Yep. Thank you for your post. I think some times we all see agendas when they aren’t meant.
Reminder that United have outspent most of our rivals
- Thread starter Wumminator
- Start date
More pointless blabbering.
I just tabulated United's, Chelsea's and Man City's transfers in and out since 2003 when Glazers and Abramovich got involved in the clubs respectively. I have done City since 2003 as a baseline and since their takeover as well. Check out the numbers, both clubs have outspent United despite generating significantly less on the commercial side of things.
Man Utd.
Summer of Departures Arrivals Net Spend
2003 $ 64.44 $ 67.26 $ 2.82
2004 $ 10.90 $ 69.83 $ 58.93
2005 $ 9.01 $ 36.35 $ 27.34
2006 $ 20.52 $ 31.01 $ 10.49
2007 $ 53.12 $ 117.99 $ 64.87
2008 $ 8.49 $ 51.59 $ 43.10
2009 $ 119.09 $ 31.12 $ (87.97)
2010 $ 19.74 $ 33.40 $ 13.66
2011 $ 15.73 $ 71.02 $ 55.29
2012 $ 11.00 $ 87.15 $ 76.15
2013 $ 2.05 $ 87.93 $ 85.88
2014 $ 56.16 $ 222.70 $ 166.54
2015 $ 116.36 $ 177.84 $ 61.48
2016 $ 53.75 $ 210.90 $ 157.15
2017 $ 51.87 $ 226.18 $ 174.31
2018 $ 34.83 $ 94.28 $ 59.45
2019 $ - $ 82.08 $ 82.08
Total $ 647.06 $ 1,698.63 $ 1,051.57
Avg per season $ 61.86
Chelsea
Summer of Departures Arrivals Net Spend
2003 $ 1.08 $ 192.89 $ 191.81
2004 $ 3.76 $ 189.70 $ 185.94
2005 $ 38.87 $ 104.31 $ 65.44
2006 $ 59.96 $ 101.43 $ 41.47
2007 $ 49.76 $ 67.26 $ 17.50
2008 $ 50.79 $ 34.77 $ (16.02)
2009 $ 4.33 $ 34.20 $ 29.87
2010 $ 18.81 $ 138.51 $ 119.70
2011 $ 36.94 $ 109.95 $ 73.01
2012 $ 29.01 $ 125.06 $ 96.05
2013 $ 88.27 $ 148.60 $ 60.33
2014 $ 165.13 $ 156.98 $ (8.15)
2015 $ 99.74 $ 103.17 $ 3.43
2016 $ 123.58 $ 151.39 $ 27.81
2017 $ 228.68 $ 296.97 $ 68.29
2018 $ 81.80 $ 239.40 $ 157.60
2019 $ 136.40 $ 51.30 $ (85.10)
Total $ 1,216.91 $ 2,245.89 $ 1,028.98
Avg per season $ 64.31
Man City
Summer of Departures Arrivals Net Spend
2003 $ 7.55 $ 18.88 $ 11.33
2004 $ 13.05 $ 1.71 $ (11.34)
2005 $ 37.05 $ 14.22 $ (22.83)
2006 $ 4.79 $ 7.41 $ 2.62
2007 $ 12.04 $ 88.86 $ 76.82
2008 $ 30.21 $ 179.38 $ 149.17
2009 $ 35.28 $ 167.92 $ 132.64
2010 $ 42.35 $ 209.31 $ 166.96
2011 $ 35.57 $ 103.80 $ 68.23
2012 $ 50.50 $ 70.62 $ 20.12
2013 $ 12.88 $ 132.24 $ 119.36
2014 $ 34.91 $ 117.19 $ 82.28
2015 $ 76.88 $ 237.46 $ 160.58
2016 $ 40.30 $ 243.39 $ 203.09
2017 $ 104.14 $ 361.95 $ 257.81
2018 $ 61.67 $ 89.59 $ 27.92
2019 $ 36.48 $ 102.60 $ 66.12
$ 635.65 $ 2,146.53 $ 1,510.88
Avg per season $ 94.43
Man City
Summer of Departures Arrivals Net Spend
2007 $ 12.04 $ 88.86 $ 76.82
2008 $ 30.21 $ 179.38 $ 149.17
2009 $ 35.28 $ 167.92 $ 132.64
2010 $ 42.35 $ 209.31 $ 166.96
2011 $ 35.57 $ 103.80 $ 68.23
2012 $ 50.50 $ 70.62 $ 20.12
2013 $ 12.88 $ 132.24 $ 119.36
2014 $ 34.91 $ 117.19 $ 82.28
2015 $ 76.88 $ 237.46 $ 160.58
2016 $ 40.30 $ 243.39 $ 203.09
2017 $ 104.14 $ 361.95 $ 257.81
2018 $ 61.67 $ 89.59 $ 27.92
2019 $ 36.48 $ 102.60 $ 66.12
$ 573.21 $ 2,104.31 $ 1,531.10
Avg per season $ 117.78
Last edited:
God. I agree with @Wumminator. How we got here is pretty insipid.
