Man Utd Thread:

[Muck Savage]

Go home Muck Savage, you're drunk.

And when your not able to discuss the topic throw abuse 

I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as you or anyone else. If you don't agree then argue don't belittle other because they don't agree with you.

[annapr]

As someone pointed out earlier,the only people who should be worried about net spend is the clubs Accountants.
If a manager,in this case LVG,spends 250 million pounds on players then he has to be judged on the players he bought and what they cost to buy and not his overall net spend. You spend 60 mill on a player and he flops, you can't get away with it because he only cost say 30mill net because you sold someone else. He is still a 60million pound player end of.

I'm pretty sure those arguing against net spend being relevant mean so in terms of success on the pitch.
Obviously it's important to how the club is being run financially but it should never be used as an excuse to how  a team perform on the pitch.
That's all down to the manager and the talent he brings in and if that talent is worth 250 mill then you expect results.The net cost of buying those players is irrelevant imo.
 

[STREET FIGHTER]

Go home Muck Savage, you're drunk.

And when your not able to discuss the topic throw abuse 

I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as you or anyone else. If you don't agree then argue don't belittle other because they don't agree with you.

honestly not trying to belittle you.....its just that I have zero interest in your topic.....it has nothing to do with my original post.....

[STREET FIGHTER]

As someone pointed out earlier,the only people who should be worried about net spend is the clubs Accountants.
If a manager,in this case LVG,spends 250 million pounds on players then he has to be judged on the players he bought and what they cost to buy and not his overall net spend. You spend 60 mill on a player and he flops, you can't get away with it because he only cost say 30mill net because you sold someone else. He is still a 60million pound player end of.

I'm pretty sure those arguing against net spend being relevant mean so in terms of success on the pitch.
Obviously it's important to how the club is being run financially but it should never be used as an excuse to how  a team perform on the pitch.
That's all down to the manager and the talent he brings in and if that talent is worth 250 mill then you expect results.The net cost of buying those players is irrelevant imo.

finally.....some sense on the matter!

[rodney trotter]

Utd now have only 3 strikers. 2 of them 19. 

You'll win nothing with kids!

LVG is pure ket..................... A spoofer of the highest order, I look at the business Pellegrini has done compared to LVG and the united boss has been found wanting.

I do not think LVG will be at United come seasons end, he cannot get along with the players and he seems to be building for a future he will have no part of, the man is vastly overrated at this stage of his career.

Stew - that's a ridiculous comparison. Pellegrini has an established squad, one of the best in Europe, that only needed a couple of addition plus getting their heads out of their holes.

Van Gaal is rebuilding a club left in shite by Ferguson (and to some extent Moyes).

Moyes?

Red headed dude. Scottish but has good Spanish. bit googly eyed, but not too bad

Oh aye him.....how did he leave the club in shite?

He inherited most of the squad from Fergie and signed 2 players who were UTD's best players last year....

Those who appointed Moyes made the same mistake as Liverpool when they appointed Graeme Souness. No quick fix and during this rebuilding process Van Gaal might have been better off keeping faith with the squad he had than relying on Ed Woodward in the transfer market.

Fellaini and Mata were probaly Uniteds best outfield players last season. Both players signed by Moyes.

Van Gaal talks some shite. Januzaj has a big part to play this season  - and then sends him on loan for the season

[STREET FIGHTER]

Utd now have only 3 strikers. 2 of them 19. 

You'll win nothing with kids!

LVG is pure ket..................... A spoofer of the highest order, I look at the business Pellegrini has done compared to LVG and the united boss has been found wanting.

I do not think LVG will be at United come seasons end, he cannot get along with the players and he seems to be building for a future he will have no part of, the man is vastly overrated at this stage of his career.

Stew - that's a ridiculous comparison. Pellegrini has an established squad, one of the best in Europe, that only needed a couple of addition plus getting their heads out of their holes.

Van Gaal is rebuilding a club left in shite by Ferguson (and to some extent Moyes).

Moyes?

Red headed dude. Scottish but has good Spanish. bit googly eyed, but not too bad

Oh aye him.....how did he leave the club in shite?

He inherited most of the squad from Fergie and signed 2 players who were UTD's best players last year....

Those who appointed Moyes made the same mistake as Liverpool when they appointed Graeme Souness. No quick fix and during this rebuilding process Van Gaal might have been better off keeping faith with the squad he had than relying on Ed Woodward in the transfer market.

Fellaini and Mata were probaly Uniteds best outfield players last season. Both players signed by Moyes.

Van Gaal talks some shite. Januzaj has a big part to play this season  - and then sends him on loan for the season

Certainly an odd decision.....thought Januzaj was going to play a big role this season......

[Maroon Manc]

As someone pointed out earlier,the only people who should be worried about net spend is the clubs Accountants.
If a manager,in this case LVG,spends 250 million pounds on players then he has to be judged on the players he bought and what they cost to buy and not his overall net spend. You spend 60 mill on a player and he flops, you can't get away with it because he only cost say 30mill net because you sold someone else. He is still a 60million pound player end of.

I'm pretty sure those arguing against net spend being relevant mean so in terms of success on the pitch.
Obviously it's important to how the club is being run financially but it should never be used as an excuse to how  a team perform on the pitch.
That's all down to the manager and the talent he brings in and if that talent is worth 250 mill then you expect results.The net cost of buying those players is irrelevant imo.

All very simplistic way of looking at it.

Rodgers, Pellegrini & Mourinho have all spent more than LVG since they took over so based on this logic they should all finish ahead of United in the league.

