Reminder that United have outspent most of our rivals

[Wumminator]

I think this has to be said.

Over the last two years Manchester United have signed:

Daniel James - 15 million
AWB - 50 million
Fred - 53 millio
Dalot - 19 million
140 million (27 million raised in player sales)
Net - 115 million
​

In the same time period:

Tottenham
Ndombele - 63 million
Jack Clarke - 10 million
73 million (30 million raised in player sales)
Net - 45 million

Arsenal:
Saliba - 27 million
Martinelli - 6 million
Torreira- 25 million
Leno - 22 million
Sokratis - 14 million
Guendozi - 7 million
107 million (10 million raised in player sales)
Net - 95 million

Liverpool:
Van der Berg - 1 million
Allison - 56 million
Keita - 54 milion
Fabinho - 40 million
Shaqiri- 14million
165 million (55 million raised in player sales)
Net - 110 million

Chelsea -
Kovacic - 40 million
Kepa - 72 million
Pulisic - 57 million
Jorgino - 50 milion
229 million (170 million raised in player sales)
Net - 60 million

Man City -
Rodri - 63 million
Angelino - 10 million
Steffan - 7 million
Mahrez - 61 million
Palaversa - 6 million
150 million (70 million raised in player sales)
Net - 80 million

Over the last two years, we have spent more (net sales wise) than any other of the top six teams. We have spent gross more than Tottenham/Arsenal and equivalent to Liverpool.

I categorically do not like the Glazer family. I think the nature of the buy out and the increase in ticket prices have been catastrophic to the matchday experience. However, by any metric (2 year/5 year/10 year) our net spend and gross spend is consistently in the top 2/3 in the league. If we sign Harry Maguire (currently looking relatively likely) then we have spent the most gross/net out of all the top six clubs.

We would all like more signings. We would all like us to compete with the very best and win leagues. However, spending money above and beyond every other team isn't always the best way to do it.

 

[Devil_forever]

The absolute entitled wankers that populate this board will ignore this and continue moaning about the lack of spending.

 

[sunama]

To take us to the top of the table, they'll need to spend a minimum of £300M more than our rivals.

There were many years of under-investment (compared to our rivals). To catch up, we need to spend big, over multiple windows.

Real Madrid are a great example. They realised that they need a rebuild, so they spent big this Summer.

Basically, our spending reflects our target of getting 4th place.

 

[bleedred]

But But, we didn't replace ronaldo!!!! How dare we not buy Messi back then?

 

[Wumminator]

To take us to the top of the table, they'll need to spend a minimum of £300M more than our rivals.

There were many years of under-investment (compared to our rivals). To catch up, we need to spend big, over multiple windows.

Real Madrid are a great example. They realised that they need a rebuild, so they spent big this Summer.

Basically, our spending reflects our target of getting 4th place.

When were United under investing compared to our rivals?

 

[Catt]

To take us to the top of the table, they'll need to spend a minimum of £300M more than our rivals.

There were many years of under-investment (compared to our rivals). To catch up, we need to spend big, over multiple windows.

Real Madrid are a great example. They realised that they need a rebuild, so they spent big this Summer.

Basically, our spending reflects our target of getting 4th place.

When have the club said the target is 4th place?

 

[bleedred]

To take us to the top of the table, they'll need to spend a minimum of £300M more than our rivals.

There were many years of under-investment (compared to our rivals). To catch up, we need to spend big, over multiple windows.

Real Madrid are a great example. They realised that they need a rebuild, so they spent big this Summer.

Basically, our spending reflects our target of getting 4th place.

No. They had to overspend to catch up with us. and they had failures too over many windows till they got it right.

 

[romufc]

I think this has to be said.

