Were United the biggest PL spender pre-Roman at Chelsea? Gross, net, wages?

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,399
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
And I've explained with facts and figures why you're talking out of your arse.

I've compared individual seasons spending at United and at other clubs. I've shown that when we spent that fee on Roy Keane, other clubs spent much more that very same season. Not 10 years later.
Can you quit it with the fecking insult? It's getting tiring.

If you don't agree. Fine. Move on
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Tameside
I honestly don't want to be an asshole but did you read my post? I got it from transfermarkt.
You said you got our figures from there, not all of them. They aren't accurate. I got my United figures from reports on places like the BBC, Independent and Guardian. I got my Liverpool figures from one of their fan sites called LFChistory. I compiled it all to be as accurate as possible.
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Tameside
I started follow football and Arsenal in 1998. Man Utd had big transfer almost every summer at the time. Out of my head i remember Yorke, Stam, Barthez, Veron, Van Nistelrooy, Rio Ferdinard. If Man Utd's transfer net spend post Chelsea 2013 is head to head with Chelsea, it is a logical assumption before 2013 Man Utd is the biggest spender in transfer and wages when Chelsea and Man city didn't have external investment.

I am very happy with the external investment to Chelsea, Man City, and even Leicester. It makes the league a lot more competitive. Otherwise Man Utd will be just like Bayern in germany, winning the league every season.
What's the point in posting your assertions as fact, having only made assumptions based on vague memories and feelings, when the actual facts are easily available? Truly bizarre takes on reality are rife in this thread, as some people seem to simply want something to be true.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,087
Location
Not far enough
You said you got our figures from there, not all of them. They aren't accurate. I got my United figures from reports on places like the BBC, Independent and Guardian. I got my Liverpool figures from one of their fan sites called LFChistory. I compiled it all to be as accurate as possible.
If you choose to believe media reports are more accurate, that's your choice. I trust transfermarkt way more. Regardless, back to the original point. We have spent A LOT and we have spent more than both of these teams. I don't know why the period should be from the 90s and not from 86 (when Sir Alex came) too.
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Tameside
If you choose to believe media reports are more accurate, that's your choice. I trust transfermarkt way more. Regardless, back to the original point. We have spent A LOT and we have spent more than both of these teams. I don't know why the period should be from the 90s and not from 86 (when Sir Alex came) too.
So transfermarkt are more reliable than actual, reliable news sources that existed at the time the transfers were made, and for decades before that? Sure. What about all the players who just have a question mark in the transfer fee column on there? According the their sums, those players were all free.

To reiterate. Yes, we have spent a lot. No, we haven't spent more in the period in question, and I'll remind you again, that is 1992/93, to 2002/03. The reason? Because that's what the OP asked about. It's not a difficult concept.
 
Last edited:

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,087
Location
Not far enough
So transfermarkt are more reliable than actual, reliable news sources that existed at the time the transfers were made, and for decades before that? Sure.

To reiterate. Yes, we have spent a lot. No, we haven't spent more in the period in question, and I'll remind you again, that is 1992/93, to 2002/03. The reason? Because that's what the OP asked about. It's not a difficult concept.
"reliable" and "news sources" do not coexist in the same sentence unless it is in this order "news sources ARE NOT reliable".
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Tameside
"reliable" and "news sources" do not coexist in the same sentence unless it is in this order "news sources ARE NOT reliable".
Alright Mr Trump.

Here's a question: Where do you think transfermarkt got their figures from? The clubs let them have access to the accounts?

And another: how is it that transfermarkt finds itself in the enviable position of being neither a "news source" or "media"?
 
Last edited:

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,629
Yeah yeah Joel and co are the best option, you've decided and aren't open to other methods of ownership. Shame the fans will bring down the parasites for the likes of yourself.
I get you don't like the Glazers so, what realistically, do you want as an alternative?

