Oil Money in Football | New City expose

[iHicksy]

Hadn't they just signed Shearer, who was our primary target? So, we went for Cole as there were concerns over an injury he was carrying from Newcastle's side? Or am I remembering wrong?

 

[Sandikan]

Is that why the mighty Fan-Sheik has attended 1 game?

But he has loads of tickets in his name though....as do all their "guests".
You want them to actually turn up, rather than just automatically inflate the figures?

 

[Sandikan]

When did United ever do that?

Can't remember us signing anyone from Arsenal, Liverpool, Newcastle, Chelsea or Blackburn bar May when we were directly competing with them. So who did we buy to weaken our rivals?

During the 90's United were quite often not even the biggest spenders each transfer window.

Blooming heck son, Andy Cole was exactly such a move.
An absolutely shocking one.

Shearer was very nearly the exact same thing 18months after, but Shearer shocked everyone by taking the "heart" route.

 

[Sandikan]

Hadn't they just signed Shearer, who was our primary target? So, we went for Cole as there were concerns over an injury he was carrying from Newcastle's side? Or am I remembering wrong?

Utterly remembering it completely wrong.

Cole was Jan 95, Shearer was Summer 96.
It shows how utterly ruthless we were back then, to target a top class striker, when we'd only just bought one 18months previously!

You may be getting a bit mixed up, as we originally were after Collymore, before plumping for Cole.
Thank goodness we went that way, the way Collymore proved to be all over the place.

 

[iHicksy]

Utterly remembering it completely wrong.

Cole was Jan 95, Shearer was Summer 96.
It shows how utterly ruthless we were back then, to target a top class striker, when we'd only just bought one 18months previously!

You may be getting a bit mixed up, as we originally were after Collymore, before plumping for Cole.
Thank goodness we went that way, the way Collymore proved to be all over the place.

Ahh you're right, it was Collymore! Forgive me, I was only 11 at the time, haha.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Utterly remembering it completely wrong.

Cole was Jan 95, Shearer was Summer 96.
It shows how utterly ruthless we were back then, to target a top class striker, when we'd only just bought one 18months previously!

You may be getting a bit mixed up, as we originally were after Collymore, before plumping for Cole.
Thank goodness we went that way, the way Collymore proved to be all over the place.

So, basically, in a matter of months we looked at the main strikers of Newcastle, Blackburn and Notts Forest, all main rivals at the time. We also bought Rio from Leeds, RVP from Arsenal and Mata from Chelsea.

 

[stevoc]

Andy Cole from Newcastle in 1995 - I remember reading it on teletext and being shocked that they let us

Blooming heck son, Andy Cole was exactly such a move.
An absolutely shocking one.

Shearer was very nearly the exact same thing 18months after, but Shearer shocked everyone by taking the "heart" route.

Can't say i agree lads, Newcastle were hardly a title rival they'd only been promoted the season before. In 94/95 they finished about 20 or so points off the top, if we'd signed him a year later i would agree but i don't consider the signing of Cole to be weakening a title rival. Especially when they replaced him with Ferdinand was better at the time and then Shearer who was better overall within 18 months.

We also only tried to sign Shearer after Blackburn finished 7th, and obviously we didn't actually sign him. So again not a title rival.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Can't say i agree lads, Newcastle were hardly a title rival they'd only been promoted the season before. In 94/95 they finished about 20 or so points off the top, if we'd signed him a year later i would agree but i don't consider the signing of Cole to be weakening a title rival. Especially when they replaced him with Ferdinand was better at the time and then Shearer who was better overall within 18 months.

We also only tried to sign Shearer after Blackburn finished 7th, and obviously we didn't actually sign him. So again not a title rival.

Weren't Newcastle top of the table when we bought him?

 

[Sandikan]

Can't say i agree lads, Newcastle were hardly a title rival they'd only been promoted the season before. In 94/95 they finished about 20 or so points off the top, if we'd signed him a year later i would agree but i don't consider the signing of Cole to be weakening a title rival. Especially when they replaced him with Ferdinand was better at the time and then Shearer who was better overall within 18 months.

We also only tried to sign Shearer after Blackburn finished 7th, and obviously we didn't actually sign him. So again not a title rival.

How was Ferdinand better than cole? Not even in the same.conversation in goals, fee or quality.

 

[Andrew Wolf]

I don't remember there being a transfer window in the 90s

In somewhat slightly related news, City's Arndale merchandise shop has closed down.

Which one?

 

[beedoubleyou]

Which one?

There was only one in the Arndale, it was moved from Market Street last year and has now closed too. It was probably just a city-is-ours play along with all those silly antics from the Gary Cook era.

If you could turn a profit from having a club store in town, Woodwood would have had his kids running a United shop years ago.

 

[stevoc]

Weren't Newcastle top of the table when we bought him?

No they were 5th.

How was Ferdinand better than cole? Not even in the same.conversation in goals, fee or quality.