Over the last two years Manchester United have signed:

Daniel James - 15 million
AWB - 50 million
Fred - 53 millio
Dalot - 19 million
140 million (27 million raised in player sales)
Net - 115 million
​

In the same time period:

Tottenham
Ndombele - 63 million
Jack Clarke - 10 million
73 million (30 million raised in player sales)
Net - 45 million

Arsenal:
Saliba - 27 million
Martinelli - 6 million
Torreira- 25 million
Leno - 22 million
Sokratis - 14 million
Guendozi - 7 million
107 million (10 million raised in player sales)
Net - 95 million

Liverpool:
Van der Berg - 1 million
Allison - 56 million
Keita - 54 milion
Fabinho - 40 million
Shaqiri- 14million
165 million (55 million raised in player sales)
Net - 110 million

Chelsea -
Kovacic - 40 million
Kepa - 72 million
Pulisic - 57 million
Jorgino - 50 milion
229 million (170 million raised in player sales)
Net - 60 million

Man City -
Rodri - 63 million
Angelino - 10 million
Steffan - 7 million
Mahrez - 61 million
Palaversa - 6 million
150 million (70 million raised in player sales)
Net - 80 million

Over the last two years, we have spent more (net sales wise) than any other of the top six teams. We have spent gross more than Tottenham/Arsenal and equivalent to Liverpool.

I categorically do not like the Glazer family. I think the nature of the buy out and the increase in ticket prices have been catastrophic to the matchday experience. However, by any metric (2 year/5 year/10 year) our net spend and gross spend is consistently in the top 2/3 in the league. If we sign Harry Maguire (currently looking relatively likely) then we have spent the most gross/net out of all the top six clubs.

We would all like more signings. We would all like us to compete with the very best and win leagues. However, spending money above and beyond every other team isn't always the best way to do it.

Yes, we have a bigger Net spend. Because we have absolute no value in our squads, or crap negotiating to get value from players we are selling.

It shows how incompetent the board is, if we sold better we would have maintained the same net spend with 1 or 2 additional players in the squad.

 

[Di Maria's angel]

All is fine. No issues at our club. All our players are of great quality and we don't need to strengthen.

 

[Kag]

As is often the case, a good post.

It should never be underestimated just how bad a job Mourinho did at the club. The amount of money wasted has been absolutely catastrophic.

The only signings he made that would get into our present first team are Lindelof and Pogba, the latter of which he wanted to sell - just like he did with Mkhitaryan.

Not one of the other players (Dalot, Bailly, Matic, Fred, Sanchez and Lukaku) are considered good enough to get into what many supporters believe is our strongest team. The board are also at fault for not having structures in place to prevent this, but feck me, he’s wasted some amount of money.

 

[VanGaalyTime]

I think this has to be said.

Over the last two years Manchester United have signed:

Daniel James - 15 million
AWB - 50 million
Fred - 53 millio
Dalot - 19 million
140 million (27 million raised in player sales)
Net - 115 million
​

In the same time period:

Tottenham
Ndombele - 63 million
Jack Clarke - 10 million
73 million (30 million raised in player sales)
Net - 45 million

Arsenal:
Saliba - 27 million
Martinelli - 6 million
Torreira- 25 million
Leno - 22 million
Sokratis - 14 million
Guendozi - 7 million
107 million (10 million raised in player sales)
Net - 95 million

Liverpool:
Van der Berg - 1 million
Allison - 56 million
Keita - 54 milion
Fabinho - 40 million
Shaqiri- 14million
165 million (55 million raised in player sales)
Net - 110 million

Chelsea -
Kovacic - 40 million
Kepa - 72 million
Pulisic - 57 million
Jorgino - 50 milion
229 million (170 million raised in player sales)
Net - 60 million

Man City -
Rodri - 63 million
Angelino - 10 million
Steffan - 7 million
Mahrez - 61 million
Palaversa - 6 million
150 million (70 million raised in player sales)
Net - 80 million

Over the last two years, we have spent more (net sales wise) than any other of the top six teams. We have spent gross more than Tottenham/Arsenal and equivalent to Liverpool.

