Man Utd Thread:

[Il Bomber Destro]

Glazers took majority control in May 2005.

Net spend on transfers by season:
2005/6 - £1,000,000
2006/7 - £4,100,000
2007/8 - £26,550,000
2008/9 - £33,750,000
2009/10 - (£64,500,000)  - subtotal to this point £4,900,000 over 5 seasons.
2010/11 - £13,550,000
2011/12 - £38,150,000
2012/13 - £51,100,000
2013/14 - £66,700,000
2014/15 - £104,200,000
2015/16 - £28,150,000
2016/17 - £102,000,000
2017/8 - not complete yet.

Figures from transferleague.co.uk.

Averages out at less than £35m per season. Which is a very small figure for a club generating the income and profits (before interest) that United deliver.

Lets use Barcelona net spend as a compairson since the Glazers took charge.

17/18 - €98m
16/17 - €91m
15/16 - €4m
14/15 - €84m
13/14 - €39m
12/13 - nil
11/12 - €38m
10/11 - €4m
09/10 - €83m
08/09 - €38m
07/08 - €53m
06/07 - €18m
05/06 - (€10m)


That't an average net spend of €42m per season and converting that to £ using an average exch rate of .80 would leave also under £33m per season. So I think you've disproved your own theory there, United have been one of the top spending clubs in Europe since the Glazers took charge. Their average net spend with Barcelona in that time period is pretty much identical and that's not including the 100m this season you have excluded which would put United ahead of Barcelona?

Do you want me to do Madrid next or will I save you the embarrassment?

Surely the fact that Barcelona were winning titles and Champions leagues handover fist would imply they didnt have to spend? They had the basis for one of the greatest teams of all time in 2005/06.

Eh United won plenty of titles and a CL in the Glazer era too.

[Milltown Row2]

Net spend transfers and whatever!! all bulshit, I seen a figure the other day Utd have spent 800 million and achieved 16 trophies and Liverpool had spent 740 million with just 1 trophy to show for it during the same period...

Utd are a work in progress and wont be dinning at the top table until they match City at the transfer market, both in players and management, going to Madrid and Barca are far more attracive that Manachester, history and location and ability to match wages are the main factor... going to City is all about the money

[magpie seanie]

When did Real or Barca need investment and not make it due to financial restrictions? When have City or Chelsea been restricted similarly? That's what it boils down to.

[Il Bomber Destro]

When did Real or Barca need investment and not make it due to financial restrictions? When have City or Chelsea been restricted similarly? That's what it boils down to.

That's a different argument than you were making earlier. They have been able to compete financially with Madrid and Barcelona and like Madrid and Barcelona, they have been winning trophies so there may not be a need to spend for spending sake. You can see now that Chelsea have firmly established themselves as a top club, their spending has been cut way back. United, to the contrary, are spending bomb loads now after a barren run.

You denied earlier that United have consistently been one of the highest spending clubs in Europe throughout the Glazers era, I'm now glad we have clarified they were.

United have won more titles in the Glazer era than Real have so conceivably Madrid would have needed more investment in that time so why have Madrid not outspent United in that time?

[Maroon Manc]

The crucial part he's missed out is that Real & Barca have always been able to spend when they needed to which can't be said of United from 2009 to 2011 and they don't have any domestic competition from the other clubs financially. United needed to sell arguably the best player we've ever had to balance the books, Real & Barca didn't have to so that.

Also how do you judge net spend when spending £100m in around 09/10 is like spending £300m now. It was only 6 months ago our owners refused to buy a player over a £5m difference in valuation, a player who would have made a difference and who has had a great season for Inter.

[Mike Tyson]

Glazers took majority control in May 2005.

Net spend on transfers by season:
2005/6 - £1,000,000
2006/7 - £4,100,000
2007/8 - £26,550,000
2008/9 - £33,750,000
2009/10 - (£64,500,000)  - subtotal to this point £4,900,000 over 5 seasons.
2010/11 - £13,550,000
2011/12 - £38,150,000
2012/13 - £51,100,000
2013/14 - £66,700,000
2014/15 - £104,200,000
2015/16 - £28,150,000
2016/17 - £102,000,000
2017/8 - not complete yet.

Figures from transferleague.co.uk.

Averages out at less than £35m per season. Which is a very small figure for a club generating the income and profits (before interest) that United deliver.

Lets use Barcelona net spend as a compairson since the Glazers took charge.