Hey numbskull, take a look at hedge fund weighted index as an asset class. The HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index, a proxy for the average hedge fund portfolio, ranks somewhere below the performance of equity or corporate bond indices. Oh and by the way most indices have a survivorship bias in that they don't include hundreds of funds that blew up along the way.
If and when hedge funds target 30% returns, you've got to ask yourself two questions 1) at what volatility 2) what's the actual realized performance.
I can target 100% returns employing levered derivatives up the wazoo - it doesn't mean I will deliver, and it doesn't mean you can stomach the volatility and the MTM along the way.
Way to ignore my entire post regarding the club and spending. If you want to address my club related points, please do so. Otherwise, I don’t think this is the forum for this discussion
And fckin hell, read through my post. You haven't addressed any of it after a half arsed lazy attempt at an initial post.
It's a flawed thread because the work gone into the original post is lazy. If you address my questions, I will continue this discussion respectfully.
However if you don't Want to address my questions, fine, that's upto you. But I will continue to call it lazy especially as you haven't updated the OP to include the figures that are missing. (Unless you just want everybody to agree and praise you which is something else)
Edit: and this now needs to include arsenal's new signing ...
Your entire post is stupid. You're saying Glazers are in it for the love of the sport (apparently Malcolm was in love with football/soccer since an early age, but still never set foot at Old Trafford), there are many investment opportunities at 30% return out there (there aren't) and that Glazers have spent a lot of money on transfers (they haven't - the club is generating enough cashflow to pay interest for the LBO, a dividend to the vampire owners and to carry on operations).
We are Manchester United, we outspend most of our rivals 
There is plenty of your ramblings that I agree with but I suppose the key point is the bit in bold and that I dont really agree with.
Yes, in an ideal world Fergie would have left a perfect squad for the next guy but its never going to be that simple. Fergie talked about squad cycles and clearly we were at the end of a cycle when he left, it was an aging squad with some obvious weaknesses but it was still a good squad and its pretty clear that huge funds were available to strengthen further so I believe he left the club in good shape for his successor.
For me the main reason for our recent failures is mismanagement both on and off the pitch and I agree that we are not a well run club at the moment - Woodward and Moyes clearly made a complete mess of the first season and its been a rollercoaster since then.
But perhaps it was inevitable that we were going to have some period of instability after Fergie (and Gill) left, to expect a seamless transition and to just continue winning after the greatest manager of all time leaves is unrealistic. We could have bought Hazard and Modric yet Moyes would have still fecked it up!
I do agree with that and thats the main point of this thread so perhaps we should just leave it there!
you are way off with your idea that the Glazers bought the club for anything other than business reasons though, especially since they have done extremely well out of it (which you also dont seem to get).
This is a very long post and I agree with much of it. I covered a lot of these topics that I don't agree with in my replies to others.
I'm not arguing that the Glazers have been the best owners in the sport. In fact, I mostly agree with your last list of bullet points. The only point I have tried to make is that we've spent plenty on transfers to be successful. If you are going to stop the rot, start with the manager, the scouting dept, the club identity, etc. Spending more money now is insane unless those other things are fixed.
I suppose there is a line of logic that says that the Glazers are the cause of this mess. I can't disagree with that, but their downfall is not the amount of money they've spent on transfers. If anything, I think they've been a bit profligate in their transfer spending and/or spending on players that won't be difference makers in a title challenge.