I categorically do not like the Glazer family. I think the nature of the buy out and the increase in ticket prices have been catastrophic to the matchday experience. However, by any metric (2 year/5 year/10 year) our net spend and gross spend is consistently in the top 2/3 in the league. If we sign Harry Maguire (currently looking relatively likely) then we have spent the most gross/net out of all the top six clubs.

We would all like more signings. We would all like us to compete with the very best and win leagues. However, spending money above and beyond every other team isn't always the best way to do it.

All this does is show me we haven't bought anyone worth selling... We haven't spent enough in the last two windows to compete with Man City or Liverpool. They already had quality squads by scouting (Liverpool) and investing heavily (City), neither of which United seem capable. If we'd have bought well in recent years we might have a lower net spend but we're playing catch up and must spend heavily at some point to get back to the top. We were 30 points behind the leaders last season, and we've done nothing to make up the ground.

 

[Ødegaard]

And? The club needs better players. If they feck up with signings then sticking with shit isn't the way to go. They need to be better at targeting the right players and making them work out.

 

[Wumminator]

Yes, we have a bigger Net spend. Because we have absolute no value in our squads, or crap negotiating to get value from players we are selling.

It shows how incompetent the board is, if we sold better we would have maintained the same net spend with 1 or 2 additional players in the squad.

Which players have we sold who we should have got more for?

 

[charlenefan]

tbh dont stop just at 2 years, go back as far as the Moyes summer and total up money spent wasted

Ole's copping the subsequence of the purse strings being cut and that's unfortunate for him but the level of investment in the playing squad over the last 6 years was always going to stop sooner or later

 

[Wumminator]

And? The club needs better players. If they feck up with signings then sticking with shit isn't the way to go. They need to be better at targeting the right players and making them work out.

I agree massively.

That’s why Mourinho was fired.

 

[Kag]

Yes, we have a bigger Net spend. Because we have absolute no value in our squads, or crap negotiating to get value from players we are selling.

It shows how incompetent the board is, if we sold better we would have maintained the same net spend with 1 or 2 additional players in the squad.

This is funny. Just this morning I was reading criticism of the board for not selling Darmian and Lukaku for less money. Ultimately, they can’t win. Unless they lobotomise the morons that make up at least half of the fan base.

 

[Smashin]

Well United is just awful at selling, so if you compare net spend you get a sort of biased view.

If you take that in consideration only Arsenal and Tottenham spent less.

At the same time im not saying the club doesn't spend alot of money.
However it's hard to tell if it's United, Ed/whoever, being shit at doing business or the "United extra Tax" but considering how the sales go i'm a believer of the first option.

 

[Catt]

All is fine. No issues at our club. All our players are of great quality and we don't need to strengthen.

There's always one.

 

[Ødegaard]

You also seem to be cherry-picking (in my view).
2 years means not including all the expenditure that City has done. It also means including the year where Spurs did feck all and Chelsea haven't spent because they have been limited in what they are allowed to spend with the transfer ban this year.

Our first eleven is worse than Spurs, Liverpool & City. The club needs to work on that if they have ambition beyond challenging for top 4.

Overall I agree with the premise that people moaning about amount of money invested does not stand without it's huge flaws. But the club can't not invest despite the failures. I just hope we can get it right.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I agree massively.

That’s why Mourinho was fired.

If our transfer incompetence began when we hired him, then we could anticipate an improvement after he was fired.

However, this clearly isn't the case. I mean, obviously.

 

[izec]

This is funny. Just this morning I was reading criticism of the board for not selling Darmian and Lukaku for less money. Ultimately, they can’t win. Unless they lobotomise the morons that make up at least half of our the fan base.

Yeah so the answer is dont sell them at all, keep them here until we get nothing back. Great

80m for Lukaku is the best we will get, this summer and the folllowing years.

 

[bleedred]

And? The club needs better players. If they feck up with signings then sticking with shit isn't the way to go. They need to be better at targeting the right players and making them work out.

