Agree with this. A very sensible and good post!
Reminder that United have outspent most of our rivals
- Thread starter Wumminator
- Start date
And this is during period when a player like Ronaldo went for 80-90M. Today 100M won't even buy a leg of a player of that quality.
That has been answered above. Including January is still pretty much the same.
Net spending is a good metric only when you use it over a longer period, like +5 years. Definitely not 2.
Now it might or might not lead to the same results, but it'd be interesting to see the numbers post-SAF.
Now it might or might not lead to the same results, but it'd be interesting to see the numbers post-SAF.
Yes, all this money spent on rejects and duds. Fred, Lukaku and martial are typical.
When was the last top player we bought. Our best buys during the last 6 years are Zlatan and Victor. The former in his older years outshone any other of our forwards and the latter has settled in to be a steady regular but still not world class.
Ffs let Woodward stick to buying and selling his shirts.
When was the last top player we bought. Our best buys during the last 6 years are Zlatan and Victor. The former in his older years outshone any other of our forwards and the latter has settled in to be a steady regular but still not world class.
Ffs let Woodward stick to buying and selling his shirts.
Robben/Ribery (robben was at real when we did Ronaldo, and moved that same window). David Silva and Aguero moved at around the same time. Hazard a few seasons later.
We could have replaced him with some combination of these.
We could have replaced him with some combination of these.
But still you used 2 years period. It is too short period for proving something. 10 years is far more accurate.
If you are using shorter period, you must at least mention other things. It is not the same when you spend 400-500 mil in situation when you must replace whole squad like we did during Lvg and Jose or when you have already good squad which need upgrade on certain positions like City did.
That is why 10 years is more accurate.
That gives us a better picture, but it's still just 4 years, though with the gulf between the top 2 and the rest I'd assume the results would be kinda similar post-SAF as well, the gap might not be as big though.
And ? Klopp finished 7th his first 3/4 season and you didn't hear pool fans scream sack him blah blah, but nah we're Man Utd we demand better or so say our millennial "self entitled" fans . Here's a history lessons for those millennial's, it wasn't all a bed of rose under SAF as he failed horribly in everything he tried for the first couple of yrs, the then current team,when that failed came the first batch of kids(failed) and then the heavy spending came and soon with time, success in a weak ass league followed.
Also one other thing to remember, we were been challenged by the mighty Norwich, Aston Villa, newcomers to the league like blackburn, newcastle for the title till 97 and not free spending teams like today.
Oh piss off with stupid posts like this. Who the feck is screaming sack him? Or was that your generic bullshit post to begin with?
Klopp was obviously in charge of a team at a club much better than the shit show Woodward has served this past 6 years. Who gives a feck what happened at United 30 yeears ago, a different set of management that obviously was much better run with footballing people like Bobby Charlton having a say in matters important to the future of the club. Now you have Woodward and his banking pals running a football club, then there are annoying fans like you who could swallow any shit served just to make you look like top reds.
Some other facts that should be taken into account when discussing money are the fact that United employ almost 1000 other staff apart from the Players. I imagine these are spread across the World looking to sell more shirts etc. So they are another cost. I think City have half that number. Also, Mike Ashley is a few pairs of trainers short of the Glazers when it comes to personal wealth and he spends bugger all. I don’t like Woodward as a football bloke but as someone to make money for the shareholders he does a good job. Pity the fans aren’t the shareholders. We should all petition Jim Ratcliffe to buy the Glazers out. He’s a United fan and has the dosh. I’d even take him calling OT ‘The Ineos Stadium’. He is also canny and wouldn’t put up with this dilly dallying with transfers and buying on media reports.
BTW You should give a shit what happened 30 years ago and further back. That’s what the club was built on and coming on here with posts like the above is wrong and disrespectful.
BTW You should give a shit what happened 30 years ago and further back. That’s what the club was built on and coming on here with posts like the above is wrong and disrespectful.
Exactly!
Solskjaer has to put together a young hungry talented team who all want to be part of something special. We've spent way too much over the last 5 years which has done nothing to improve performances. Let's see how the youngsters bed in next year and add a sprinkling of showstoppers now and then.
But isn't that what many in this thread are suggesting?
They are basically saying that we are spending enough. Lack of spending is not the problem.
