Man Utd Thread:

[Boycey]

From my perspective the emergence of City is a good thing. Throughout the noughties, United and Chelsea had a carve up for the best players in enhland or willing to come to England. Anyone joining either club was guaranteed silverware.  Adding City to mega money group has reduced that likelihood of guaranteed silverware and have actually made a move away from Liverpool, Arsenal or Spurs less tempting; or at least solely about money. So all told the gap closed between the top six clubs.

I'm well surprised that City have had it so easy this year, but I wouldn't be worried about it unles it continues for another 2+ seasons. I'd expect They've got too many outrageously rich players to keep up these performance levels once a few trophies are landed.

Yeah competition is great it makes things sweeter when you do win things but taking my United hat off for a minute it'd probably have been better had the oilmen taken over someone like Liverpool rather than City cause let's be honest nobody gives a bollix about City, even United fans cheered there last title cause it meant Liverpool didn't win it. They could conceivably win the quadruple this year but they'll never catch the publics imagination good or bad like Liverpool, Utd or the likes of Arsenal. They are about 17/18? Wins in a row at this stage but Jose and the fab4 command many more column inches..

[Captain Obvious]

Always I find it odd when a Man Utd fan complains about the spending of other clubs.

As a club, United have spent the premier league era breaking transfer records and higherinh wages.

In past two seasons alone, £100m for Pogba, £75m for Lukaku. I don't care how you to try to justify this as a revenue spend, it's absolutely disgusting.

When Manchester United came calling for Lukaku and Pogba their clubs upped their prices probably because they knew they were dealing with a weak individual on transfers like Ed Woodward.

It was the success of the last two decades under Ferguson 1993 to 2013 and not finishing outside the top 3 in that time that has allowed the club to spend as they do, they have become a global brand a money making machine.

Before Manchester City were lucky to get a wealthy owner a Premier league season with 55 points in total would be considered a good season for them. And we shouldn't forget in the late 90s they played their league football in the 3rd tier. Some emergence this has been....

[Syferus]

Always I find it odd when a Man Utd fan complains about the spending of other clubs.

As a club, United have spent the premier league era breaking transfer records and higherinh wages.

In past two seasons alone, £100m for Pogba, £75m for Lukaku. I don't care how you to try to justify this as a revenue spend, it's absolutely disgusting.

When Manchester United came calling for Lukaku and Pogba their clubs upped their prices probably because they knew they were dealing with a weak individual on transfers like Ed Woodward.

It was the success of the last two decades under Ferguson 1993 to 2013 and not finishing outside the top 3 in that time that has allowed the club to spend as they do, they have become a global brand a money making machine.

Before Manchester City were lucky to get a wealthy owner a Premier league season with 55 points in total would be considered a good season for them. And we shouldn't forget in the late 90s they played their league football in the 3rd tier. Some emergence this has been....

Both very much appear to be either at market value, if not below it.

[Captain Obvious]

Both very much appear to be either at market value, if not below it.

Good lad Syferus, always good for laugh whatever the time of year.

[magpie seanie]

Pathetic comments tonight from the cheque book manager.

Agree. More absolute bullshit. I'm not a huge fan of Guardiola but one striking difference is that clearly Guardiola believes in his players and facilitates getting the best out of them. The opposite is clearly the case with Mourinho at present. Bar the full backs they bought in the summer when Mourinho bought none I don't see any areas of their team that are vastly superior. What I do see is guys given licence and empowerment to perform, really well coached. What would Jose do with Silva? Sell him I'd say. Aguero? Out wide playing half the games maybe. DeBruyne? Well he got rid of him from Chelsea.

[magpie seanie]

Transfer fees and wages are obscene, there's no doubt about it. United have always broken transfer records because they're one of the wealthiest clubs and have been for a long time. While they're part of the problem I think they're well down the list of blame due to the fact they generate their own cash unlike the City's, PSG's, Chelsea's etc. UEFA have shamefully been found badly wanting in the enforcement of FFP but I guess that's capitalism for you.

The appalling vista raised here of the Glazers selling out to similar owners form the Middle East is chilling.

[Syferus]

Both very much appear to be either at market value, if not below it.

Good lad Syferus, always good for laugh whatever the time of year.

€222 milion for a left winger. €189 milion for a teenager with one senior season under his belt. Barca paid €110 milion for a goal-shy right winger.

If you think £75 milion was overpaying for a proven striker when at the same time the lads across the same town were paying £50 milion for an average right back you've really missed the state of play in football now. If Man Utd had went for Pogba last summer he'd have been at least €150 milion if not more.