Which is becoming hard in the market these days. How many takers are there for the likes of Managala, Bale and James, just a few out of the top of my head.

 

[dove]

Are you fecking kidding me.

 

[cbmufc]

United are a money making scheme and the Glazers have taken over 1bn quid out the club since they arrived, they've not spent a penny on this club yet reap the financial benefits year on year.

Nobody is wanting a scenario whereby United spend spend spend as it against the DNA of this club. However, it's perfectly reasonable for the modern day football fan who gets continuously rinsed by these big businesses for clubs to invest in the team. The Glazers "spent" nothing on transfer fees in the first 7/8 years. They can't be blamed however for the football decision makers signing dross...oh wait they can because they employ non football people to makes these decisions whose primary aim is corporate success. Meanwhile us "entitled wankers" cop higher ticket prices.

 

[Kag]

Yeah so the answer is dont sell them at all, keep them here until we get nothing back. Great

80m for Lukaku is the best we will get, this summer and the folllowing years.

That isn’t the present answer, though. Just one you have seemingly created on the spot.

 

[Alemar]

Who cares whether or not we spent anything if we didn't spend on the right players?

• We need a high calibre CB (high calibre means head and shoulders above Jones)
• We need a RF/RW
• We need a central defensive midfielder
• We need a central midfielder

We can easily spend 300m more on buying additiional forwards and left wingers, but this won't make our team much better than it is if other positions are not addressed.

But when we finally address all of them, afterwards (in the following transfer windows) we will be in a position to spend less, just fine-tuning the balanced squad - like what the City is doing now.

 

[izec]

That isn’t the present answer, though. Just one you have seemingly created on the spot.

that would explain our selling strategy, we have players on big contracts and others we value far too high.

 

[SirAF]

Since 2009 then?

 

[Wumminator]

If our transfer incompetence began when we hired him, then we could anticipate an improvement after he was fired.

However, this clearly isn't the case. I mean, obviously.

Our transfer incompetency have generally involved us backing managers who don’t deserve to be backed.

Sanchez, Bailly, Dalot, Schniderlin, Mikhitaryan.

There’s about 150 million worth of players there!

 

[Vidyoyo]

Did the narrative shift? I can only remember people pointing out that we've spent poorly, which is true.

 

[Ødegaard]

Which is becoming hard in the market these days. How many takers are there for the likes of Managala, Bale and James, just a few out of the top of my head.

It's a hard balance. We need to pay them well enough to not mind the rotation at a big club, but we can't pay them so much that signing them is impossible for a lowered transfer-fee.
I suppose it's yet another part where the club needs to improve.

James has suitors, but doesn't want to leave. Bale is one of those that are overpaid (for his current abilities) and doesn't want to play regularly enough to force a move on top of what reads like higher valuation by the club president than for any potential suitors who take his wage-demands into consideration. I've got no clue what goes on about Mangala, I thought they moved him on this summer (even if extremely late).

 

[bosnian_red]

Arsenal set to buy Pepe for 80m. City and Liverpool have set squads due to spending a feck ton in the year or 2 before this time frame as well (more City). United need a massive rebuild and have the financial capability to do it, so we should be top of this list tbh. Soon Arsenal is going to be above us which says it all. If Spurs sign Lo Celso or Dybala, they are also ahead of us. So there is a scenario where in 2 weeks time we are behind Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal on this list, which given our financial power compared to those, and the dire need for reinforcements that we have, is a mess. I agree with your general point that they've spent money since Fergie retired, but I do think they for whatever reason stopped last summer and are holding back this summer. £70m total each summer is nowhere near enough, needs to be twice that for a team like United that is in rebuild.

 

[Infra-red]

As has been said on here numerous times by numerous people (notably in the Saudi takeover thread), the problem here is not a lack of money, it's a lack of competence.