Over their entire careers yeah Cole was better, but thats not what i said. I said Ferdinand was a better player at the time which he was.

In the 1995/96 season Les Ferdinand was 29 and scored 29 goals in 44 games. Andy Cole was 24 and scored 13 goals in 42 games. So for Newcastle losing Cole for the next season didn't weaken them, in fact spending the money get got from us on Ferdinand and getting Gillespie as part of the deal probably strengthened them.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

No they were 5th.



Over their entire careers yeah Cole was better, but thats not what i said. I said Ferdinand was a better player at the time which he was.

In the 1995/96 season Les Ferdinand was 29 and scored 29 goals in 44 games. Andy Cole was 24 and scored 13 goals in 42 games. So for Newcastle losing Cole for the next season didn't weaken them, in fact spending the money get got from us on Ferdinand and getting Gillespie as part of the deal probably strengthened them.

Fair enough, but the statement was that we'd never bought from a rival and weakened them in the race and for the first half of tht 94/95 season Newcastle were up there and we bought Cole midway through the season, which put a kibosh on any title chance they had left.

 

[stevoc]

Fair enough, but the statement was that we'd never bought from a rival and weakened them in the race and for the first half of tht 94/95 season Newcastle were up there and we bought Cole midway through the season, which put a kibosh on any title chance they had left.

By the time we signed Cole they were already 15 points off the top of the league so their title bid was already dead in the water. They hadn't even been in the top 2 since early November so they must have known this themselves or they wouldn't have sold Cole to United.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

By the time we signed Cole they were already 15 points off the top of the league so their title bid was already dead in the water. They hadn't even been in the top 2 since early November so they must have known this themselves or they wouldn't have sold Cole to United.

You obviously remember all this better than I do, I just really remember being shocked that we got Andy Cole.

 

[stevoc]

You obviously remember all this better than I do, I just really remember being shocked that we got Andy Cole.

No idea what age you were mate i was 13-14, i can remember being surprised mostly because it happened in January but thats it. We signed most of our players from other English teams back then so it wasn't that unusual.

 

[RedRover]

When did United ever do that?

Can't remember us signing anyone from Arsenal, Liverpool, Newcastle, Chelsea or Blackburn bar May when we were directly competing with them. So who did we buy to weaken our rivals?

During the 90's United were quite often not even the biggest spenders each transfer window.

Roy Keane from Forest who were competing at the top end. Cantona was Leeds best player. Andy Cole from Newcastle. Rio Ferdinand from Leeds. Alan Shearer would have been another but for the Newcastle link.

It's not about weakening rivals per se, but the ability to outspend other teams and get the players you want to continue dominance. The "Class of '92" were the basis for a lot of success but I suspect if those players had come though elsewhere Fergie would have moved heaven and earth to get them to United, like he did with Rooney - another record fee at the time.

I'm not sure when the transfer window started but I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the 90's. Regardless, United regularly broke numerous transfer records for players throughout the 90's and some - like Ferdinand, stood for ages. Arsenal built a great side but couldn't compete in terms of transfer fees. Wiltord was their record signing at about £13 million when United had RVN, Veron and Ferdinand at £100 million plus total outlay.

Generally, until Arsenal (exceptionally run by Wenger) it was United and one serious rival which changed every few years because the challenge couldn't be sustained. Chelsea changed the landscape since they had cash to compete long term and along with the influx of money generally from TV etc that's had an effect.

 

[Player Red]

Roy Keane from Forest who were competing at the top end. Cantona was Leeds best player. Andy Cole from Newcastle. Rio Ferdinand from Leeds. Alan Shearer would have been another but for the Newcastle link.

It's not about weakening rivals per se, but the ability to outspend other teams and get the players you want to continue dominance. The "Class of '92" were the basis for a lot of success but I suspect if those players had come though elsewhere Fergie would have moved heaven and earth to get them to United, like he did with Rooney - another record fee at the time.

I'm not sure when the transfer window started but I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the 90's. Regardless, United regularly broke numerous transfer records for players throughout the 90's and some - like Ferdinand, stood for ages. Arsenal built a great side but couldn't compete in terms of transfer fees. Wiltord was their record signing at about £13 million when United had RVN, Veron and Ferdinand at £100 million plus total outlay.

Generally, until Arsenal (exceptionally run by Wenger) it was United and one serious rival which changed every few years because the challenge couldn't be sustained. Chelsea changed the landscape since they had cash to compete long term and along with the influx of money generally from TV etc that's had an effect.

Think Forest were relegated the summer we signed Keane but yes to the others. They weakened rivals at the time.

 

[golden_blunder]

Think Forest were relegated the summer we signed Keane but yes to the others. They weakened rivals at the time.

Yes, forest were in a relegation battle not anywhere near the top.
Cantona was being messed around by Howard Wilkinson at the time, they were happy to sell him.

Out of those listed, I’d say Ferdinand was the only real one were we weakened a rival

 

[RedRover]

Think Forest were relegated the summer we signed Keane but yes to the others. They weakened rivals at the time.