17/18 - €98m
16/17 - €91m
15/16 - €4m
14/15 - €84m
13/14 - €39m
12/13 - nil
11/12 - €38m
10/11 - €4m
09/10 - €83m
08/09 - €38m
07/08 - €53m
06/07 - €18m
05/06 - (€10m)


That't an average net spend of €42m per season and converting that to £ using an average exch rate of .80 would leave also under £33m per season. So I think you've disproved your own theory there, United have been one of the top spending clubs in Europe since the Glazers took charge. Their average net spend with Barcelona in that time period is pretty much identical and that's not including the 100m this season you have excluded which would put United ahead of Barcelona?

Do you want me to do Madrid next or will I save you the embarrassment?

Where'd you get those figures? Net spend in 2012/13 wasn't 0. Brought in Song & alba that year for £30m and off-loaded £450k worth of players according to http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-barcelona/alletransfers/verein/131

Using the above website, avg net spends per season for the three clubs are:
Barca £39.3m
Man Utd £46.8m
Real £49.1m

Before Ferguson left:
Barca £29.8m
Man Utd £19.8m
Real £59.1m

Post Ferguson:
Barca £64.4m
Man Utd £108.2m
Real £9.5m

[Il Bomber Destro]

The crucial part he's missed out is that Real & Barca have always been able to spend when they needed to which can't be said of United from 2009 to 2011 and they don't have any domestic competition from the other clubs financially. United needed to sell arguably the best player we've ever had to balance the books, Real & Barca didn't have to so that.

Also how do you judge net spend when spending £100m in around 09/10 is like spending £300m now. It was only 6 months ago our owners refused to buy a player over a £5m difference in valuation, a player who would have made a difference and who has had a great season for Inter.

The crucial part is that the whole basis of your argument is refuted by facts. United need to sell Ronaldo because Barca or Madrid came calling, it's a problem every English club will have when they have a player worthy of those two sides. Liverpool couldn't keep Suarez or Coutinho from the clutches of Barca, Chelsea won't be able to keep Hazard when Real make their move, Arsenal weren't able to keep Fabregas when Barca came and neither were Spurs when Real came in for Bale and Modric. That's life, Real and Barca are the two biggest clubs in world football.

In the last two seasons, only City and PSG have spent more than United in terms of net spend. Apparently you can't compete though, the facts are contrary to the argument you make. I don't think spending £50m on a winger is prudent, you broke the world transfer record for Pogba, you paid out £75m on Lukaku, the problem is not the resources, it's the poor investment of them. Consistently over the Glazer years, United have been one of the highest spending clubs in European football.

[Minder]

The crucial part he's missed out is that Real & Barca have always been able to spend when they needed to which can't be said of United from 2009 to 2011 and they don't have any domestic competition from the other clubs financially. United needed to sell arguably the best player we've ever had to balance the books, Real & Barca didn't have to so that.

Also how do you judge net spend when spending £100m in around 09/10 is like spending £300m now. It was only 6 months ago our owners refused to buy a player over a £5m difference in valuation, a player who would have made a difference and who has had a great season for Inter.

I don't think they sold Ronaldo to balance the books, they had no option, it was another Coutinho situation. Think Ferguson said they did well to keep him for the extra year with the promise he could go then.

[magpie seanie]

The crucial part he's missed out is that Real & Barca have always been able to spend when they needed to which can't be said of United from 2009 to 2011 and they don't have any domestic competition from the other clubs financially. United needed to sell arguably the best player we've ever had to balance the books, Real & Barca didn't have to so that.

Also how do you judge net spend when spending £100m in around 09/10 is like spending £300m now. It was only 6 months ago our owners refused to buy a player over a £5m difference in valuation, a player who would have made a difference and who has had a great season for Inter.

The crucial part is that the whole basis of your argument is refuted by facts. United need to sell Ronaldo because Barca or Madrid came calling, it's a problem every English club will have when they have a player worthy of those two sides. Liverpool couldn't keep Suarez or Coutinho from the clutches of Barca, Chelsea won't be able to keep Hazard when Real make their move, Arsenal weren't able to keep Fabregas when Barca came and neither were Spurs when Real came in for Bale and Modric. That's life, Real and Barca are the two biggest clubs in world football.

In the last two seasons, only City and PSG have spent more than United in terms of net spend. Apparently you can't compete though, the facts are contrary to the argument you make. I don't think spending £50m on a winger is prudent, you broke the world transfer record for Pogba, you paid out £75m on Lukaku, the problem is not the resources, it's the poor investment of them. Consistently over the Glazer years, United have been one of the highest spending clubs in European football.