Personally more a case of why the hell havent we sold several of the current players and we have massively overspent individually on quite a few players the last few years.
I dont really agree with blaming the Glazers though, we have just bought and sold poorly, regardless of the net spend. Mourinhos first window is the only one I think was a good one and that was still a couple of players short numbers wise but it did bring a Europa cup at least
Making a profit on Lukaku when we spent way over his worth is amazing business I think if we manage it
I actually think its an insult to Sir Alex that people suggest that the Glazers didnt back him and that he would just sit quietly and accept that
Also the strongest period in Europe in the whole history of Manchester United is the period where we reached 3 CL finals in 4 years and you just described that time as 'hit and miss in europe'
Last edited:
In a similar spirit of kittens and rainbows, I also agree with a lot of your post!
I think the only thing we disagree on is the period roughly defined as the year we sold Ronaldo, to the year the Glazers shat the bed, realised we were shit, gave Woodward United's AmEx Black card and allowed him to realise his dreams of making United the Disneyland for overrated players, past-it pros, clubs wanting to get rid of their problem children, and agents the world over. I might be mis-remembering that last quote from Woodward but I'm sure he said that in a press conference once.
I think it ultimately comes down to how you rate our last title-winning side. I think it was held together with string, Scottish nouse and sheer Ferguson force of will, you presumably think it was in need of some repair but had the makings of the next title-winning side.
It's all opinions really, but I can't remember a worse team of league champions than that United team, which admittedly may sound strange since we won the league fairly comfortably. I certainly can't remember a worse United team that won the league.
To prove my point I would point to the two posters in this thread who have already done a pretty good job at explaining the issues - the guy who compiled the by season list of our exits and recruits during this period which when read in a dark room alone sounds like something from a horror film starring a Scouser, a homeless Iberian and a man with a 50p piece for a head.
I reckon that a manager who was the absolute master at progressively replacing fading stars to keep a freshness, hunger and youth in the squad would have wanted to replace the key players who left during that period. This was a man after all who broke club, British and world transfer records on numerous occasions and showed no trace of sentimentality when it came to replacing loyal servants who had fulfilled their purpose.
This was a time which involved eye-watering interest payments and saw the club miss a bond repayment deadline and trigger an even higher debt burden.
I agree that we were probably always due a post-Ferguson slump. However, I think it was exacerbated, lengthened and to a large degree caused by the abject failure of the board to a) satisfactorily invest in the squad in the preceding years and b) put in any sort of succession plan beyond giving Moyes and Woodward the keys and telling them to get on with it.
No we did not reach 3 CL finals between 2009-10 season to2012-13 season. I don't know why you are deliberately ignoring the point. Anyways I am done discussing the same thing.I actually think its an insult to Sir Alex that people suggest that the Glazers didnt back him and that he would just sit quietly and accept that
Also the strongest period in Europe in the whole history of Manchester United is the period where we reached 3 CL finals in 4 years and you just described that time as 'hit and miss in europe'
Exactly that! Lets not forget we are talking a team with Rio, Vidic, Evra, Carrick, Rooney, RvP amongst others - past their prime perhaps but I think it does them a disservice to downplay the quality that was still present in that squad. Still I can understand the alternate point of view.
I did mention already in this thread that its ends up missing the big picture if you just start from Ronaldo's sale - Fergie did break the British transfer record for Berbatov just the year before and the year before that was one of our biggest summer windows ever with Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves and Tevez coming in.
I also just dont believe that Fergie would have stayed in the job without making a huge fuss if he wasnt being backed in the transfer market - I do keep pointing to the hefty wage bill as well which is always ignored, our very experienced squad came at a high price as those older players were all on huge contracts.
Also I believe that Fergie was planning to bring through the next Class of 92 and it was one of the reasons he held back in the transfer market (he had seen Barca smash the Real Galacticos with a team built around La Masia and knew it was the best way to compete with the oil money pouring in from Abu Dhabi) . Im certain he saw a long term vision to build around the 2011 FA Youth Cup team with Pogba, Morrison, Lingard etc - to add to that he bought in the best youth around Jones, De Dea, Rafael, Anderson, Zaha etc who could have been the spine of the team for another decade but for various individual reasons, which Im sure you know, it didnt work out for most of them.