Yes - misremembered. 8th in 90/91 and 91/92.

Was a British record transfer at the time though - £3.75 million.

 

[The Irish Connection]

There was only one in the Arndale, it was moved from Market Street last year and has now closed too. It was probably just a city-is-ours play along with all those silly antics from the Gary Cook era.

If you could turn a profit from having a club store in town, Woodwood would have had his kids running a United shop years ago.

To be honest, it’s weird that there’s not a United shop in town, unless I missed it.

I know I would prefer going in there than the megastore. It would surely be a bit of a tourist attraction with United being the global name of Manchester.

 

[stevoc]

Roy Keane from Forest who were competing at the top end. Cantona was Leeds best player. Andy Cole from Newcastle. Rio Ferdinand from Leeds. Alan Shearer would have been another but for the Newcastle link.

When you said it wasn't a level playing field because only one team could buy players from their rivals i assumed you meant title rivals..

Forest were relegated when we signed Keane, Blackburn had actually agreed to buy him for more. Leeds wanted rid of Cantona and they were struggling that year. Andy Cole we bought from a team that had only been promoted the year before and were nowhere near the title. Ferdinand we bought from Leeds who were in and around the top 4 but weren't exactly title challengers in 2002. Neither were Blackburn when we tried to sign Shearer.

So none of them were bought from direct title rivals. If the team that finished bottom are considered rivals to the champions then every club in the league was able to buy from their rivals. Every English club signed the majority of their players from other English teams back then.

United weren't like Bayern or PSG now who can go and buy their direct rivals best players. It wasn't a one team league.

It's not about weakening rivals per se, but the ability to outspend other teams and get the players you want to continue dominance. The "Class of '92" were the basis for a lot of success but I suspect if those players had come though elsewhere Fergie would have moved heaven and earth to get them to United, like he did with Rooney - another record fee at the time.

I'm not sure when the transfer window started but I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the 90's. Regardless, United regularly broke numerous transfer records for players throughout the 90's and some - like Ferdinand, stood for ages. Arsenal built a great side but couldn't compete in terms of transfer fees. Wiltord was their record signing at about £13 million when United had RVN, Veron and Ferdinand at £100 million plus total outlay.

Generally, until Arsenal (exceptionally run by Wenger) it was United and one serious rival which changed every few years because the challenge couldn't be sustained. Chelsea changed the landscape since they had cash to compete long term and along with the influx of money generally from TV etc that's had an effect.

The Class of 92 was what the success was based on no doubt but those players coming through only allowed United to concentrate their spending power on key signings. Other teams quite often outspent United in the summer. Blackburn and later Newcastle were able to outspend United in the early PL years, both fees and wages. Later other clubs like Chelsea and even Middlesbrough were able to offer players 2-3 times the wages United were able due to the Clubs wage cap. We missed out on dozens of players because of that cap. Desailly being a good example.

Someone posted a list of the biggest spenders in the 90's Premier League last year and i think United were actually 3rd and Liverpool were top overall. If i remember correctly.


Edit: Found the list, between 1992 and 2002 United were only the biggest spenders in 2 seasons.

Spoiler: Biggest spenders in the 90's

1992/93

The biggest spenders: Blackburn
The spend: £8.46m
The signings: Alan Shearer, Duncan Shearer, Kevin Gallacher, Frank Talia, Patrik Andersson, Stuart Ripley, Graeme Le Saux, Nicky Marker, Simon Ireland, Wayne Burnett, Henning Berg, Lee Makel, Tim Sherwood
The biggest signing: Alan Shearer (£3.4m, Southampton)
The finish: 4th

Manchester United won the inaugural Premier League title after a seasonal spend of £2.3m, comprised of fees for Eric Cantona (£1.2m), Dion Dublin (£1m) and the great Pat McGibbon (£100k). Blackburn, Tottenham (£4.7m), Liverpool (£4.4m) and Sheffield Wednesday (£2.4m) all spent more.

1993/94
The biggest spenders: Blackburn
The spend: £8.5m
The signings: Tim Flowers, David Batty, Ian Pearce, Paul Warhurst, Paul Harford, Andy Morrison
The biggest signing: David Batty (£2.75m, Leeds)
The finish: 2nd

Blackburn benefited from Jack Walker’s millions once more, although third-placed Newcastle (£5.1m) pushed them close. Rovers would have spent even more in summer 1993 had Manchester United not beaten them to the British-record signing of Roy Keane (£3.75m). That was the only signing Alex Ferguson’s champions made in their successful first title defence.

1994/95
The biggest spenders: Everton
The spend: £10.9m
The signings: Earl Barrett, Duncan Ferguson, David Burrows, Daniel Amokachi, Vinny Samways
The biggest signing: Duncan Ferguson (£4m, Rangers)
The finish: 15th

And you assumed Blackburn would complete this most obscure of hat-tricks. Kenny Dalglish spent £6.5m on Chris Sutton and Jeff Kenna to finally deliver the Premier League title to Ewood Park, but they were blown out of the water by Everton. The Toffees are proof that money does not guarantee success: they spent more than anyone in the 1994/95 season, only to finish 15th.