It's people like you, just attacking other posters because you don't like their reasonable stance is what makes the CAF so unlikeable at times. Did you read what (s)he wrote, comparing to plc is valid.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
If you choose to believe media reports are more accurate, that's your choice. I trust transfermarkt way more. Regardless, back to the original point. We have spent A LOT and we have spent more than both of these teams. I don't know why the period should be from the 90s and not from 86 (when Sir Alex came) too.
You shouldn't they're not at all accurate on transfer fee's. They mix up exchange rates on loads of transfers.

And no one here is claiming United didn't spend a lot, only that we weren't the biggest spenders in the Premier League pre Roman.

Why 86? Ferguson took over in November 86 let's remember. Why not 1978? Or 1924? What significant event/s happened in the 1992-1993 season that would lead someone to ask if a certain club were the biggest spending team from that period onwards?
 

1950

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
Messages
298
I'd be careful with historical transfermarkt fees, since they use current exchange values between £ and €. They can't be trusted.
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Tameside
I'd be careful with historical transfermarkt fees, since they use current exchange values between £ and €. They can't be trusted.
And that's not to mention the ones they just put a '?' in the fees column and add that up as a zero.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
I started follow football and Arsenal in 1998. Man Utd had big transfer almost every summer at the time. Out of my head i remember Yorke, Stam, Barthez, Veron, Van Nistelrooy, Rio Ferdinard. If Man Utd's transfer net spend post Chelsea 2013 is head to head with Chelsea, it is a logical assumption before 2013 Man Utd is the biggest spender in transfer and wages when Chelsea and Man city didn't have external investment.
Yeah I can imagine someone who started following football in 1998 would get that impression.

Don't know if it would be a logical assumption, but in any case it would be an inaccurate one.

I am very happy with the external investment to Chelsea, Man City, and even Leicester. It makes the league a lot more competitive. Otherwise Man Utd will be just like Bayern in germany, winning the league every season.
English football would have never ended up like Germany with Liverpool and Arsenal around in a scenario where Chelsea and City weren't bought out.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
9,521
Wait, so this whole thread was created off the back of a poster that admits hes just using a hazy memory of a short period of time as an Arsenal supporter?

Then 3 pages of research clearly showing that impression simply isn't grounded in reality.

Christ this is like all the crap about someone reading proven facts on a topic and their response being, yeah but I just feel differently - then both 'sides' are given airtime.

No. United did not outspend in a way that Chelsea and City have done. That is the answer.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
What's the point in posting your assertions as fact, having only made assumptions based on vague memories and feelings, when the actual facts are easily available? Truly bizarre takes on reality are rife in this thread, as some people seem to simply want something to be true.
It's bonkers mate I've been reading it on here more and more recently. I expect it from opposition fans but over the last few weeks and continuing in this thread even loads of United fans seem to believe it too.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Wait, so this whole thread was created off the back of a poster that admits hes just using a hazy memory of a short period of time as an Arsenal supporter?

Then 3 pages of research clearly showing that impression simply isn't grounded in reality.

Christ this is like all the crap about someone reading proven facts on a topic and their response being, yeah but I just feel differently - then both 'sides' are given airtime.

No. United did not outspend in a way that Chelsea and City have done. That is the answer.
No not just one poster it was a discussion that was taking another thread off topic. So I started a thread for it, the Arsenal fan just happened to be the last person I quoted in the discussion.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,087
Location
Not far enough
You shouldn't they're not at all accurate on transfer fee's. They mix up exchange rates on loads of transfers.

And no one here is claiming United didn't spend a lot, only that we weren't the biggest spenders in the Premier League pre Roman.

Why 86? Ferguson took over in November 86 let's remember. Why not 1978? Or 1924? What significant event/s happened in the 1992-1993 season that would lead someone to ask if a certain club were the biggest spending team from that period onwards?
Because it made my comparison period 20 years
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,087
Location
Not far enough
Alright Mr Trump.

Here's a question: Where do you think transfermarkt got their figures from? The clubs let them have access to the accounts?

And another: how is it that transfermarkt finds itself in the enviable position of being neither a "news source" or "media"?
They probably find their fees from media. But they are professionals in exactly this topic and I trust their choices more than yours, no offence.
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Tameside
They probably find their fees from media. But they are professionals in exactly this topic and I trust their choices more than yours, no offence.
So they do a job the same as I did, used the "fake news" media same as I did, but missed off loads of figures, unlike I did, and you trust that more. Fine.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Because it made my comparison period 20 years
But that's just a totally arbitrary reason mate.