Still lets not forget, despite all their millions spent and supposedly having the best PL team of all time, City have not managed to challenge on 2 fronts like we did several times even in this so called period of austerity - 2008, 2009 and 2011 we won the league and reached the CL Final, so was that really a period that needed more investment in the squad?
BTW I wanted to highlight this bit as it really did make me
which is rare nowadays on here !
Inappropriate Content
Wouldn't we be better off investing 30 mil an year, out of the transfer money, on top class management(David Gill / Dan Levy) and a proper scouting network rather than having to go through this dumpster fire that we've had to endure since Fergie left.
- Embarrassing long drawn out public negotiations, which don't end up in a deal more often than not. Should ideally be a 1st offer, and a second "take it or stick you thumb up your a*se" offer. Actually having a Plan A,B & C, instead of embarrassing yourself buying the likes of Fellaini at the deadline for $28 mil.
- Being held hostage for a 100 mil for maybe an A- 27 year old defender at best, rather than snapping up an 18 year old De Ligt last year for maybe 20-25 mil, or 85 mil this year. Harry Maguire is great, but not worth 85 mil at his age or talent. I'd personally always split that money on a young star(Dayot Upamecano - not sure what happened to that roumor) and central midfield(Savic / Radja Nianggolan).
- Tolerating the likes of Pogba shitting all over the club. This dude would've never come back to OT if Fergie were still around.
- Having to wear PINK jerseys AT HOME to sell Ts ffs
- Aiming for a Champs League spot, rather than winning it
- Secretly wishing some of the players on the squad died in their sleep before the next game (Okay, I need to see someone..
)
Financial success follows sporting success. All the Chinese sponsors are soon gonna jump on the Man City bandwagon, if we don't start acting like a professional outfit rather than a mom & pop ice cream shop soon.
- Embarrassing long drawn out public negotiations, which don't end up in a deal more often than not. Should ideally be a 1st offer, and a second "take it or stick you thumb up your a*se" offer. Actually having a Plan A,B & C, instead of embarrassing yourself buying the likes of Fellaini at the deadline for $28 mil.
- Being held hostage for a 100 mil for maybe an A- 27 year old defender at best, rather than snapping up an 18 year old De Ligt last year for maybe 20-25 mil, or 85 mil this year. Harry Maguire is great, but not worth 85 mil at his age or talent. I'd personally always split that money on a young star(Dayot Upamecano - not sure what happened to that roumor) and central midfield(Savic / Radja Nianggolan).
- Tolerating the likes of Pogba shitting all over the club. This dude would've never come back to OT if Fergie were still around.
- Having to wear PINK jerseys AT HOME to sell Ts ffs
- Aiming for a Champs League spot, rather than winning it
- Secretly wishing some of the players on the squad died in their sleep before the next game (Okay, I need to see someone..
)Financial success follows sporting success. All the Chinese sponsors are soon gonna jump on the Man City bandwagon, if we don't start acting like a professional outfit rather than a mom & pop ice cream shop soon.
Oh congratulations, I now have an answer to the “what is your personal hell?” thread in the general.Wouldn't we be better off investing 30 mil an year, out of the transfer money, on top class management(David Gill / Dan Levy) and a proper scouting network rather than having to go through this dumpster fire that we've had to endure since Fergie left.
- Embarrassing long drawn out public negotiations, which don't end up in a deal more often than not. Should ideally be a 1st offer, and a second "take it or stick you thumb up your a*se" offer. Actually having a Plan A,B & C, instead of embarrassing yourself buying the likes of Fellaini at the deadline for $28 mil.
- Being held hostage for a 100 mil for maybe an A- 27 year old defender at best, rather than snapping up an 18 year old De Ligt last year for maybe 20-25 mil, or 85 mil this year. Harry Maguire is great, but not worth 85 mil at his age or talent. I'd personally always split that money on a young star(Dayot Upamecano - not sure what happened to that roumor) and central midfield(Savic / Radja Nianggolan).
- Tolerating the likes of Pogba shitting all over the club. This dude would've never come back to OT if Fergie were still around.