Why didn't they use the money received to buy a replacement or replacements? This is nonsense.

[Maroon Manc]

The crucial part he's missed out is that Real & Barca have always been able to spend when they needed to which can't be said of United from 2009 to 2011 and they don't have any domestic competition from the other clubs financially. United needed to sell arguably the best player we've ever had to balance the books, Real & Barca didn't have to so that.

Also how do you judge net spend when spending £100m in around 09/10 is like spending £300m now. It was only 6 months ago our owners refused to buy a player over a £5m difference in valuation, a player who would have made a difference and who has had a great season for Inter.

I don't think they sold Ronaldo to balance the books, they had no option, it was another Coutinho situation. Think Ferguson said they did well to keep him for the extra year with the promise he could go then.

Have you seen the figures I posted a few posts back?

Why did United insist on Real paying the £80m upfront instead of over a period of years?

United spent 40% of the clubs revenue on net finance costs in 08/09 and it was a similar % in 09/10. The club were under huge financial pressure.

Selling Ronaldo to Real is understandable but not replacing him or buying any top player for 3 years is unforgivable and the opposite of what Fergie had always done when he needed to.

[Il Bomber Destro]

Glazers took majority control in May 2005.

Net spend on transfers by season:
2005/6 - £1,000,000
2006/7 - £4,100,000
2007/8 - £26,550,000
2008/9 - £33,750,000
2009/10 - (£64,500,000)  - subtotal to this point £4,900,000 over 5 seasons.
2010/11 - £13,550,000
2011/12 - £38,150,000
2012/13 - £51,100,000
2013/14 - £66,700,000
2014/15 - £104,200,000
2015/16 - £28,150,000
2016/17 - £102,000,000
2017/8 - not complete yet.

Figures from transferleague.co.uk.

Averages out at less than £35m per season. Which is a very small figure for a club generating the income and profits (before interest) that United deliver.

Lets use Barcelona net spend as a compairson since the Glazers took charge.

17/18 - €98m
16/17 - €91m
15/16 - €4m
14/15 - €84m
13/14 - €39m
12/13 - nil
11/12 - €38m
10/11 - €4m
09/10 - €83m
08/09 - €38m
07/08 - €53m
06/07 - €18m
05/06 - (€10m)


That't an average net spend of €42m per season and converting that to £ using an average exch rate of .80 would leave also under £33m per season. So I think you've disproved your own theory there, United have been one of the top spending clubs in Europe since the Glazers took charge. Their average net spend with Barcelona in that time period is pretty much identical and that's not including the 100m this season you have excluded which would put United ahead of Barcelona?

Do you want me to do Madrid next or will I save you the embarrassment?

Where'd you get those figures? Net spend in 2012/13 wasn't 0. Brought in Song & alba that year for £30m and off-loaded £450k worth of players according to http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-barcelona/alletransfers/verein/131

Using the above website, avg net spends per season for the three clubs are:
Barca £39.3m
Man Utd £46.8m
Real £49.1m

Before Ferguson left:
Barca £29.8m
Man Utd £19.8m
Real £59.1m

Post Ferguson:
Barca £64.4m
Man Utd £108.2m
Real £9.5m

And?

Does it change the overall narrative that the Glazers stopped United being financially unable to compete with these clubs? No it does not.

As much as United fans seem determined to use the Glazers financial prudence as strawmen for their swift fall from the top of European football, the facts contradict us. Bad moves in the transfer market in Ferguson's latter years, paying over the odds for domestic players and making short terms signings at enormous expense like Van Persie. They have also erred in their managerial appointments, financially they can and have competed with all clubs in Europe.

[magpie seanie]

United are spending big money in a panic in the last few years to attempt to make up for the lack of investment in the 2005 to 2012 period (while the future of the club was placed in jeopardy by massive debt and interest payments). To say, as you did, that

United are one of the highest spending clubs in the world since the Glazers took control, consistently

is completely and utterly false. They have been high spenders in recent seasons and that has brought the average up over the period. You used the word "consistently" which the facts have clearly proven to not be the case.

Hope you're not embarrassed.

[Il Bomber Destro]

The crucial part he's missed out is that Real & Barca have always been able to spend when they needed to which can't be said of United from 2009 to 2011 and they don't have any domestic competition from the other clubs financially. United needed to sell arguably the best player we've ever had to balance the books, Real & Barca didn't have to so that.

