Oil club spending

[MrMarcello]

Yeah nice fiction, and if I hadn't actually lived through that time I might buy it. As it is I remember very clearly United buying in top players that most of our clubs couldn't have dreamed of getting, and using their reputation as the top team in the UK to lure in other clubs best players without having to pay top prices. Very much like Bayern in fact.

Re transfers, are we forgetting already that United set a world transfer record by spending £28-29m on Veron at a time when the British transfer record was only £15m? and then a year later broke it again by buying Rio for £29m? This after bringing in the likes of Cantona, Keane and Hughes in years previously.

I can't actually find any solid figures on club wages for that time (I also don't remember anyone really talking about it much back then) but a quick look at the highest paid player per season shows it being Keane from 99-03.

Ultimately I don't blame United for dominating. If your club has the advantages to do so, then of course you're going to do it. But please spare us this myth that it was all just down to Fergie, because it wasn't. He's the most successful manager in English football history, but ultimately money and club profile are the main factors that determine long term success. Take away the smart business people who leveraged United's on-field successes into a highly commercial global brand and you don't win all those titles over an extended period.

Blatantly false. Veron's transfer was a British record but far off the world record which had been Figo at 37m and became Zidane at 46m a week or two before Veron's move. It's not hard to look these things up, even when making solid counterpoints.

Summer 2001 was a blockbuster transfer window with the likes of Mendietta and Nedved moving for massive fees and Buffon and Thuram for slightly less amongst other big moves across the continent. I think Buffon's actual price was closer to 32m when accounting for Bachini going the other way. Crespo and Vieri also made huge moves in the previous year or two. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/1444929.stm

Btw, Leeds had set the British record in 2000 when signing Ferdinand for 18m then United broke that by signing Ruud for 19m before Veron.

Keane was the highest paid player and forced the club to break its (cough*PLC's*cough) strict wage structure around 2000.

 

[Oranges038]

I can't actually find any solid figures on club wages for that time (I also don't remember anyone really talking about it much back then) but a quick look at the highest paid player per season shows it being Keane from 99-03.

Yeah at one point it looked like he was going to leave. I remember Helveg being touted as a replacement. Summer of 1999, he was in a bit of a stand off with the club over his contract, he wanted 2m a year.

If he was the best paid player at the time, he deserved every penny, best midfielder in England at the time and arguably one of the best, if not the best in the world.

 

[Spoony]

a

Blatantly false. Veron's transfer was a British record but far off the world record which had been Figo at 37m and became Zidane at 46m a week or two before Veron's move. It's not hard to look these things up, even when making solid counterpoints.

Summer 2001 was a blockbuster transfer window with the likes of Mendietta and Nedved moving for massive fees and Buffon and Thuram for slightly less amongst other big moves across the continent. I think Buffon's actual price was closer to 32m when accounting for Bachini going the other way. Crespo and Vieri also made huge moves in the previous year or two. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/1444929.stm

Btw, Leeds had set the British record in 2000 when signing Ferdinand for 18m then United broke that by signing Ruud for 19m before Veron.

Keane was the highest paid player and forced the club to break its (cough*PLC's*cough) strict wage structure around 2000.

Yeah we've broken British transfer fee records but never world records. The SerieA and the two Spanish clubs seem to be contesting with each other in that respect. Currently PSG hold the record and I can't see it being broken for years...but who knows.

 

[Kentonio]

Blatantly false. Veron's transfer was a British record but far off the world record which had been Figo at 37m and became Zidane at 46m a week or two before Veron's move. It's not hard to look these things up, even when making solid counterpoints.

Summer 2001 was a blockbuster transfer window with the likes of Mendietta and Nedved moving for massive fees and Buffon and Thuram for slightly less amongst other big moves across the continent. I think Buffon's actual price was closer to 32m when accounting for Bachini going the other way. Crespo and Vieri also made huge moves in the previous year or two. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/1444929.stm

Btw, Leeds had set the British record in 2000 when signing Ferdinand for 18m then United broke that by signing Ruud for 19m before Veron.