1995/96
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £24.5m
The signings: Shaka Hislop, Les Ferdinand, David Batty, David Ginola, Warren Barton, Darren Huckerby, Faustino Asprilla
The biggest signing: Faustino Asprilla (£6.7m, Parma)
The finish: 2nd

Newcastle there, spending more money on more players 22 years ago than they do now. Faustino Asprilla arrived in February 1996 and infamously (did not) cost the Magpies the title, while Les Ferdinand (£4m) and David Ginola (£2.5m) also joined the party. Everton (£11.9m) splashed the cash again, this time finishing sixth, while Arsenal (£12.25m) and Liverpool (£13m) came fifth and third respectively. Manchester United signed two players all season, both goalkeepers in Nick Culkin and Tony Coton. Wimbledon (£125k) were the only club to spend less (£750k) than the champions.

1996/97
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £17.5m
The signings: Alan Shearer, Des Hamilton
The biggest signing: Alan Shearer (£15m, Blackburn)
The finish: 2nd

Only two players joined as Newcastle attempted to make the final step from runners-up to champions, but one of them was the most expensive in the world. A five-year-old Mohamed Salah scoffed and raised an eyebrow at Shearer’s return of 25 Premier League goals as the Magpies again missed out to Manchester United (£7.6m), who spent less than Aston Villa (£12.7m) and relegated Middlesbrough (£11.2m).

1997/98
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £24.65m
The signings: Paddy Kelly, Shay Given, Temuri Ketsbaia, Jon Dahl Tomasson, Stuart Pearce, Alessandro Pistone, Brian Pinas, John Barnes, Ian Rush, Carlos Gonzalez, Ralf Keidel, Paul Dalglish, David Terrier, Andreas Andersson, Andy Griffin, Gary Speed, James Coppinger, Paul Robinson, Stephen Glass, Nikos Dabizas
The biggest signing: Gary Speed (£5.5m, Everton)
The finish: 13th

That’s a lot of players. It’s also a lot of money. Newcastle used to be so fun when it came to transfers. Arsenal pushed them closest in that respect, spending £16.75m en route to their first Premier League title.

1998/99
The biggest spenders: Manchester United
The spend: £29.35m
The signings: Jaap Stam, Russell Best, Jesper Blomqvist, John O’Shea, Dwight Yorke, Bojan Djordjic
The biggest signing: Dwight Yorke (£12.6m, Aston Villa)
The finish: 1st

It took until the seventh season of Premier League football for the campaign’s highest spenders to emerge as champions. Newcastle (£27.55m) obviously spent all of the money again, only to finish 13th again. Neat trick.

1999/2000
The biggest spenders: Liverpool
The spend: £35.9m
The signings: Sami Hyypiä, Titi Camara, Sander Westerveld, Stéphane Henchoz, Dietmar Hamann, Vladimír Šmicer, Emile Heskey, Erik Meijer, Jon Newby
The biggest signing: Emile Heskey (£11m, Leicester)
The finish: 4th

After going briefly transfer mad the previous season, champions Manchester United (£10m) scaled their business back considerably. Coventry (£16.45m) spent more.

2000/01
The biggest spenders: Leeds
The spend: £48.7m
The signings: Olivier Dacourt, Mark Viduka, Dominic Matteo, Jacob Burns, Rio Ferdinand, Robbie Keane
The biggest signing: Rio Ferdinand (£18m, West Ham)
The finish: 4th

Arsenal spent £35m to finish second, while Chelsea stumped up a bill of £34.1m to come sixth. A world-record fee for a defender of £18m could not lift Leeds any higher than fourth, 12 points behind Manchester United. The Red Devils spent £8.7m on Fabien Barthez in May 2000, and nothing more.

2001/02
The biggest spenders: Manchester United
The spend: £58.6m
The signings: Roy Carroll, Ruud van Nistelrooy, Juan Sebastián Verón, Laurent Blanc, Diego Forlán, Luke Steele
The biggest signing: Juan Sebastián Verón (£29.1m, Lazio)
The finish: 3rd

Manchester United spent more money than anyone, but Arsenal (£29.15m) won the Premier League title. Who came second behind United in terms of money spent? Fulham (£32.3m), obviously.

https://www.football365.com/news/the-biggest-spender-in-every-pl-season-and-how-they-fared


The spend on RVN, and Veron was £44-46 million in 2001 (outspent by Leeds that year). Ferdinand was £29m in 2002 they weren't all signed in one season. After Keanes new contract the wage cap was lifted in 2001 we were actually able to blow every other team in the league out of the water financially between 2001 and 2003. And then Chelsea got bought out and were throwing £100-150m around in the summer from 2003 onwards and United couldn't even get close. We were only able to spend those amounts 10-15 years later.

