, they spent as much as Chelsea have, then they could have gone and also spent as much as Liverpool, oh and then also as much as Tottenham. Actually, they have just enough left over to roughly buy all those in at Burnley and Leeds too.
That's the magnitude here.
And that's before the money pumped into the best facilities, the best doctors, the best lawyers, several totally-unrelated-conincidentally-trading-players-around clubs and so forth.
And you know what? Sheikh Mansour will have made more than all that combined in a good week of the markets. It is nothing to him. He could genuinely not even notice if City went and spent another 500m in the summer, in the greater scheme of his holdings.
And if you're fine with that, cool, but I don't see a future where that isn't the only business model to get to the very top. And it's not a business model.