Good post, and it doesn't even include the wage bill, which we will most likely be topping as well.
Reminder that United have outspent most of our rivals
- Thread starter Wumminator
- Start date
This is what I have said in my post with players sold by other clubs, some of the people here cannot face the fact that our negotiations are shit.
We continue to over pay and under value our players.
Spending money is not the real issue, not spending it wisely is. SO far this summer Ole has not been backed and we cannot challenge the likes of City unless the club backs the manager.
Looks like you have different numbers, well show me them and then we can talk. What you think we sold our players for more. well go and check, they will all be within 10%. Also some transfer fees are based on performance related too and they won't have the exact figure.
The reason the last unqualified success (albeit I disagree with this assessment completely) was in 2011 is because the coaching at the club has varied from lousy to prehistoric.
Transfer fees have been flushed away because subsequent managers have been unable to ensure the team scores goals for six consecutive seasons.
We’ve bought plenty of good players. Most of whom have been caught up in the malaise. The board is largely immaterial on this front. Where they have failed is in the appointment of both Van Gaal and Mourinho. Although, once again, I say this as Captain Hindsight. Most of us were skipping at the time of arrival.
No it shows incompetent the managers have been when they have constantly signed flops. You make it sound like it's hard to sell a 25 year old who just scored 25 goals in the P.L. .
If you are refering to Lukaku, I am actually arguing the opposite, If you have a look at 2/3 posts I have posted on this thread and the Lukaku thread, I have maintained we should be looking for £70m for him.
The answer is we're terrible at everything transfer related. Selling, buying, over paying, contract negotiations - the lot. Which is a big reason as to why we've been largely crap since SAF retired.
I’m not researching numbers because you decided to pluck them out of your arse. You started it; do it properly.
But we earn a shitload. I wonder if this is taken into account, how much of what we earn do we plough back into the club? Percentage wise?
Even though Sanchez was free he should be considered for the amount of cash put up to get him. And we pay the most wages. Yes we are fkd because the incompetence of managers but we brought in top managers-Moyes was a joke but he was recommended by Sir Alex himself. LVG and Mourinho were seen as good managers.
Basically The Glazers have spent quite a bit of cash and they have brought in top managers. Its easy in hindsight to say this manager was wrong or this player but at the time they were bought everyone thought they were great. They are not football men. They would have turned to those at the club with know how to direct them.
There is also the problem of Utd tax. Its a fact. Every fker wants 10 percent extra for sales, 10 percent extra for wages and offer 50 percent less for our players. Problem is fault or no fault we are in a fkin big hole and we need 300 mill plus.
On top of all that sht teams wont sell anymore and players wont come because we are sht.
Basically The Glazers have spent quite a bit of cash and they have brought in top managers. Its easy in hindsight to say this manager was wrong or this player but at the time they were bought everyone thought they were great. They are not football men. They would have turned to those at the club with know how to direct them.
There is also the problem of Utd tax. Its a fact. Every fker wants 10 percent extra for sales, 10 percent extra for wages and offer 50 percent less for our players. Problem is fault or no fault we are in a fkin big hole and we need 300 mill plus.
On top of all that sht teams wont sell anymore and players wont come because we are sht.
Last edited:
Okay, name me 3 that you do not agree with.
You started it; do it properly.
Your title says united have outspent most of our rivals. Then you back that up using the "net" spend. Net is not the same as spent. The "spent" figures show we are only ahead of Arsenal and Tottenham.
Anyway, we all spend a lot and it comes down to how well the money was spent. BTW, how come VVD is not on the Liverpool list?
Anyway, we all spend a lot and it comes down to how well the money was spent. BTW, how come VVD is not on the Liverpool list?
I like some positivity as well, but this isn’t really on point. We have to look at where we’re at, and where we want to be, not just throw down an exel sheet and go «so there!».
Its not for a lack of trying, we've just signed utter shite more or less.
We have also "out-earned" our rivals. I need comparative figures!