United's dominance in the 90's wasn't bought, to suggest it was belittles Fergusons excellent management and those achievements. It was due to having the best manager, an excellent academy and key signings. Sometimes expensive yes but mostly just shrewd business. But it wasn't all down to just having more money.

 

[SwansonsTache]

These double salaries explains a lot. Always wondered why the usual suspects of RM\Barca never tried to lure away City's players.

 

[RedRover]

When you said it wasn't a level playing field because only one team could buy players from their rivals i assumed you meant title rivals..

Forest were relegated when we signed Keane, Blackburn had actually agreed to buy him for more. Leeds wanted rid of Cantona and they were struggling that year. Andy Cole we bought from a team that had only been promoted the year before and were nowhere near the title. Ferdinand we bought from Leeds who were in and around the top 4 but weren't exactly title challengers in 2002. Neither were Blackburn when we tried to sign Shearer.

So none of them were bought from direct title rivals. If the team that finished bottom are considered rivals to the champions then every club in the league was able to buy from their rivals. Every English club signed the majority of their players from other English teams back then.

United weren't like Bayern or PSG now who can go and buy their direct rivals best players. It wasn't a one team league.



The Class of 92 was what the success was based on no doubt but those players coming through only allowed United to concentrate their spending power on key signings. Other teams quite often outspent United in the summer. Blackburn and later Newcastle were able to outspend United in the early PL years, both fees and wages. Later other clubs like Chelsea and even Middlesbrough were able to offer players 2-3 times the wages United were able due to the Clubs wage cap. We missed out on dozens of players because of that cap. Desailly being a good example.

Someone posted a list of the biggest spenders in the 90's Premier League last year and i think United were actually 3rd and Liverpool were top overall. If i remember correctly.


Edit: Found the list, between 1992 and 2002 United were only the biggest spenders in 2 seasons.

Spoiler: Biggest spenders in the 90's

1992/93

The biggest spenders: Blackburn
The spend: £8.46m
The signings: Alan Shearer, Duncan Shearer, Kevin Gallacher, Frank Talia, Patrik Andersson, Stuart Ripley, Graeme Le Saux, Nicky Marker, Simon Ireland, Wayne Burnett, Henning Berg, Lee Makel, Tim Sherwood
The biggest signing: Alan Shearer (£3.4m, Southampton)
The finish: 4th

Manchester United won the inaugural Premier League title after a seasonal spend of £2.3m, comprised of fees for Eric Cantona (£1.2m), Dion Dublin (£1m) and the great Pat McGibbon (£100k). Blackburn, Tottenham (£4.7m), Liverpool (£4.4m) and Sheffield Wednesday (£2.4m) all spent more.

1993/94
The biggest spenders: Blackburn
The spend: £8.5m
The signings: Tim Flowers, David Batty, Ian Pearce, Paul Warhurst, Paul Harford, Andy Morrison
The biggest signing: David Batty (£2.75m, Leeds)
The finish: 2nd

Blackburn benefited from Jack Walker’s millions once more, although third-placed Newcastle (£5.1m) pushed them close. Rovers would have spent even more in summer 1993 had Manchester United not beaten them to the British-record signing of Roy Keane (£3.75m). That was the only signing Alex Ferguson’s champions made in their successful first title defence.

1994/95
The biggest spenders: Everton
The spend: £10.9m
The signings: Earl Barrett, Duncan Ferguson, David Burrows, Daniel Amokachi, Vinny Samways
The biggest signing: Duncan Ferguson (£4m, Rangers)
The finish: 15th

And you assumed Blackburn would complete this most obscure of hat-tricks. Kenny Dalglish spent £6.5m on Chris Sutton and Jeff Kenna to finally deliver the Premier League title to Ewood Park, but they were blown out of the water by Everton. The Toffees are proof that money does not guarantee success: they spent more than anyone in the 1994/95 season, only to finish 15th.

1995/96
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £24.5m
The signings: Shaka Hislop, Les Ferdinand, David Batty, David Ginola, Warren Barton, Darren Huckerby, Faustino Asprilla
The biggest signing: Faustino Asprilla (£6.7m, Parma)
The finish: 2nd

Newcastle there, spending more money on more players 22 years ago than they do now. Faustino Asprilla arrived in February 1996 and infamously (did not) cost the Magpies the title, while Les Ferdinand (£4m) and David Ginola (£2.5m) also joined the party. Everton (£11.9m) splashed the cash again, this time finishing sixth, while Arsenal (£12.25m) and Liverpool (£13m) came fifth and third respectively. Manchester United signed two players all season, both goalkeepers in Nick Culkin and Tony Coton. Wimbledon (£125k) were the only club to spend less (£750k) than the champions.