Keane was the highest paid player and forced the club to break its (cough*PLC's*cough) strict wage structure around 2000.

You're right, it should have been British not World record. My mistake.

Adding Ruud in there for yet another British transfer record just makes the overall point even more strongly though.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Yeah nice fiction, and if I hadn't actually lived through that time I might buy it. As it is I remember very clearly United buying in top players that most of our clubs couldn't have dreamed of getting, and using their reputation as the top team in the UK to lure in other clubs best players without having to pay top prices. Very much like Bayern in fact.

Re transfers, are we forgetting already that United set a world transfer record by spending £28-29m on Veron at a time when the British transfer record was only £15m? and then a year later broke it again by buying Rio for £29m? This after bringing in the likes of Cantona, Keane and Hughes in years previously.

I can't actually find any solid figures on club wages for that time (I also don't remember anyone really talking about it much back then) but a quick look at the highest paid player per season shows it being Keane from 99-03.

Ultimately I don't blame United for dominating. If your club has the advantages to do so, then of course you're going to do it. But please spare us this myth that it was all just down to Fergie, because it wasn't. He's the most successful manager in English football history, but ultimately money and club profile are the main factors that determine long term success. Take away the smart business people who leveraged United's on-field successes into a highly commercial global brand and you don't win all those titles over an extended period.

I think you are mistaking individual high value transfers with TOTAL spend. The latter, City have broken all premiership spending records in, prior to Grealish breaking the individual record also.

 

[Chabon]

Yeah nice fiction, and if I hadn't actually lived through that time I might buy it. As it is I remember very clearly United buying in top players that most of our clubs couldn't have dreamed of getting, and using their reputation as the top team in the UK to lure in other clubs best players without having to pay top prices. Very much like Bayern in fact.

Nope.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

There’s an alternate reality where Abramovich pissed off Putin at some point and we did potentially become the Bayern of England, but it didn’t happen.

 

[Kentonio]

Nope.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

There’s an alternate reality where Abramovich pissed off Putin at some point and we did potentially become the Bayern of England, but it didn’t happen.

No, instead you see lots of clubs breaking the bank year on year (while United maintain high spending throughout) and it still not being sufficient to break the United monopoly. It literally took a billionaire and his investment to finally break through.

 

[roonster09]

No, instead you see lots of clubs breaking the bank year on year (while United maintain high spending throughout) and it still not being sufficient to break the United monopoly. It literally took a billionaire and his investment to finally break through.

No, it took GOAT manager retiring to break it. We just had a mini blip when Roman took over.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

No, it took GOAT manager retiring to break it. We just had a mini blip when Roman took over.

Exactly.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

No, instead you see lots of clubs breaking the bank year on year (while United maintain high spending throughout) and it still not being sufficient to break the United monopoly. It literally took a billionaire and his investment to finally break through.

Do you not remember the time Fergie spanked Roman winning three titles in a row, 4 out of 5 and the one we lost was literally due to an offside goal.

 

[Dancfc]

was literally due to an offside goal.

You do realise your goal two minutes later was handball?

If you want we can take those out and call it 1-0 and a clean sheet for Petr, either of which work for me.

 

[ForeverRed1]

I'm dead serious. At one point one of you will have to do better then "bad oil club, murderous state, infinite pockets".

So i'll reiterate, as of 2021, how is Qatar bankrolling PSG?

well you wouldn’t be where you are without it.

not even close. Do you really think you would have mbappe, neymar and messi in your squad without your oil money?

 

[stevoc]

Yeah nice fiction, and if I hadn't actually lived through that time I might buy it. As it is I remember very clearly United buying in top players that most of our clubs couldn't have dreamed of getting, and using their reputation as the top team in the UK to lure in other clubs best players without having to pay top prices. Very much like Bayern in fact.