LVG took over a team where it's best players were all past their best. Rio, Vidic & Evra who were all in the starting 11 when we won the league in 2012/13 were finished by the time LVG took over and needed replacing. RVP our best player that season was passed his best and Rooney too is well past his best. he inherited a squad with too many players who were not good enough so naturally a lot of players have been bought and sold hence why net spend is taken into account. He's bought one player who it didn't work out for so he made a big decision and got rid for a good fee instead of keeping him to save face.

Finishing 4th for United would be about right based on the logic of not taking into account net spend as Rodgers, Pellegrini and Mourinho have all spent more.

[Minder]

The usual barometer of success, and last time I looked it wasn't too far away, was the teams with the highest wage bills winning the league, second biggest finishing second etc.

[STREET FIGHTER]

As someone pointed out earlier,the only people who should be worried about net spend is the clubs Accountants.
If a manager,in this case LVG,spends 250 million pounds on players then he has to be judged on the players he bought and what they cost to buy and not his overall net spend. You spend 60 mill on a player and he flops, you can't get away with it because he only cost say 30mill net because you sold someone else. He is still a 60million pound player end of.

I'm pretty sure those arguing against net spend being relevant mean so in terms of success on the pitch.
Obviously it's important to how the club is being run financially but it should never be used as an excuse to how  a team perform on the pitch.
That's all down to the manager and the talent he brings in and if that talent is worth 250 mill then you expect results.The net cost of buying those players is irrelevant imo.

All very simplistic way of looking at it.

Rodgers, Pellegrini & Mourinho have all spent more than LVG since they took over so based on this logic they should all finish ahead of United in the league.

LVG took over a team where it's best players were all past their best. Rio, Vidic & Evra who were all in the starting 11 when we won the league in 2012/13 were finished by the time LVG took over and needed replacing. RVP our best player that season was passed his best and Rooney too is well past his best. he inherited a squad with too many players who were not good enough so naturally a lot of players have been bought and sold hence why net spend is taken into account. He's bought one player who it didn't work out for so he made a big decision and got rid for a good fee instead of keeping him to save face.

Finishing 4th for United would be about right based on the logic of not taking into account net spend as Rodgers, Pellegrini and Mourinho have all spent more.

in what world would spending £250 million and only finishing 4th be deemed alright?

[magpie seanie]

What if you bought a player for £50M, it didn't work out and you sold him after a year for £45M? Is that worse than buying a player for £40M and selling him for £20M the following year? You guys seem to think it is.

[Throw ball]

What if you bought a player for £50M, it didn't work out and you sold him after a year for £45M? Is that worse than buying a player for £40M and selling him for £20M the following year? You guys seem to think it is.

It is. Then again I am an accountant.

[gallsman]

What if you bought a player for £50M, it didn't work out and you sold him after a year for £45M? Is that worse than buying a player for £40M and selling him for £20M the following year? You guys seem to think it is.

In terms of judging the manager's and player's success on the pitch? Absolutely. They are, respectively, 50m and 45m pound players and are judged as such.. Not 5m and 20m.

In terms of assessing how well the club is being run financially and knowing when to cut its losses? No.

Besides Seanie, you always argue that United have money to burn (which they do), so you shouldn't give a shite about gross or net spend anyway.

[magpie seanie]

What if you bought a player for £50M, it didn't work out and you sold him after a year for £45M? Is that worse than buying a player for £40M and selling him for £20M the following year? You guys seem to think it is.

In terms of judging the manager's and player's success on the pitch? Absolutely. They are, respectively, 50m and 45m pound players and are judged as such.. Not 5m and 20m.

In terms of assessing how well the club is being run financially and knowing when to cut its losses? No.

Besides Seanie, you always argue that United have money to burn (which they do), so you shouldn't give a shite about gross or net spend anyway.

Agreed, but United is a unique case in many ways. I want United to buy expensive players. I want them to use their financial strength to get back to the top ASAP. Gross or net spend - honestly it doesn't matter - it just needs to be high for a few years to rebuild. Some transfers work, some don't. When you can afford a few failures then go for it.

In general though you have to take into account money coming in. For example - Mourinho (who I can't stand) can get away with a lot of bad decisions in my book for stealing £50m off PSG for sideshow Bob.

[gallsman]

I disagree. Getting 50m for Luiz was great business. That does not mean that moves for failures such as Salah or Cuadrado should be regarded as anything else.

[NAG1]

What if you bought a player for £50M, it didn't work out and you sold him after a year for £45M? Is that worse than buying a player for £40M and selling him for £20M the following year? You guys seem to think it is.

In terms of judging the manager's and player's success on the pitch? Absolutely. They are, respectively, 50m and 45m pound players and are judged as such.. Not 5m and 20m.

In terms of assessing how well the club is being run financially and knowing when to cut its losses? No.

Besides Seanie, you always argue that United have money to burn (which they do), so you shouldn't give a shite about gross or net spend anyway.

Agreed, but United is a unique case in many ways. I want United to buy expensive players. I want them to use their financial strength to get back to the top ASAP. Gross or net spend - honestly it doesn't matter - it just needs to be high for a few years to rebuild. Some transfers work, some don't. When you can afford a few failures then go for it.

In general though you have to take into account money coming in. For example - Mourinho (who I can't stand) can get away with a lot of bad decisions in my book for stealing £50m off PSG for sideshow Bob.

Exactly, it is all relative. The new TV money floating about has caused the market to rise because no club is a position at this point where they are desperate to sell, just look at WBA.

The European market is always difficult and the English clubs will always have to pay above and beyond to get the top talent to leave their own leagues I think at this point this is accepted and they just get on with it.