1996/97
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £17.5m
The signings: Alan Shearer, Des Hamilton
The biggest signing: Alan Shearer (£15m, Blackburn)
The finish: 2nd

Only two players joined as Newcastle attempted to make the final step from runners-up to champions, but one of them was the most expensive in the world. A five-year-old Mohamed Salah scoffed and raised an eyebrow at Shearer’s return of 25 Premier League goals as the Magpies again missed out to Manchester United (£7.6m), who spent less than Aston Villa (£12.7m) and relegated Middlesbrough (£11.2m).

1997/98
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £24.65m
The signings: Paddy Kelly, Shay Given, Temuri Ketsbaia, Jon Dahl Tomasson, Stuart Pearce, Alessandro Pistone, Brian Pinas, John Barnes, Ian Rush, Carlos Gonzalez, Ralf Keidel, Paul Dalglish, David Terrier, Andreas Andersson, Andy Griffin, Gary Speed, James Coppinger, Paul Robinson, Stephen Glass, Nikos Dabizas
The biggest signing: Gary Speed (£5.5m, Everton)
The finish: 13th

That’s a lot of players. It’s also a lot of money. Newcastle used to be so fun when it came to transfers. Arsenal pushed them closest in that respect, spending £16.75m en route to their first Premier League title.

1998/99
The biggest spenders: Manchester United
The spend: £29.35m
The signings: Jaap Stam, Russell Best, Jesper Blomqvist, John O’Shea, Dwight Yorke, Bojan Djordjic
The biggest signing: Dwight Yorke (£12.6m, Aston Villa)
The finish: 1st

It took until the seventh season of Premier League football for the campaign’s highest spenders to emerge as champions. Newcastle (£27.55m) obviously spent all of the money again, only to finish 13th again. Neat trick.

1999/2000
The biggest spenders: Liverpool
The spend: £35.9m
The signings: Sami Hyypiä, Titi Camara, Sander Westerveld, Stéphane Henchoz, Dietmar Hamann, Vladimír Šmicer, Emile Heskey, Erik Meijer, Jon Newby
The biggest signing: Emile Heskey (£11m, Leicester)
The finish: 4th

After going briefly transfer mad the previous season, champions Manchester United (£10m) scaled their business back considerably. Coventry (£16.45m) spent more.

2000/01
The biggest spenders: Leeds
The spend: £48.7m
The signings: Olivier Dacourt, Mark Viduka, Dominic Matteo, Jacob Burns, Rio Ferdinand, Robbie Keane
The biggest signing: Rio Ferdinand (£18m, West Ham)
The finish: 4th

Arsenal spent £35m to finish second, while Chelsea stumped up a bill of £34.1m to come sixth. A world-record fee for a defender of £18m could not lift Leeds any higher than fourth, 12 points behind Manchester United. The Red Devils spent £8.7m on Fabien Barthez in May 2000, and nothing more.

2001/02
The biggest spenders: Manchester United
The spend: £58.6m
The signings: Roy Carroll, Ruud van Nistelrooy, Juan Sebastián Verón, Laurent Blanc, Diego Forlán, Luke Steele
The biggest signing: Juan Sebastián Verón (£29.1m, Lazio)
The finish: 3rd

Manchester United spent more money than anyone, but Arsenal (£29.15m) won the Premier League title. Who came second behind United in terms of money spent? Fulham (£32.3m), obviously.

https://www.football365.com/news/the-biggest-spender-in-every-pl-season-and-how-they-fared


The spend on RVN, and Veron was £44-46 million in 2001 (outspent by Leeds that year). Ferdinand was £29m in 2002 they weren't all signed in one season. After Keanes new contract the wage cap was lifted in 2001 we were actually able to blow every other team in the league out of the water financially between 2001 and 2003. And then Chelsea got bought out and were throwing £100-150m around in the summer from 2003 onwards and United couldn't even get close. We were only able to spend those amounts 10-15 years later.

United's dominance in the 90's wasn't bought, to suggest it was belittles Fergusons excellent management and those achievements. It was due to having the best manager, an excellent academy and key signings. Sometimes expensive yes but mostly just shrewd business. But it wasn't all down to just having more money.

All fair and reasonable points.

It wasn't a "one team league" - but it was, regularly, a United plus one team league. Other sides did spend over periods, but those teams were fleeting. They often overspent, burned brightly and then dropped (often catastrophically) - Blackburn, Leeds, Newcastle etc. The figures you've provided show that trend of a club committing to improving and investing heavily.

They couldn't sustain the regular large spends on players. United had three distinct advantages over a long period - Fergie, a brilliant youth system (both of which were the, in my view the main drivers) and the ability to spend big money on individual players when they needed, or wanted to, that other clubs couldn't match and also to keep their best players by paying big wages which again, I suspect the vast majority of clubs could not match. Roy Keane's package when he renewed his contract was big news and at the time, whilst paltry now, I couldn't comprehend what he was being paid at the time. Whilst the Class of 92 were all "United" people and that counted for a lot, as some of the best players in Europe at the time, I suspect their salaries were appropriate to that standing.