The last player we signed who was an unqualified success was in 2011 and we have been a shambles both on and off the pitch for most of the intervening period.

If the morons in charge are not replaced, then there's every reason to expect that we'll be back here in three years time wandering how we flushed another £400m in transfer fees down the toilet.

 

[Kag]

If our transfer incompetence began when we hired him, then we could anticipate an improvement after he was fired.

However, this clearly isn't the case. I mean, obviously.

I myself referred to incompetence regarding Mourinho and transfers in this thread, albeit it’s always worth reiterating that few supporters, journalists or commentators had issues with the vast majority of our signings upon purchase. The signings generally made sense at the time, largely made in positions of need.

Matic and Lukaku were the most polarising at the time. Those who were sceptical have proven to be absolutely right, too.

Mourinho did a truly terrible job.

 

[thegregster]

The only stat that matters when it comes to spending is:

Pep 500mil
Klopp 390mil
Ole 65mil

Ole needs to be able to build his own team. He took over a squad full of rubbish bar De Gea and maybe a few others.

 

[romufc]

Which players have we sold who we should have got more for?

It is up to the club to get the best deal. I can list a few but you won't agree with it.

This is funny. Just this morning I was reading criticism of the board for not selling Darmian and Lukaku for less money. Ultimately, they can’t win. Unless they lobotomise the morons that make up at least half of our the fan base.

The ones leading our transfer are useless.

I will list a few transfers over the past few years.

Liverpool
Ings - £20
Dominic Solanke - £20m
Coutinho - £140m
Mamadou Sakho - £25m
Christian Benteke - £28m
Jordon Ibe - £17m

Manutd
Jonny Evans - £7m
Chicarito - £10m
Memphis - £14m
Schederlin - £14m
Janujaz - £8m
Blind - £14m

Chelsea
Hazard final year contract - £90m
Costa - £60m
Matic - £40m
Ake - £20m
Morata - £60m


Spurs
Trippier - £20m
Kevin Wimmer - £20m
Nabil Bentaleb -£17m
Ryan Mason - £14m
Chadli - £14m

 

[Tarrou]

i think we spend enough money to be successful, but the scattergun approach to spending and player/manager acquisition in particular is what is causing us issues

 

[Revan]

The end of the world is near! Somehow I agree with every word @Wumminator said.

 

[Ish]

It’s actually a double edged sword, IMO.

We have spent - no one can deny that. I think if we take a 5 year period, we’d probably have spent only less than City in our league & maybe a handful of clubs in Europe - PSG & City spring to mind. I’m posting blindly here (haven’t checked up any stats or facts - most of this is from memory), so I apologise if I am wrong. Our wage bill, being the second highest in Europe iirc, is also testament to this.

But because of our structural problems & the naivety - maybe even incompetence, of the Board to make the right footballing decisions (which managers to hire, DoF, wage negotiation, which players to sign) - we’ve not performed anywhere near our spend/wage structure IMO. Which sadly means, not just spending more to replace the average dross in our squad, but getting the structural/football decisions right as well. Or we might just not get out of this vicious cycle.

 

[Kag]

It is up to the club to get the best deal. I can list a few but you won't agree with it.



The ones leading our transfer are useless.

I will list a few transfers over the past few years.

Liverpool
Ings - £20
Dominic Solanke - £20m
Coutinho - £140m
Mamadou Sakho - £25m
Christian Benteke - £28m
Jordon Ibe - £17m

Manutd
Jonny Evans - £7m
Chicarito - £10m
Memphis - £14m
Schederlin - £14m
Janujaz - £8m
Blind - £14m

Chelsea
Hazard final year contract - £90m
Costa - £60m
Matic - £40m
Ake - £20m
Morata - £60m


Spurs
Trippier - £20m
Kevin Wimmer - £20m
Nabil Bentaleb -£17m
Ryan Mason - £14m
Chadli - £14m

From which shitty arsehole did you pull these numbers?