- Having to wear PINK jerseys AT HOME to sell Ts ffs
- Aiming for a Champs League spot, rather than winning it
- Secretly wishing some of the players on the squad died in their sleep before the next game (Okay, I need to see someone..
Financial success follows sporting success. All the Chinese sponsors are soon gonna jump on the Man City bandwagon, if we don't start acting like a professional outfit rather than a mom & pop ice cream shop soon.
Wow. I think you do need to see someone .Wouldn't we be better off investing 30 mil an year, out of the transfer money, on top class management(David Gill / Dan Levy) and a proper scouting network rather than having to go through this dumpster fire that we've had to endure since Fergie left.
- Embarrassing long drawn out public negotiations, which don't end up in a deal more often than not. Should ideally be a 1st offer, and a second "take it or stick you thumb up your a*se" offer. Actually having a Plan A,B & C, instead of embarrassing yourself buying the likes of Fellaini at the deadline for $28 mil.
- Being held hostage for a 100 mil for maybe an A- 27 year old defender at best, rather than snapping up an 18 year old De Ligt last year for maybe 20-25 mil, or 85 mil this year. Harry Maguire is great, but not worth 85 mil at his age or talent. I'd personally always split that money on a young star(Dayot Upamecano - not sure what happened to that roumor) and central midfield(Savic / Radja Nianggolan).
- Tolerating the likes of Pogba shitting all over the club. This dude would've never come back to OT if Fergie were still around.
- Having to wear PINK jerseys AT HOME to sell Ts ffs
- Aiming for a Champs League spot, rather than winning it
- Secretly wishing some of the players on the squad died in their sleep before the next game (Okay, I need to see someone..
Financial success follows sporting success. All the Chinese sponsors are soon gonna jump on the Man City bandwagon, if we don't start acting like a professional outfit rather than a mom & pop ice cream shop soon.
Wanting players to Die?( I take it that was a joke) c'mon man it's a game.
Wearing Pink is an Issue ? Juve wore pink for years Loads of teams have funky colours to sell Jerseys .
Winning Champions Leagues ? We only did that twice under fergie and considering how dominant domestically we were that was a shame .
Pogba is our best player and he wants better players around him which ironically is what we are all calling for . Dont believe everything written in the press he's looking for a better contract too .
United are the most covered team in the press people reading rubbish only adds fuel to a fire and the Journos love it. Hated Adored Never Ignored .
More reason to hate owner tbh. They invested poorly.
We went from Moyes, LvG, Mourinho and now Ole. They all have different philosophies and favourite names, every time United change manager, players who were bought by previous manager can't fit in the new system and Woodward is too incompetent to replace them, leaving problems for new manager to fix. It's an cycle
Net spending isn't our issue, the lack of direction on other hand is astounding
We went from Moyes, LvG, Mourinho and now Ole. They all have different philosophies and favourite names, every time United change manager, players who were bought by previous manager can't fit in the new system and Woodward is too incompetent to replace them, leaving problems for new manager to fix. It's an cycle
Net spending isn't our issue, the lack of direction on other hand is astounding
Reminder that United finished 6th, behind all of our rivals, and our manager told us that we now have new rivals - those teams for whom 6th is a brilliant goal, like Wolves, Everton and Leicester.
Wow I am shocked at this.
Didnt know United outspent City.
Didnt know United outspent City.
You seem have misunderstood me, I was actually not singling out the Glazers as the only capitalist owners. I'm actually a dividend investor myself (obviously not on the Glazer level) so no need to explain the benefit of rewarding investors with dividends to me and no need for that John Fan analogy either. I really struggle to understand why you would assume I am of the opinion other PL clubs are "purchased in other ways" as I never argued any such thing, you're really jumping to conclusions. In fact earlier in this thread I wrote this:
So when I later mentioned the compounding wealth United is generating for the Glazers it wasn't meant to lable them the only owners with capitalistic intentions in the PL, it was just a reply to your statement that the Glazers would scoff at 30% CAGR capital returns and United would be some sort of football "passion" project for them that is not really attractive on a financial level. I feel the Premier League in general is highly attractive for large capital especially in the ongoing low rate economical environment, Brexit notwithstanding.