My general point is that, in my opinion, the Premier League as a product (and from the perspective of a football fan) has improved by the ability of the Chelsea's and Man City's to spend big on players. That is only a factor but is, in my view, relevant to the development of the League into something which is probably (at least in terms of entertainment) the best in the world due to its competitiveness, intensity and the number of big games it produces over a season. United win from that as much as anybody in terms of revenue because competitiveness and drama drives growth. A podcast I heard recently regarding the growth of Rugby as a sport referenced La Liga as an example of a "Lop-sided" league which isn't growing in popularity because of it. That then becomes a cycle of creating and building a huge gap between the top clubs and the rest which can't be bridged.

For me, I don't see how the League would be improved generally by having a situation where United - as the club with the best business behind it, can simply outspend everyone and dominate. That might appeal to some United fans I suppose but I don't see the point. There are no morals in football, and a lot of fans on here with a problem have it because its City and/or because its created a dip in United's success.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

There was only one in the Arndale, it was moved from Market Street last year and has now closed too. It was probably just a city-is-ours play along with all those silly antics from the Gary Cook era.

If you could turn a profit from having a club store in town, Woodwood would have had his kids running a United shop years ago.

I always laugh when I see City stores in the town have been closed.

They can’t even sell their Merch in the town centre and they say United has no fans in Manchester...

 

[Oldyella]

Think Forest were relegated the summer we signed Keane but yes to the others. They weakened rivals at the time.

When we signed Rio, was it not the case the Leeds firesale was already starting as they were broke?

 

[marukomu]

Anyway, City, oil, cheat, corrupt, empty seats, Bell End.

 

[Lentwood]

Let's face it, in the 90's and early 00's we were by far and away the richest team in the PL and were able to just cherry-pick the best players from our 'rivals'

I think that this has played a large part in our Scouting system being so poor over the last few years. We got lazy. We had SAFs brother as Chief Scout for years and our 'Scouting' seemed to predominantly consisting of SAF signing the best player from European Championships/World Cups or the best players from the PL

 

[stevoc]

All fair and reasonable points.

It wasn't a "one team league" - but it was, regularly, a United plus one team league. Other sides did spend over periods, but those teams were fleeting. They often overspent, burned brightly and then dropped (often catastrophically) - Blackburn, Leeds, Newcastle etc. The figures you've provided show that trend of a club committing to improving and investing heavily.

They couldn't sustain the regular large spends on players. United had three distinct advantages over a long period - Fergie, a brilliant youth system (both of which were the, in my view the main drivers) and the ability to spend big money on individual players when they needed, or wanted to, that other clubs couldn't match

I pretty much agree with the bolded part. But i don't necessarily agree that other clubs couldn't have matched the record fees United paid, the numbers i posted previously proved they could have. But other clubs often spread their spend around (probably because they often had new managers building their own sides).

and also to keep their best players by paying big wages which again, I suspect the vast majority of clubs could not match. Roy Keane's package when he renewed his contract was big news and at the time, whilst paltry now, I couldn't comprehend what he was being paid at the time. Whilst the Class of 92 were all "United" people and that counted for a lot, as some of the best players in Europe at the time, I suspect their salaries were appropriate to that standing.

As i've previously said until that new Keane deal in 2001 United had no players on more than £25k pw and that had been the max wage at the club for around a decade certainly during the PL years anyway. United were nowhere near the best payers in terms of salaries in those days. Chelsea and Middlesbrough had the likes of Desailly and Ravanelli on £35-40k pw in the mid 90's. How Ferguson assembled the squad he did and kept it together on those types of wages for so long was nothing short of a miracle, genius or both. Especially when the likes of Keane, Giggs, Scholes etc. could have easily doubled or even trebled their salaries in Spain or Italy.

My general point is that, in my opinion, the Premier League as a product (and from the perspective of a football fan) has improved by the ability of the Chelsea's and Man City's to spend big on players. That is only a factor but is, in my view, relevant to the development of the League into something which is probably (at least in terms of entertainment) the best in the world due to its competitiveness, intensity and the number of big games it produces over a season. United win from that as much as anybody in terms of revenue because competitiveness and drama drives growth. A podcast I heard recently regarding the growth of Rugby as a sport referenced La Liga as an example of a "Lop-sided" league which isn't growing in popularity because of it. That then becomes a cycle of creating and building a huge gap between the top clubs and the rest which can't be bridged.

For me, I don't see how the League would be improved generally by having a situation where United - as the club with the best business behind it, can simply outspend everyone and dominate. That might appeal to some United fans I suppose but I don't see the point. There are no morals in football, and a lot of fans on here with a problem have it because its City and/or because its created a dip in United's success.

Theres a possibility City will be doing that soon enough anyway, they're already outspending United who are on paper the Worlds richest club.

But i generally agree the Premier League as a product and in terms of entertainment for the neutral has become better with it becoming competitive. But i do happen to think though that having so many really good teams at the top end hampers the chances of English clubs in Europe. Teams and squads become stretched as there aren't many easy games in the PL these days. And all the big sides usually play each other around the quarters and semis of the Champions League so theres no real chance to rest your top players for big European games.