The issue is that when you spend big, you get results. This has been proven time and time again, in different leagues, with different clubs. The big spenders, almost always, win the most trophies. There are exceptions such as Leicester, but those are exceptions.
When you are one of (if not) the biggest earning clubs in football, you can throw caution to the wind, throw money at the problem, until the problem goes away. A big club (with big revenue) cannot be run like a small club (with low revenue).
how is it a cheat?
all this does to me is show that you should take net spend with a pinch of salt.
In the table that includes all the transfers we've only spent more than Tottenham over the last two and half seasons.
If you include player sales in other clubs it looks like we've spent more, but we don't tend to sell players for big money like other clubs, nor should we rely on player sales as much to fund our deals.
This also doesn't take into account how profitable each club is.
I'd be interested to see how much each club is spending compared to how much they make, I'd assume United wouldn't be terribly high on that either.
In the table that includes all the transfers we've only spent more than Tottenham over the last two and half seasons.
If you include player sales in other clubs it looks like we've spent more, but we don't tend to sell players for big money like other clubs, nor should we rely on player sales as much to fund our deals.
This also doesn't take into account how profitable each club is.
I'd be interested to see how much each club is spending compared to how much they make, I'd assume United wouldn't be terribly high on that either.
Not to make an example of a single post, but there are some pretty naive opinions on this thread.
@Wumminator has taken the time to dispel the myth that United doesn’t spend enough. He’s right. Other threads have covered this and generally, United have outspent every club, bar City, over the last 5 years. Same at the 10 year mark. The fake news that United is “cheap” is just patently false. Period.
https://www.transfermarkt.us/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
Furthermore, the narrative that the Glazers are fat cats, just milking the club for every cent is wrong and probably anti-semitic. Nobody buys a football club to make money. It’s just not a good investment in comparison to other investments. You buy a club because you are passionate about football.
As far as wealth goes, the Glazers are just middle of the pack when you compare them to other PL owners.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_owners_of_English_football_clubs#Premier_League
According to the link above, the owners of City, Wolverhampton, Aston Villa, Chelsea, Leicester, Arsenal, and Tottenham all have significantly more net worth than the Glazers. We are more in the Southampton - Crystal Palace - Newcastle - Liverpool - Everton range in terms of financial clout.
Woodward stays on because he is very good at the commercial side of the business. Look, I have my complaints about him as well. But his ability to generate cash profits which can then be invested into the football side of the operation is commendable. Remember, in addition to transfer fees, you are paying wages, and we pay a lot, probably the most or second most in the league in wages.
Finally, where are the Wolves, Chelsea, Spurs and Leicester fans who are complaining about lack of investment in players? If any club fans have a right to complain, it’s them.
No, the problem has not been the amount of money spent, it’s the fact that our investments in the transfer market did not pan out. And that’s a topic for another thread.
Inappropriate Behavior
I know its a east European thing but do try learn some manners and try refrain from swearing at people, as all its does is make you look very, very childish and immature. Liverpool were all over the shop when klopp came and real footie people running the club 30 yrs ago, really, a chairman who used club money to buy whores while on club business, and with these "footie people" you talk about running the club, hmm why did we spend near 30 yrs chasing glory, when teams like Notts F, Villa and Everton were winning the big ones when liverpool had an off season ? Also while shite at transfer dealing like gill before him and kenyon before those two, woodworm has made this club millions whether you like him or not and no doubt a few seasons back when got di maria, falco etc, you were probably tossing off to him.
As for top red, nah you have me mixed up with someone else there, top red ah hahaha, ah spoken like a real millennial. As for the sacking Ole, its being said here, twatter sadbook and the rest of the joke sites called social media.
We spent a lot of money on dross. We've also hired the wrong managers.
That the entry poast would make sence there should be at least the last 5 years considered cause they key players of Man. City and Liverpool were signed then.
So much truth in this. People come with this bs but hey Woodward spent in 2016 and 2017. SO what, for us to catch City we needed to spend more and we did not. Similar thing is happening this year but ofcourse people will still defend Woodward and the board.
I don't think 40m on a 30 year old Jerome Boateng at high wages would be the way to build a football club. It wasn't the money, it was the quality / age of the targets. Also, statistically, our defensive record when we finished 2nd was pretty decent. And, after the Sanchez debacle, why would anyone give Jose more money.
There is just too much DATA to suggest that United is NOT TIGHT FISTED when it comes to transfers. It's been referenced again and again, but there are just some people who ignore data and facts to stick to a belief that is patently not true.