Re transfers, are we forgetting already that United set a world transfer record by spending £28-29m on Veron at a time when the British transfer record was only £15m? and then a year later broke it again by buying Rio for £29m? This after bringing in the likes of Cantona, Keane and Hughes in years previously.

I can't actually find any solid figures on club wages for that time (I also don't remember anyone really talking about it much back then) but a quick look at the highest paid player per season shows it being Keane from 99-03.

Ultimately I don't blame United for dominating. If your club has the advantages to do so, then of course you're going to do it. But please spare us this myth that it was all just down to Fergie, because it wasn't. He's the most successful manager in English football history, but ultimately money and club profile are the main factors that determine long term success. Take away the smart business people who leveraged United's on-field successes into a highly commercial global brand and you don't win all those titles over an extended period.

Veron's transfer wasn't close to being a World Record in 2001 It was £47m for Zidane, Crespo, Vieri and Figo before that were also higher .

And wherever you looked to find that Keane was the highest paid player in the league back in 1999 is false as well. United had a strict wage structure before 2001 no player was on more than £25k per week. Desailly was on £30-40k at Chelsea back then.

United weren't the biggest spenders in the 90's on transfers and implying Ferguson's success was down to money is a myth that needs to die.

 

[stevoc]

No, instead you see lots of clubs breaking the bank year on year (while United maintain high spending throughout) and it still not being sufficient to break the United monopoly. It literally took a billionaire and his investment to finally break through.

But not the highest.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-official-transfer-comparison-thread.311572/

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

It’s pointless trying to argue with these fans as their clubs success is built on oil. They know deep down they’re playing with a cheat code and it’s dodgy as feck but without it they’d fade back into mediocrity or worse, just plain irrelevancy.

 

[duffer]

It’s pointless trying to argue with these fans as their clubs success is built on oil. They know deep down they’re playing with a cheat code and it’s dodgy as feck but without it they’d fade back into mediocrity or worse, just plain irrelevancy.

There's not really an argument to be had though. "Oil clubs have spent a feckload and would be worse without the money". Yeah, of course.

The whole "you didn't earn it" seems to me like someone from a rich family moaning about a lottery winner. You didn't earn it either, your great grandad did.

Is it fair? Nope, nothing is.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Is it fair? Nope, nothing is.

This is the classic oil club fan argument. Doesn't stack up, but it is used a lot.

The whole "you didn't earn it" seems to me like someone from a rich family moaning about a lottery winner. You didn't earn it either, your great grandad did

I don't necessarily agree with this analogue. It is quite the opposite.

More like a working class family who have worked hard through the generations to make it. Then some entitled rich state backed billionaire comes along...

 

[Rajiztar]

You do realise your goal two minutes later was handball?

If you want we can take those out and call it 1-0 and a clean sheet for Petr, either of which work for me.

No mate. That's what some times called selective amnesia. You want to remember what you want or acted like there was no incident like that handball..

 

[duffer]

I don't necessarily agree with this analogue. It is quite the opposite.

More like a working class family who have worked hard through the generations to make it. Then some entitled rich state backed billionaire comes along...

The likes of Man United may have been "a working class family" a few generations ago but not for many, many years. You're the Trumps at this point.

 

[JPRouve]

This is the classic oil club fan argument. Doesn't stack up, but it is used a lot.


I don't necessarily agree with this analogue. It is quite the opposite.

More like a working class family who have worked hard through the generations to make it. Then some entitled rich state backed billionaire comes along...

Not exactly. Manchester United is mainly the fruit of businessmen funding it in the early 1900s, saving it from bankruptcy on a couple of occasions and also donating the fund to build a huge stadium. Those are early competitive advantages that the club didn't earn on its own and have allowed it to be above the vast majority of clubs. United fans should always keep in mind the names of John Henry Davies and James Gibson among others.