 

[United_We_Stand]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Guy Incognito]

Guardian have teamed up with Amnesty to look at sportswashing a bit more closely in the Champions League. Nothing shocking or revelatory but at least a newspaper is wanting to start up the debate.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...t-clubs-champions-league-owners-sponsors-uefa

 

[Fosu-Mens]

Guardian have teamed up with Amnesty to look at sportswashing a bit more closely in the Champions League. Nothing shocking or revelatory but at least a newspaper is wanting to start up the debate.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...t-clubs-champions-league-owners-sponsors-uefa

Good that someone is trying to bring information/enlighten to the masses. Problem is that if they are critical/finds evidence that UEFA are as corrupt as Fifa they will get x number of lawsuits/lawyers after them. UEFA can afford expensive lawyers for longer than most newspapers/mediaorganizations and regardless of the validity of the case in question they can drag it out for ages... Bankrupting the newspaper or forcing them to redact. They will be banned from UCL/UEL games and relevant events. These are the best case scenarios. If the newspaper or journos in question does not budge we can expect UEFA/Incriminated/involved parties/Countries to escelate further.

 

[Stookie]

These double salaries explains a lot. Always wondered why the usual suspects of RM\Barca never tried to lure away City's players.

Yeah I’ve often wondered that as well.

 

[MrMarcello]

No they were 5th.

Over their entire careers yeah Cole was better, but thats not what i said. I said Ferdinand was a better player at the time which he was.

In the 1995/96 season Les Ferdinand was 29 and scored 29 goals in 44 games. Andy Cole was 24 and scored 13 goals in 42 games. So for Newcastle losing Cole for the next season didn't weaken them, in fact spending the money get got from us on Ferdinand and getting Gillespie as part of the deal probably strengthened them.

Cole had just shredded PL defenses the season prior, with 34 goals in 40 matches leading Newcastle from promotion to 3rd place; Ferdinand had 16 goals in 36 matches that season.

Ferdinand was a good striker no doubt, and was in a slightly better goal-scoring form in first half 94-95 compared to Cole (12 to 9 at time of Cole's transfer), but not sure if he was the better player at the time considering past 12 to 18 months form. Cole did manage to score 21 in 36 compared to Ferdinand's 24 in 37 in 94-95, not a massive difference in statistics alone (granted Cole got 5 in one match).

Perhaps overall play and value did favor Ferdinand at the time but Cole was scoring at a higher rate in the PL prior to the transfer (43 in 58 vs 28 in 58). 95-96 and 96-97 was no doubt in favor of Ferdinand but that could easily have been Cole knocking in those goals for Newcastle if the transfer never went through. Just my two cents, not really arguing for/against.

The Class of 92 was what the success was based on no doubt but those players coming through only allowed United to concentrate their spending power on key signings. Other teams quite often outspent United in the summer. Blackburn and later Newcastle were able to outspend United in the early PL years, both fees and wages. Later other clubs like Chelsea and even Middlesbrough were able to offer players 2-3 times the wages United were able due to the Clubs wage cap. We missed out on dozens of players because of that cap. Desailly being a good example.

Seem to recall Batistuta was another one lost to the wage cap. And perhaps Blanc a couple times.

 

[antihenry]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[winteriscoming]

These double salaries explains a lot. Always wondered why the usual suspects of RM\Barca never tried to lure away City's players.

I think it more likely that none of City's players are of interest to them.

If RM or Barca want a player, they get them.

Recently Brahim Diaz opted for RM and Frenkie de Jong for Barca rather than signing for City or any other club.

Normally, if they want an interest to be shown, it all starts with a press leak to unsettle the player, then all the shenanigans, as you guys are well aware.

 

[stevoc]

Cole had just shredded PL defenses the season prior, with 34 goals in 40 matches leading Newcastle from promotion to 3rd place; Ferdinand had 16 goals in 36 matches that season.

Ferdinand was a good striker no doubt, and was in a slightly better goal-scoring form in first half 94-95 compared to Cole (12 to 9 at time of Cole's transfer), but not sure if he was the better player at the time considering past 12 to 18 months form. Cole did manage to score 21 in 36 compared to Ferdinand's 24 in 37 in 94-95, not a massive difference in statistics alone (granted Cole got 5 in one match).

Perhaps overall play and value did favor Ferdinand at the time but Cole was scoring at a higher rate in the PL prior to the transfer (43 in 58 vs 28 in 58). 95-96 and 96-97 was no doubt in favor of Ferdinand but that could easily have been Cole knocking in those goals for Newcastle if the transfer never went through. Just my two cents, not really arguing for/against.

Judging their careers as a whole Cole was the better player by a fair distance, but i feel around that time and for 18-24 months after the Cole transfer that Ferdinand was the better striker. Which was my original point in the short term at least Newcastle improved their team.