Also how do you judge net spend when spending £100m in around 09/10 is like spending £300m now. It was only 6 months ago our owners refused to buy a player over a £5m difference in valuation, a player who would have made a difference and who has had a great season for Inter.

I don't think they sold Ronaldo to balance the books, they had no option, it was another Coutinho situation. Think Ferguson said they did well to keep him for the extra year with the promise he could go then.

Have you seen the figures I posted a few posts back?

Why did United insist on Real paying the £80m upfront instead of over a period of years?

United spent 40% of the clubs revenue on net finance costs in 08/09 and it was a similar % in 09/10. The club were under huge financial pressure.

Selling Ronaldo to Real is understandable but not replacing him or buying any top player for 3 years is unforgivable and the opposite of what Fergie had always done when he needed to.

Why?

You do realise money has a time value don't you? If they didn't look for that money up front then I think they'd need their heads examined, how many people would look for the money not to be paid up front? It would be idiotic to do from a business perspective.

United have been able to financially compete with the top clubs all during that time. You seem to be under the illusion that United should have spent for spending sake, Barca and Real did not.

[Mike Tyson]

Glazers took majority control in May 2005.

Net spend on transfers by season:
2005/6 - £1,000,000
2006/7 - £4,100,000
2007/8 - £26,550,000
2008/9 - £33,750,000
2009/10 - (£64,500,000)  - subtotal to this point £4,900,000 over 5 seasons.
2010/11 - £13,550,000
2011/12 - £38,150,000
2012/13 - £51,100,000
2013/14 - £66,700,000
2014/15 - £104,200,000
2015/16 - £28,150,000
2016/17 - £102,000,000
2017/8 - not complete yet.

Figures from transferleague.co.uk.

Averages out at less than £35m per season. Which is a very small figure for a club generating the income and profits (before interest) that United deliver.

Lets use Barcelona net spend as a compairson since the Glazers took charge.

17/18 - €98m
16/17 - €91m
15/16 - €4m
14/15 - €84m
13/14 - €39m
12/13 - nil
11/12 - €38m
10/11 - €4m
09/10 - €83m
08/09 - €38m
07/08 - €53m
06/07 - €18m
05/06 - (€10m)


That't an average net spend of €42m per season and converting that to £ using an average exch rate of .80 would leave also under £33m per season. So I think you've disproved your own theory there, United have been one of the top spending clubs in Europe since the Glazers took charge. Their average net spend with Barcelona in that time period is pretty much identical and that's not including the 100m this season you have excluded which would put United ahead of Barcelona?

Do you want me to do Madrid next or will I save you the embarrassment?

Where'd you get those figures? Net spend in 2012/13 wasn't 0. Brought in Song & alba that year for £30m and off-loaded £450k worth of players according to http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-barcelona/alletransfers/verein/131

Using the above website, avg net spends per season for the three clubs are:
Barca £39.3m
Man Utd £46.8m
Real £49.1m

Before Ferguson left:
Barca £29.8m
Man Utd £19.8m
Real £59.1m

Post Ferguson:
Barca £64.4m
Man Utd £108.2m
Real £9.5m

And?

Does it change the overall narrative that the Glazers stopped United being financially unable to compete with these clubs? No it does not.

As much as United fans seem determined to use the Glazers financial prudence as strawmen for their swift fall from the top of European football, the facts contradict us. Bad moves in the transfer market in Ferguson's latter years, paying over the odds for domestic players and making short terms signings at enormous expense like Van Persie. They have also erred in their managerial appointments, financially they can and have competed with all clubs in Europe.

And your posting false numbers, that's what.

I never argued anything about the Glazers stopping United doing anything.

[Il Bomber Destro]

United are spending big money in a panic in the last few years to attempt to make up for the lack of investment in the 2005 to 2012 period (while the future of the club was placed in jeopardy by massive debt and interest payments). To say, as you did, that

United are one of the highest spending clubs in the world since the Glazers took control, consistently

is completely and utterly false. They have been high spenders in recent seasons and that has brought the average up over the period. You used the word "consistently" which the facts have clearly proven to not be the case.

Hope you're not embarrassed.

In 2005-2012, United won 4 titles, 1 CL and made 2 other CL finals. So why spend for spending sake?

During periods of dominance clubs have less need to spend, that's reality and you can check it out with Madrid and Barcelona. Madrid have now gone through 2 seasons of negative transfer spends after winning 3 CLs in a row. It's common and not unique for United, the facts continue to contradict the argument you are putting forward.