 

[8thWonder]

This is the classic oil club fan argument. Doesn't stack up, but it is used a lot.


I don't necessarily agree with this analogue. It is quite the opposite.

More like a working class family who have worked hard through the generations to make it. Then some entitled rich state backed billionaire comes along...

The likes of Man United may have been "a working class family" a few generations ago but not for many, many years. You're the Trumps at this point.

Well that's mean and unnecessary...

I kind of agree though. Either you advocate a salary cap across the board, not based off income but a flat figure or we're just complaining about richer kids buying what they want...

If it's not them, then Us, Real madrid, Juve and Bayern hoover up year on year and that's just as crappy in reality for everyone else.

We're not going to see a period like the 60's and 70s again where Celtic, us, Liverpool, Nottingham forest, Villa all won European cups, and I think taking my United hat off, that's a real shame.

If you want to see who the best coaches, the best infrastructure, the best youth set ups, the best scouts are etc then you should take away the enormous monetary advantage that some teams have over others and make it a blank canvas.

Having said that, it's impossible to do now.

 

[duffer]

Well that's mean and unnecessary...

I was just trying to think of a rich family that hadn't been rich for centuries, to be fair!

 

[JPRouve]

Well that's mean and unnecessary...

I kind of agree though. Either you advocate a salary cap across the board, not based off income but a flat figure or we're just complaining about richer kids buying what they want...

If it's not them, then Us, Real madrid, Juve and Bayern hoover up year on year and that's just as crappy in reality for everyone else.

We're not going to see a period like the 60's and 70s again where Celtic, us, Liverpool, Nottingham forest, Villa all won European cups, and I think taking my United hat off, that's a real shame.

If you want to see who the best coaches, the best infrastructure, the best youth set ups, the best scouts are etc then you should take away the enormous monetary advantage that some teams have over others and make it a blank canvas.

Having said that, it's impossible to do now.

Not just now, it's just impossible. We are talking about clubs that operate in different economies, that are based in vastly different cities in terms of size or culture. There isn't a flat salary cap that would make sense unless if you follow the logic of american sports, create a closed league and subsidized 30 teams in order to artificially create similar contexts. But by doing that you still exclude 99.9% clubs and this time it's an actual organized oligarchy.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

The likes of Man United may have been "a working class family" a few generations ago but not for many, many years. You're the Trumps at this point.

Reality is, Chelsea, City PSG... they are not working class "lottery winners" as you implied. They are the rich elite, state backed/dodgy oil backed clubs. Often used to cover up unsavoury behaviour by said owners.

Very different to United. Whose ownership I often criticise, but for very different reasons (see my post history). Not comparable at all. Strange thing is fans of these oil backed clubs seem more hesitant to make valid criticism of their owners. Maybe because they have been bought off? Or bury their heads in the sand.

 

[Kentonio]

Do you not remember the time Fergie spanked Roman winning three titles in a row, 4 out of 5 and the one we lost was literally due to an offside goal.

Ultimately this comes down to two very different ways to look at events. For you guys your dominance was purely down to one man's tactical genius, whereas for some of us it was mainly down to an accumulated financial and reputational power. To me if you have a very rich family, it doesn't matter if their yearly wage is lower than someone elses, the accumulated wealth and power means they're still going to come out ahead until the new guys invest consistently and at a huge level sufficient to catch up. Just like when City got bought in 2008 it took until 2012 to win their first title.

End of the day though, we're never going to see eye to eye on this because it comes down to how we view our clubs. No internet conversation is going to change that realistically.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Not exactly. Manchester United is mainly the fruit of businessmen funding it in the early 1900s, saving it from bankruptcy on a couple of occasions and also donating the fund to build a huge stadium. Those are early competitive advantages that the club didn't earn on its own and have allowed it to be above the vast majority of clubs. United fans should always keep in mind the names of John Henry Davies and James Gibson among others.