Aubameyang was bought by the Arse in January 2018 so I guess that is one team who have spent more in the last two years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Funny how week to week the arguments shift and become even more desperate to remove any negativity.
None of the arguments here cover the main issue that we're not moving people on and replacing them. Heck we've even got people giving out agro at the suggestion we undersell, so really if we're getting value back our only issue is a lack of movement.
None of the arguments here cover the main issue that we're not moving people on and replacing them. Heck we've even got people giving out agro at the suggestion we undersell, so really if we're getting value back our only issue is a lack of movement.
I’m not sure why you chose to respond to my post to make those points?
My point was that our transfer dealings have been a shambles since long before Mourinho took over. Which is as close to an inarguable fact as you’ll ever get in threads like this.
Close thread.
We outspent led wallet Spurs recently, nice one! they've just bought a new stadium
The amount of money spent it irrelevant if those players signed haven’t performed.
Our squad is far behind the title challengers. We need to be spending more than them to catch up.
Our squad is far behind the title challengers. We need to be spending more than them to catch up.
It’s not the money, it’s the players we buy which is down to changing the Manager every two years. City buy quality players for reasonable amounts around £60m for Mahrez, well that’s the published figure anyway. They have had an epiphany and won’t spend more than they consider a player is worth which is great when you already have a good squad. Everybody sticks 10% on top when United come calling and we fall for it usually.
David Moyes has made a good point about our transfer policy. Do we buy players to play good football or sell shirts? Pogba for instance has gazillions of Twitter followers which is an ideal marketing opportunity.
David Moyes has made a good point about our transfer policy. Do we buy players to play good football or sell shirts? Pogba for instance has gazillions of Twitter followers which is an ideal marketing opportunity.
I never bought into the net spend. Big clubs should not have to sell players to buy.
Furthermore, there are other sources of income like match-day revenue and merchandising from the much larger stadium and fan-base that we have that are not factored in.
A fairer method would be to look at how much we have spent versus how much we have earned.
How much we have invested in our training facilities versus our rivals?
How much have we invested in our stadium versus our rivals?
The OP is moving the goalposts to suit their own argument
Furthermore, there are other sources of income like match-day revenue and merchandising from the much larger stadium and fan-base that we have that are not factored in.
A fairer method would be to look at how much we have spent versus how much we have earned.
How much we have invested in our training facilities versus our rivals?
How much have we invested in our stadium versus our rivals?
The OP is moving the goalposts to suit their own argument
It’s not that we haven’t spent in the last 5-6 years, we have, the problem is it’s all a bit late because we spent feck all from 09-13. We literally did not improve the squad at all, and we’re still playing catch up.
There's a reason why other teams generate more in player sales than we do and simply put its due to Woodward and his ineptitude. Stick average to past it players on ridiculous contracts and you'll be unable to get a reasonable fee for them.
The fact that other teams can keep their net spend lower than ours shows we are doing something wrong.
The fact that other teams can keep their net spend lower than ours shows we are doing something wrong.
What is our generated revenue compared with those clubs? Guess what, we generate the most revenue.
I like how you start comparing us with Tottenham and Arsenal. That is the problem! We were further behind in squad quality than those teams anyway. Spurs have just invested in ground breaking new stadium! Have we?
I'm sick of these silly comparisons and defences by fans with blinkers on.
Look at the 6 years of under investment in Fergies final years. Then the splurge under 3 different managers which all required different types of players.Thats why we need to spend more than those teams you cite.
Its not that fans only want big exciting names, we want to have faith that our owners and board know what they are doing.
Ultimately our owners are penny pinching leeches with no clue.
I would also like to remind everyone here that a Ford limousine seats more passengers than a Ford Focus.
This thread is not telling us anything new. Ed is the one hiring awful managers who don't spend wisely. So we have to and need to spend.
This thread is not telling us anything new. Ed is the one hiring awful managers who don't spend wisely. So we have to and need to spend.