Complain about the scouting dept., complain about the lack of identity, tactics, structure of the club, the manager, the poor performance of the players we have bought -- that's fine. The issue is not the amount we've spent. Period.
I agree with that part and myself have stated the same that we have spent money. But the planning for last season was baffling and was just referring to our spending from last summer. First you give Jose an extension and then 4 months later when he asks for his players you deny him. It's like no proper planning. Also, Yes we have spent money since 2014 to 2017 but one has to remember we did not spend enough from 2009-2013 which set us back. Had we actually spent on quality players and not come up with no value in market bs we would not have to spend so crazy now, aka look Madrid from 2014-17. If we are defending the board for spending from 2014 , we also need to criticize them for not spending from 2009-13.
Maybe this is the problem. It's not about attacking or defending anyone, it's simply acknowledging we've spent money. I don't get what's so hard to understand.
Similarly we should also acknowledge that the same board did not spend money from 2009-13 allowing our neighbors to go and sign top players in SIlva and Aguero while we were signing Bebe, Oberton and Michael Owen on free. I don't know how hard is that to understand for you.
What drivel. Very long with lots of drivel from start to end. Pretty much 100% of your post is inaccurate. Well done.
True or not, that's not the point of this thread.
So the whole basis of this thread is purely to acknowledge that we have spent money? Not who's spent it, what it's been spent on, or why we are worse than before we started spending it?
If this is the case then I agree..
Yes, we have spent money.
Very good, Avram! In all seriousness, that was a load of old rubbish.
You haven't singled out my post, you've not discussed any of my points, instead choosing to spout some propaganda about the owners of one of the worlds most profitable football clubs.
An easy addition to the ignore list, if nothing else.
Yeah I think so. All the posts about "penny-pinching owners" makes it harder to talk about the actual problems: we have spent money, but it hasn't worked out.
Last edited:
Fair enough, I never even thought that was in question, but on that very minor fact, I agree.
I have seen multiple posters defending Glazer by saying they have spent money recently, yes they have and I do not think anyone should deny that but similarly people should also not deny there was massive lack of spending from 2009-2013 which cannot be completely forgotten. And the way the thread has been made it surely looks like the OP is defending the glazers.
This is the conclusion of the OP. It raises some interesting topics, and to me doesn't seem to be a defence of the Glazers' ownership. It's just pointing out that we've spent money. Unwisely and carelessly yes, but the spend is still there for all to see.
When people point that out, they're usually not defending the Glazers per se, but just suggesting that our problems probably lie elsewhere than spending, and discussing that is much better than debunking the constant "penny-pinching" posts.
Last edited:
£53,000,000 (million) spent on Fred? Just how did that happen?!
It's not really an East European it's just me, I use lots of swear words, I to be frank I really don't give a feck what do you think about my manners, when you don't seem to be able to get to a point and stick to it. Try and reread your post and start from there.
You start by spouting shit about someone asking Ole to be sacked while replying on my post. The general negativity is hardly on Ole, imo it's directed mostly to a failing management lead by Woodward.
Yeah you can pick a choose over the history times and low points, does that mean fans are not entitled to express their worries and concerns when the club is run badly at present? And Woodward has made this club millions? You mean like the Glazers? Do you actually think under other CEO, a brand like Manchester United wouldn't be making millions? After the footballing success legends like SAF delivered for years? IF yeah, then you are deluded and no wonder you defend a guy who has taken the biggest football club in the World from constant success to 6th place.
And cut with the millennial shit, you are probably 12 the way you are conducting in this debate.
Did you just play the anti-semitism card to try and defend the Glazers from the criticism of United fans?! You have missed your true calling... you should be writing takedown pieces aimed at Jeremy Corbyn for the English media.
You also conclude that since United hasn't made the Glazers as much money as investing in Microsoft shares in the early 90s would have, they must have bought the club because they love football(!!).
Then you say that since they aren't as rich as some of the PL's other owners, they must therefore be far more benevolent?!
Lord give me strength.
Possibly the most ridiculous comment I have seen in a while!
Er... okay. Care to point out the inaccurate bits, or ....?
It’s kind of like climate change deniers. You point to all the overwhelming scientific data, and because their world construct will implode, they just choose the easiest option, to ignore and resort to childish responses...