If you mean John Henry Davies who owned the local brewery based down the road in Moss Side, Manchester (same M16 postcode as Old Trafford) who bought the club in 1908 ish. Then yes, but that is hardly comparable to sportswashing and financial doping by human rights abusing states.

Silly/desperate comparison really.

 

[Bosws87]

Its come to a point already where no one really cares if city/chelsea win the league it's only going to get worse.

Its a shame watching football basically die in front of your face with nothing you can really do about it, the only shining light left for me is being able to go home and away meet up with likeminded people and have a laugh.

 

[duffer]

Strange thing is fans of these oil backed clubs seem more hesitant to make valid criticism of their owners. Maybe because they have been bought off? Or bury their heads in the sand.

I don't do my Chelsea moaning on this site. Not the place for that.

Also, as an oppo fan on here you are generally fighting off insults and disrespect left and right. That's fine, it's what I signed up for and 99% of the time it's all fine but I do understand why it makes some of us overly defensive.

 

[JPRouve]

If you mean John Henry Davies who owned the local brewery based down the road in Moss Side, Manchester (same M16 postcode as Old Trafford) who bought the club in 1908 ish. Then yes, but that is hardly comparable to sportswashing and financial doping by human rights abusing states.

Silly/desperate comparison really.

It's not a comparison and there is no emotion involved so no need to be childish about it. And where the businessmen is from is totally irrelevant to football and the consequences of the investment within football. We all need to realize that current big clubs have all benefitted from an advantage that they didn't inherently deserve. For some clubs it happened very early and it allowed them to have an edge, for others it's more recent.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

Ultimately this comes down to two very different ways to look at events. For you guys your dominance was purely down to one man's tactical genius, whereas for some of us it was mainly down to an accumulated financial and reputational power. To me if you have a very rich family, it doesn't matter if their yearly wage is lower than someone elses, the accumulated wealth and power means they're still going to come out ahead until the new guys invest consistently and at a huge level sufficient to catch up. Just like when City got bought in 2008 it took until 2012 to win their first title.

End of the day though, we're never going to see eye to eye on this because it comes down to how we view our clubs. No internet conversation is going to change that realistically.

Do you think we would have achieved the same had we got Moyes or the sort in-charge during that time?
When Chelsea were well established, Fergie still beat them for half a decade. Of course the wealth was an important part of it but the only difference between Chelsea and United at that time was Fergie.

 

[JPRouve]

Do you think we would have achieved the same had we got Moyes or the sort in-charge during that time?
When Chelsea were well established, Fergie still beat them for half a decade. Of course the wealth was an important part of it but the only difference between Chelsea and United at that time was Fergie.

In Football in order to be consistently good you need both money and competency. United weren't successful between the Busby and Fergie eras despite being one of the wealthiest club. So SAF was definitely the difference maker.

 

[Siorac]

I don't necessarily agree with this analogue. It is quite the opposite.

More like a working class family who have worked hard through the generations to make it. Then some entitled rich state backed billionaire comes along...

United were saved from bankruptcy by rich businessmen twice in the first half of the 20th century.

And this is my issue: where do you draw the line? Without 'artificial' outside investment from a private investor, United would have died before the second world war. Are we plastic then? If not, why is this different? Just because it happened a long time ago?

Some people say that that's different from a nation state like Qatar bankrolling a football club and sure, there might be some truth to that. But then Chelsea are also considered a plastic club and their owner is a private investor. Why aren't AC Milan considered plastic then? Their biggest successes came under Silvio Berlusconi who was the ultimate sugar daddy in football at one point. It's all quite inconsistent.

 

[Blackwidow]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[8thWonder]

Not just now, it's just impossible. We are talking about clubs that operate in different economies, that are based in vastly different cities in terms of size or culture. There isn't a flat salary cap that would make sense unless if you follow the logic of american sports, create a closed league and subsidized 30 teams in order to artificially create similar contexts. But by doing that you still exclude 99.9% clubs and this time it's an actual organized oligarchy.

