Man Utd Thread:

[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.

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.

No but it's not true to say United sold him to balance the books, he wanted to leave, they couldn't keep him.

[Geoff Tipps]

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.

And when they don't continue spending the dominance ends!
Madrid have won 2 in a row but don't let facts get in your way!!

[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.

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.

No but it's not true to say United sold him to balance the books, he wanted to leave, they couldn't keep him.

They knew he was going and allowed Ferguson to spend additional money in the previous two seasons on that basis. So MM's statement is correct.

[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.

No but it's not true to say United sold him to balance the books, he wanted to leave, they couldn't keep him.

In addition its not true to state that United could have afforded to keep him.

United had financial issues which all the evidence points too.

[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.

And when they don't continue spending the dominance ends!
Madrid have won 2 in a row but don't let facts get in your way!!

United never failed to spend, in fact they have spent a bucketload since they last won the league, they have just done it very poorly.

[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.

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.

No but it's not true to say United sold him to balance the books, he wanted to leave, they couldn't keep him.

In addition its not true to state that United could have afforded to keep him.

United had financial issues which all the evidence points too.

I didn't mention them affording to keep him but again the player wanted to leave, United couldn't keep him from a footballing perspective if you want me to phrase it that way. You seemed to frame it that Ronadlo was sold as some sort of fire sale. He wasn't. United has a player that no longer wished to play for them. That's why he was sold.

[Il Bomber Destro]

Ronaldo wanted to go, when Madrid and Barca come calling it will be very difficult to say no and should Madrid come knocking for De Gea again it will be difficult to see United keeping him.

[magpie seanie]

If Ronaldo had had some sort of 11th hour change of heart and decided to stay the club would have had to sell other players or come up with other means of raising cash quickly. That is a fact. The cashflow situation at the time was very, very tight.

I don't know why this stuff is so hard for people to grasp.

[Il Bomber Destro]

If Ronaldo had had some sort of 11th hour change of heart and decided to stay the club would have had to sell other players or come up with other means of raising cash quickly. That is a fact. The cashflow situation at the time was very, very tight.

I don't know why this stuff is so hard for people to grasp.

That is conjecture, not fact.

[Maroon Manc]

If Ronaldo had had some sort of 11th hour change of heart and decided to stay the club would have had to sell other players or come up with other means of raising cash quickly. That is a fact. The cashflow situation at the time was very, very tight.

I don't know why this stuff is so hard for people to grasp.

We're wasting our time.

All the evidence is there in the accounts and with Fergie's lack of spending to back up the theory.

Spending £100m back from 09 to 11 would have saved the Glazers spending £300m since Fergie left.

[Geoff Tipps]

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.

And when they don't continue spending the dominance ends!
Madrid have won 2 in a row but don't let facts get in your way!!

United never failed to spend, in fact they have spent a bucketload since they last won the league, they have just done it very poorly.

I can't believe I'm standing up for United but the point is that they stopped spending heavily when they were dominant.
You're right they have spent sh*tloads recently but the damage was done in the late Fergie years when the spending dropped off. Since then it's been a scatter gun approach
to transfers and they are reaping the rewards now!

[Il Bomber Destro]

If Ronaldo had had some sort of 11th hour change of heart and decided to stay the club would have had to sell other players or come up with other means of raising cash quickly. That is a fact. The cashflow situation at the time was very, very tight.

I don't know why this stuff is so hard for people to grasp.

We're wasting our time.

All the evidence is there in the accounts and with Fergie's lack of spending to back up the theory.

Spending £100m back from 09 to 11 would have saved the Glazers spending £300m since Fergie left.

Would it?

Spending £300m in the last few years hasn't help. You fail to be grasping that poor investment seems to be the problem rather than lack of investment.

[magpie seanie]

You're correct MM. United slipping from being a club in contention for winning things has meant even more exorbitant fees, attracting the "wrong" type of player (in desperation to get talent in), and having to suck up to scum like Jose and his mate the superagent. And United aren't out of that particularly disgusting woods yet either - far from it.

Bomber - if you do not understand that it is a fact please have a look at United's accounts.

[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.

And when they don't continue spending the dominance ends!
Madrid have won 2 in a row but don't let facts get in your way!!

United never failed to spend, in fact they have spent a bucketload since they last won the league, they have just done it very poorly.

I can't believe I'm standing up for United but the point is that they stopped spending heavily when they were dominant.
You're right they have spent sh*tloads recently but the damage was done in the late Fergie years when the spending dropped off. Since then it's been a scatter gun approach
to transfers and they are reaping the rewards now!
[/quote

Ferguson's trasfer business in his latter years was hardly that inspiring, he paid way over the odds for fairly limited players from within an overpriced market in the EPL. He splashed a massive fee on Van Persie who would have been available on a free the year after that was short termism. Maybe people should look elsewhere rather than the strawmen they have made in the Glazers.

[NAG1]

Missing the fact that RvP picked up a winners medal? And was on fire for a good part of that season.