If the point of the thread was to ascertain whether or not United bought league success in the 90's starting with the title win in 1993. Then what is the point of including transfer fees from 1986 spent on the likes of Davenport and Gibson who never kicked a ball in the Premier League for United?

Also why 1986 to 2006 when we're talking about the period before Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003?
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,087
Location
Not far enough
But that's just a totally arbitrary reason mate.

If the point of the thread was to ascertain whether or not United bought league success in the 90's starting with the title win in 1993. Then what is the point of including transfer fees from 1986 spent on the likes of Davenport and Gibson who never kicked a ball in the Premier League for United?

Also why 1986 to 2006 when we're talking about the period before Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003?
1986 to 2006 would be 21 years, first of all. I used 85/86 to 04/05,as I've also mentioned before. And I sed 20 years because success is built after years of buying.

Anyway, I don't think there is any point in continuing this exchange.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,087
Location
Not far enough
So they do a job the same as I did, used the "fake news" media same as I did, but missed off loads of figures, unlike I did, and you trust that more. Fine.
The difference is in a word you actually used. "job", while you have googled quickly and assumed what you found is the most accurate source, their site is their source of income and, what do you know, it is called TRANSFERmarkt.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
1986 to 2006 would be 21 years, first of all. I used 85/86 to 04/05,as I've also mentioned before.
Well to be fair you mentioned 86 also. And 1986/87 to 2005/06 is 20 years not 21.

I don't know why the period should be from the 90s and not from 86 (when Sir Alex came) too.

And I sed 20 years because success is built after years of buying.

Anyway, I don't think there is any point in continuing this exchange.
Well the success in 1993 wasn't built upon anyone signed in 1985 or 1986 so it's a pointless start date for this particular discussion mate.
 
Last edited:

fergies coat

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
1,721
Location
Wythenshawe, Manchester
I posted in another thread weeks ago about this. Since 1992 until 2013 United were the biggest spenders in 3 seasons. Yes 3 seasons in 21 years.

You had the likes of Everton, Blackburn, Newcastle, and Liverpool out spending us.

This notion that we was only successful because we blew everyone else out of the water with huge transfer fees is wrong. We were successful because we had one of the best manger's that ever lived running the show.
 

KeanoMagicHat

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2019
Messages
430
Chelsea under Roman vs United in the 90s you can't compare. United were among the biggest spenders, a bit like they are now. Chelsea in their first few years spent £150m when other top teams were spending £30-40m, nobody has "bought" the league to the extent that Chelsea did in those opening years. Football had never really seen the likes of it.
 

Red_toad

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
9,000
Location
DownUnder
I get you don't like the Glazers so, what realistically, do you want as an alternative?

It's people like you, just attacking other posters because you don't like their reasonable stance is what makes the CAF so unlikeable at times. Did you read what (s)he wrote, comparing to plc is valid.
Oh so it’s people like me, who attack others? I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself!
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
The difference is in a word you actually used. "job", while you have googled quickly and assumed what you found is the most accurate source, their site is their source of income and, what do you know, it is called TRANSFERmarkt.
They're not great at their job though.

Take this for example the Ferdinand to United transfer on their .com and their .co.uk sites they list vastly different and inaccurate fees for the same transfer.

https://www.transfermarkt.com/rio-ferdinand/transfers/spieler/3235

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/rio-ferdinand/transfers/spieler/3235

£41.4m for Ferdinand? Yeah their site is wildly inaccurate as they don't take into account exchange rates at the time the transfer took place.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Chelsea under Roman vs United in the 90s you can't compare. United were among the biggest spenders, a bit like they are now. Chelsea in their first few years spent £150m when other top teams were spending £30-40m, nobody has "bought" the league to the extent that Chelsea did in those opening years. Football had never really seen the likes of it.
Yep I had to make this point in another thread a few days ago when someone said Blackburn spent to the same level as Chelsea. Chelsea's spending was unprecedented in those early years, the world transfer record at the time was £50m and they spent 3 times that in one window. It would be like a team now spending £600m on players in one window.
 

fergies coat

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
1,721
Location
Wythenshawe, Manchester
They're not great at their job though.