I agree it's impossible but if you were going down a rabbit hole, why couldn't you distribute the incoming TV money (as an example), to provide everyone with the relevant equity - per league income?

Although you would inevitably have issues to be resolved around promotion and relegation wages etc I don't necessary think a salary cap should mean a closed loop league...

 

[Spoony]

United were saved from bankruptcy by rich businessmen twice in the first half of the 20th century.

And this is my issue: where do you draw the line? Without 'artificial' outside investment from a private investor, United would have died before the second world war. Are we plastic then? If not, why is this different? Just because it happened a long time ago?

Some people say that that's different from a nation state like Qatar bankrolling a football club and sure, there might be some truth to that. But then Chelsea are also considered a plastic club and their owner is a private investor. Why aren't AC Milan considered plastic then? Their biggest successes came under Silvio Berlusconi who was the ultimate sugar daddy in football at one point. It's all quite inconsistent.

Milan was a mess before Berlusconi took over...I think the reason why they weren't considered plastic was because they were already an established club with European trophies. But yeah there seems to be some hypocrisy. I guess if United were owned by Google and had bucketloads of cash no one would call the club plastic.

 

[dal]

Man Utd have spent a lot of money recently, yes. I do feel though when City signs a player and wants to keep them, they will find other ways to up these players.

 

[JPRouve]

I agree it's impossible but if you were going down a rabbit hole, why couldn't you distribute the incoming TV money (as an example), to provide everyone with the relevant equity - per league income?

Although you would inevitably have issues to be resolved around promotion and relegation wages etc I don't necessary think a salary cap should mean a closed loop league...

Even if you got rid of TV money the issue is that for example Manchester United has 75k stadium in a city with a large population while Parma has a 22k stadium in a much smaller city, these two clubs can potentially compete for the same title in the CL or EL but there isn't a scenario where Parma can consistently and organically match United, no amount of competency will compensate for the fact that first United got a large stadium funded a century ago which has been a massive source of revenue and secondly that United isn't responsible for Manchester being a massive city, they have that advantage but don't deserve it, it's like being naturally tall or handsome.

My point is that organically big wealthy clubs are from big wealthy cities and have been helped financially due to that reality. There isn't a scenario where you have open leagues with thousands of clubs that is not pyramidal with clubs that are significantly wealthier than most, in that context a salary cap makes no sense because even among wealthy clubs you have a large wealth gap with the likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid or United generating around +700m€ per year and other wealthy clubs like Dortmund generating around 370m€. In that context if you have a salary cap at 300m you did nothing because only a few clubs can afford it currently, if you put it at 200m it's the same story and if you put it 100m you still didn't do much in terms of competitiveness but in all those cases you are taking money out of players's hand and putting it in owners pockets.

We either create an artificial competition where everyone is somewhat equal that reality only exists in a closed and tightly controlled league. Or we accept what football has always been which is a pyramidal structure that is closer to the real world where entities aren't equal, with Haves and Have not.

 

[Kentonio]

but in all those cases you are taking money out of players's hand and putting it in owners pockets.

Can't say I'm losing too many tears over the idea..

 

[JPRouve]

Can't say I'm losing too many tears over the idea..

No one is asking you to cry but I personally prefer to see players get the money than a hedge fund or the likes of the Glazers/Kroenke. You don't have to have the same opinion but it's an opinion that some football fans share.

 

[Spoony]

No one is asking you to cry but I personally prefer to see players get the money than a hedge fund or the likes of the Glazers/Kroenke. You don't have to have the same opinion but it's an opinion that some football fans share.

I thought you were a United fan. Anyway Rio was impressed with the whole PSG thing specifically from a fashion point of view, he loved the PSG and Jumpman branding. I think PSG are trying to create something away from just football and the likes of Messi will only give them a wider appeal. Bit like Real and Galacticos.