I think the issue is also we could afford to spend a lot more if the debt load on the club wasn't as high as it is now and the debt is purely a function of Glazer ownership.
Doesn't excuse our scatterbrained transfer approach but maybe we wouldn't have been as far off from City / Pool as we are now.
Doesn't excuse our scatterbrained transfer approach but maybe we wouldn't have been as far off from City / Pool as we are now.
This.
You mean at the time when we had one of the best squads in the world and City had been just bought by Mansour and were forced to play catch up?
In the four summer windows that led to City's first PL title (08/09-11/12), City spent 521.38 million pounds with a net spend of 408.15 million pounds while United spent 147.74 million with a net spend of 19 million.
Then comes the first season we actually spent more than City, when we signed RvP (instead of City) and won our last PL title. United spent a total of 68.81 million (net spend=60.12 million) vs City's 55.76 million (net spend=15.89 million).
in the six following seasons, up to 18/19, the numbers are: City: 933.02 million pounds (net spend=671.87). United: 805.13 million pounds (net spend=556.43).
Moyes got 69.42 million (67.8). LvG was afforded 316.22 million pounds (180.03) when at the same time City spent 279.99 million (191.74). Mourinho doesn't have the right to claim that he wasn't backed in the market since he was given 345.06 million pounds (261.67) to play with during his first two seasons but he's right when he says that Pep was given more funds to help him instil his philosophy: 477.9 million pounds in 16/17 & 17/18 (363.86).
According to transfermarkt.
What kind of shit is this, first our biggest problems are entitled wankers and now this 2 years bollox. I swear, this type of stuff you can see crooked politicians pulling off.
I mean at the time where United sold the best player in the world only to replace him with Valencia, Owen and Obertan. Then subsequently neglecting to renew the squad which is partly the reason for United’s post-Ferguson troubles. United let the others catch up and only started to spend big once they realised they were in danger of deopping out of the top four.
We had the best squad during those years. How would you replace players like Ronaldo?. Buy Messi? We had no reason to invest in a squad that was winning leagues at a canter. Again, as the OP said, I am also not a fan of glazer, but the ideal scenario during that time was to save the cash and splurge it after SAF retired. and TBb, they have done it as compared with other clubs.
and who could we have replaced Ronaldo with back then?
If you're using these numbers to pretend nothing is wrong at the club and they've utilized the finances well then you couldn't be further wrong. To me the lopsided difference between players brought in and sold is perhaps the biggest issue at the club, every club makes mistakes when it comes to transfers. It's rather inevitable, but we are the only club in land who absolutely suck at getting rid of these. What use have Jones, Bailly, Rojo, Mata, Darmian etc been in 2 years? Why are they still at the club, why did 3 of them get extensions when they aren't going to help us close the gap with our rivals? You can only sink so much money before it starts to catch up, the reason we're struggling in the market is due to the fact how badly we are run. To pin it entirely on one manager, when the issue has been prevalent long before him seems transparent just to push an agenda.
To have that low a net spend despite the squad being filled with rank average players just magnifies one of the major problems at the club.
To have that low a net spend despite the squad being filled with rank average players just magnifies one of the major problems at the club.
Reminder that we finished 6th and were way behind our rivals who are obviously way better run than us.
You invest in the squad to rotate the older players and bring through the younger players. Fergie had done it all through his career until then. Rafael playing in central midfield, Giggs playing till he was practically 40 and bringing Scholes out of retirement should be a good indicator that we did not invest soon enough.
After Lukaku gets sold and we don’t make any more signings this window you’ll have to update this thread to say we have spent the least out of any of our competitors....
I think so. The general narrative for some time is they won't spend money because all they care about is getting top four, that they are apathetic about success, despite there being a very obvious correlation between revenue and success in football. Poor spending has often been conflated with under spending, and usually the point will be made without the money recouped from outgoings factored in.
Are you telling me there wasn’t any better players than those I mentioned?