I'd say the main problem for the Glazers was the entry of the additional Oil Money at Manchester City after they already had to compete with the Abramovich money at Chelsea. To sign high-profile names United now had to enter bidding wars (recent bad example being Sanchez) and inflate their wage bill even further, while slowly losing the once seemingly divine right to call "dibs" on all of the most talented up and coming players in the country. To use an analogy within the financial world it's like a big pharma company that's suddenly losing the patent on their cash cow drug so they start throwing money at smaller pharma companies instead of developing their own new blockbuster drug because they think they don't have the time to do so before marings are starting to decline rapidly.
Looking at other clubs you can see that throwing money at the problem has worked often enough in the past (prime example being Real) so while it's tempting to blame the Glazers in hindsight, it's easy to see why they tried. But now it's also easy to see why they start to get more wary of paying over the odds when success is not really kicking in despite all the spending. Liverpool and Tottenham on the other hand had been unsuccesful for long enough that it was possible for their owners to use a patient approach from the get-go by going for comparatively low-key signings, slowly building a squad, staff and infrastructure without expecting instant rewards. But in the end they all expect profits...
Yawn. Please, send me more charts proving there are no investments returning 30% or more. I’ll be sitting here in California, sipping a drink on my deck overlooking the ocean. I doubt I’ll look at them.
It’s all black and white with some people, there is no nuance. They cannot accept anything but a binary outcome. I’m genuinely saddened that you can’t see the shades of gray. It must be exhausting.
I reread your post and maybe I did misunderstand your point. I think the Glazers saw an opportunity to buy an unvalued asset. The way they bought Man United is actually no different from buying a business or a real estate asset. Most investors will use the income from the asset to pay down debt. It’s painful to watch as a football fan, but my guess is that 90% of the new owners of PL clubs are using the same techniques to purchase other PL clubs. I maintain that there are easier ways (meaning less management effort) to make similar or even better returns.
Regarding the entry of big oil money into the PL, I 100% agree with what you are saying. Look, once the Glazers blazed the path, and others saw that almost all of the PL clubs were undervalued, it was on. Arsenal, City, Liverpool (2x), now Wolves, Everton, Leicester, etc.
Well, once you got so much sophisticated money in the PL, it got much more competitive. Then, your Golden Goose, Sir Alex Ferguson, retires. Suddenly Champions League football isn’t a certainty anymore (potentially a 50m loss in profit per season), compounded by the fact that your cost of capital assets (players) has gone up because Of all the money in the game. I feel like SAF was so good, at well, everything, that the Glazers could afford to be in the background and concentrate on the commercial aspects of the business. Not anymore. They now actually have to make decisions that chart the course of the club.
In hindsight, hiring LvG and Jose were attempts to replace SAF, and by doing this they were not building a top class organization that has a common philosophy and modern structure. It just shows how brilliant Sir Alex actually was.
Add another 80m for maguire and that is some serious money already this summer and thats without a genuine midfielder.
My concern is this,,,,what happens is utd started poorly??
Another thing,, 80m for maguire which is done, yet no support for Jose who specifically asked for a CB??
My concern is this,,,,what happens is utd started poorly??
Another thing,, 80m for maguire which is done, yet no support for Jose who specifically asked for a CB??
Let's revisit this once Ole has blown 300m and demands 70m to replace Maguire only a year later
Mou bought 2 CBs
So at minute we have an £80m defender, a £90m midfielder and an £90m striker in our squad and none of them are actually world class. Just about sums up how we are run?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Fantastic.
As has been said in the thread, our net spend over a longer time is poor compared to others.
The club has struggled as a result of not having a succession plan for after SAF. All else has been scrambling to fix things on the hoof.
Those doing the attempting to fix things have perhaps been ill-equipped to do so. Clearly all this filters down to our transfer policy, which I imagine has been as changeable as our managers.
It's worth bearing in mind that we're not a poor club, therefore our bargaining position isn't strong, and hasn't ever been. That adds 10% onto transfers or possibly more. How do other rich clubs cope then? How do you explain City? Well for starters we're talking about a club in trouble for FFP violations, so I imagine their transfers are done "creatively", perhaps a basic figure plus cleverer add-ons? Who knows. In the past I've seen our transfers talked up to already include the add-ons. When we signed Cantona, didn't we buy him for an amount but agreed with Leeds to announce a larger amount?