[From the Bunker]

Transfer fees and wages are obscene, there's no doubt about it. United have always broken transfer records because they're one of the wealthiest clubs and have been for a long time. While they're part of the problem I think they're well down the list of blame due to the fact they generate their own cash unlike the City's, PSG's, Chelsea's etc. UEFA have shamefully been found badly wanting in the enforcement of FFP but I guess that's capitalism for you.

The appalling vista raised here of the Glazers selling out to similar owners form the Middle East is chilling.

How is it chilling? Would you not prefer the Club to be the parasite on the owner rather than the other way around?

[Cunny Funt]

Man City wouldn't have paid the those fees for Pogba or Lukaku and i think their record transfer fee is still De Bruyne for about 66 million? They would buy two or three players for the price of Pogba.

I must read up on what "pathetic" comments that Mourinho was meant to have said.

[gallsman]

Man City wouldn't have paid the those fees for Pogba or Lukaku and i think their record transfer fee is still De Bruyne for about 66 million? They would buy two or three players for the price of Pogba.

I must read up on what "pathetic" comments that Mourinho was meant to have said.

Yeah but that doesn't really refute the whole "market value" angle.

They might buy three players for 100m. They wouldn't be able to buy three Pogbas for that though. As Syf said, when Kyle Walker is going for 50m...

[thewobbler]

But what does it matter how the cash was generated? Or what City were doing a decade ago?

If the only way to "earn the right" to break transfer records is through 20 years of progressive improvement, then the rich would get richer and the vast majority of the poor would dwindle and die.

That's pretty much what happened in Scotland. Two clubs went on an arms race to ensure that for 4 games a year they could beat each other. The public fell asleep because 95% of games were a foregone conclusion. Players stopped coming because it was boring. One club went bankrupt. Now nobody cares. Nobody.

It's (in my mind) the arrival of the foreign billionaires that has kept English football interesting. There was no other way to keep United "honest". And I actually mean that as a compliment to United.

[thewobbler]

By the way I'd also suggest that paying £50m (Walker) to address the glaring weakness in your squad with the best player in the league in that position, is a much more prudent way to spend money than £61m (Di Maria) for a winger when the coach doesn't use wide players or £110m (Pogba) for someone who has no clear role in the manager's preferred tactics.

But each to their own. Walker ain't no Maldini but you'd look long and hard for someone who fits better into City's shape and style of football.

[Minder]

Good luck to City and their fans, a loyal bunch no matter what you think of them. At the start they were just throwing over the odds money at average players. Now they are a well run operation with shrewd football people at the helm.

Also don't get the negativity about Walker, think he's a brilliant fullback, fast, powerful and is decent on the ball. Nothing to do with the fact he is English I'm sure

[Captain Obvious]

At the start they were just throwing over the odds money at average players. Now they are a well run operation with shrewd football people at the helm.

Exactly. Manchester United since Woodward was given his role in the club have been spending over the odds on players. The Glazers brothers aren't football men and don't seem to know they need someone shrewd to do their transfer business.

[ned]

But what does it matter how the cash was generated? Or what City were doing a decade ago?

If the only way to "earn the right" to break transfer records is through 20 years of progressive improvement, then the rich would get richer and the vast majority of the poor would dwindle and die.

That's pretty much what happened in Scotland. Two clubs went on an arms race to ensure that for 4 games a year they could beat each other. The public fell asleep because 95% of games were a foregone conclusion. Players stopped coming because it was boring. One club went bankrupt. Now nobody cares. Nobody.

It's (in my mind) the arrival of the foreign billionaires that has kept English football interesting. There was no other way to keep United "honest". And I actually mean that as a compliment to United.

"The arrival of foreign billionaires has kept English football interesting."
But this could be it's downfall. Regarding City and their place in the hierarchy, some on this thread seem to think English football began with the Premier League. Man City have always been one of the bigger clubs albeit in the shadows of united since Ferguson eventually got it right. I've watched a lot of english football in the past month since I got a deal for December's sky sports coverage. Prior to this saw only the odd highlights package on MOTD. Liverpool and City are great to watch but there have been some chronic matches especially involving United, Everton and Chelsea. Outside the top seven teams, the standard is poor considering the money available.
United have a worldwide following which can be traced back to Munich, the Busby Babes, Best, Law and Charlton.
But so now do Chelsea who were once even smaller in terms of history and fan base than City. Footbsll fans, beyond the hardcore, are fickle. What happens after years without success? The money will disappear and some of the big clubs could too.
Nobody cares about Scottish football? Still one of the best attended leagues in Europe compared to the population size. Nobody really cares about Swansea or Burnley or any of the other teams making up the numbers. It's a hyped up reality show just in a football stadium.