Take this for example the Ferdinand to United transfer on their .com and their .co.uk sites they list vastly different and inaccurate fees for the same transfer.

https://www.transfermarkt.com/rio-ferdinand/transfers/spieler/3235

They're not great at their job though.

Take this for example the Ferdinand to United transfer on their .com and their .co.uk sites they list vastly different and inaccurate fees for the same transfer.

https://www.transfermarkt.com/rio-ferdinand/transfers/spieler/3235

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/rio-ferdinand/transfers/spieler/3235

£41.4m for Ferdinand? Yeah their site is wildly inaccurate as they don't take into account exchange rates at the time the transfer took place.
I'm sure he was about 29 or 30 million at the time.
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Tameside
The difference is in a word you actually used. "job", while you have googled quickly and assumed what you found is the most accurate source, their site is their source of income and, what do you know, it is called TRANSFERmarkt.
I actually spent weeks doing it back then, and built that thread up as well as a website with all the sources linked over a long period of time, updating it annually until work got in the way.

Want to know what I do for a job? I actually write about football history for a living, amongst other things. Published and everything. Put numerous exhibitions on. But belittle away, please.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!

KeanoMagicHat

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2019
Messages
430
Yep I had to make this point in another thread a few days ago when someone said Blackburn spent to the same level as Chelsea. Chelsea's spending was unprecedented in those early years, the world transfer record at the time was £50m and they spent 3 times that in one window. It would be like a team now spending £600m on players in one window.
Yep, I think a lot of people either weren't following football at the time or have selective or hazy memories of it. It felt like they were a genuine cheat team with unlimited funds in a video game and could sign anyone. They signed 17 players for between £10m and £30m in 3 seasons, one website puts the Essien transfer as the equivalent of about £130m today in terms of inflation, sometimes I feel those things are exaggerated, but yeah it'd be like buying 10 new players in a window all for £50-100m, it was insane spending.

I think the narrative that they were only putting it up to United and United were doing it for years before that was created by people who were sick of seeing United win all the time.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,087
Location
Not far enough
Well to be fair you mentioned 86 also.






Well the success in 1993 wasn't built upon anyone signed in 1985 or 1986 so it's a pointless start date for this particular discussion mate.
Again success is built gradually.
Anyway, the whole argument is rather pointless. I've always thought we have spent a huge deal to achieve the sustained success. But who cares. It is what it is. Same with Chelsea and Manchester City.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
I think the narrative that they were only putting it up to United and United were doing it for years before that was created by people who were sick of seeing United win all the time.
It's a very strong narrative that's been cultivated over the years it seems, as if you read through this thread there are even some United fans who buy into it.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,087
Location
Not far enough
I actually spent weeks doing it back then, and built that thread up as well as a website with all the sources linked over a long period of time, updating it annually until work got in the way.

Want to know what I do for a job? I actually write about football history for a living, amongst other things. Published and everything. Put numerous exhibitions on. But belittle away, please.
I didn't belittle you. I assumed. And it appears I assumed wrong. However, I still think transfermarkt are a more accurate source then BBC, Telegraph or Guardian.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Again success is built gradually.
Anyway, the whole argument is rather pointless. I've always thought we have spent a huge deal to achieve the sustained success. But who cares. It is what it is. Same with Chelsea and Manchester City.
And the success in 1993 wasn't gradually built from 1985. Mate come on.
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Tameside
I didn't belittle you. I assumed. And it appears I assumed wrong. However, I still think transfermarkt are a more accurate source then BBC, Telegraph or Guardian.
Despite several examples showing it's not. And I never mentioned the Telegraph, because it is not a particularly reliable news source on most things, so I presume its football news is just as bad. The BBC, Guardian and Independent are highly regarded and as reliable as you can get for unbiased and accurate sports reporting.