Also, if it's all over the press and social media that we "need" players, that also weakens our bargaining power.
Why do you think Ferguson tried to talk us down as buyers with all the "no value in the market" stuff? Once you start opening the wallet for one transfer, it's hard to play hardball next time and keep it closed. Clearly as well as possibly being creative with figures, City look to have also played quite a strong game with deals. Not to mention the fact that a big selling point will probably be the wages they pay (and extras).
Chuck in the fact that we've got Woody, who's unproven and doesn't seem that up to the job, you get where we are now.
All I'm saying is that United pay extra, we've got variable strategy, we seem rich and often desperate and I daresay we're not good at keeping transfer details secret. We're not in strong positions are we! It's not a recipe for getting solid bargains and we seem to have lost our mojo at finding bargains to develop and blossom. We've also had a record of getting players past their best on massive wages (Schweinsteiger, Sanchez, etc..)
The club has struggled as a result of not having a succession plan for after SAF. All else has been scrambling to fix things on the hoof.
Those doing the attempting to fix things have perhaps been ill-equipped to do so. Clearly all this filters down to our transfer policy, which I imagine has been as changeable as our managers.
It's worth bearing in mind that we're not a poor club, therefore our bargaining position isn't strong, and hasn't ever been. That adds 10% onto transfers or possibly more. How do other rich clubs cope then? How do you explain City? Well for starters we're talking about a club in trouble for FFP violations, so I imagine their transfers are done "creatively", perhaps a basic figure plus cleverer add-ons? Who knows. In the past I've seen our transfers talked up to already include the add-ons. When we signed Cantona, didn't we buy him for an amount but agreed with Leeds to announce a larger amount?
Also, if it's all over the press and social media that we "need" players, that also weakens our bargaining power.
Why do you think Ferguson tried to talk us down as buyers with all the "no value in the market" stuff? Once you start opening the wallet for one transfer, it's hard to play hardball next time and keep it closed. Clearly as well as possibly being creative with figures, City look to have also played quite a strong game with deals. Not to mention the fact that a big selling point will probably be the wages they pay (and extras).
Chuck in the fact that we've got Woody, who's unproven and doesn't seem that up to the job, you get where we are now.
All I'm saying is that United pay extra, we've got variable strategy, we seem rich and often desperate and I daresay we're not good at keeping transfer details secret. We're not in strong positions are we! It's not a recipe for getting solid bargains and we seem to have lost our mojo at finding bargains to develop and blossom. We've also had a record of getting players past their best on massive wages (Schweinsteiger, Sanchez, etc..)
But most of what has been spent is very little use to Ole.
It's not his fault that previous managers wasted a fortune.
City and pool backed Pep and Klopp and let them build a whole new team. Ole has only bought in 3 players so far.
And they did ignore.
The only issue anyone can have with Woody and co is where the money has been spent, not how much of it.
https://www.transfermarkt.com/premi...1/plus/?saison_id=2019&s_w=s&leihe=0&intern=0
According to this, Arsenal and Aston Villa have spent the most this summer. We're at a similar point to Wolves.
According to this, Arsenal and Aston Villa have spent the most this summer. We're at a similar point to Wolves.
So less than 100 million net spend last year and less than 100 million net spend this year. huh!
I really dislike Jose and his time here but the signings of Fred and Dalot were never going to make up a 20 point gap to City in the previous window. Likewise, I wonder if we'll be saying the same at the end of this season regarding top 4, and that AWB, Maguire and James are not enough considering the loss of Herrera, Lukaku and even Fellaini (as a squadie). The owners and Ed suck. There's no two ways about it.
I really dislike Jose and his time here but the signings of Fred and Dalot were never going to make up a 20 point gap to City in the previous window. Likewise, I wonder if we'll be saying the same at the end of this season regarding top 4, and that AWB, Maguire and James are not enough considering the loss of Herrera, Lukaku and even Fellaini (as a squadie). The owners and Ed suck. There's no two ways about it.
Arsenal are gonna recoup another 35 million from Iwobi