Manchester United - decline?
- Thread starter sandy10
- Start date
"every player we've ever purchased has been paid by the revenue the club brings in."
Can you tell me where the money for the biggest outlay on players, taking inflation and the money in the game into account, came from? As you've stated that the players that seem to have kick-started the clubs success and saved their managers job by winning the FA Cup were paid and paid for by nothing other than revenue. I want proof of that.
If you can't give me proof then to all intents and purposes it seems to have come from external sources, just like City's, Just like Chelsea's, and just like Blackburn with Jack Walker's millions.
Essentially, you need to spend money to make money. Utd have done it in the past and are benefitting now.
City will eventually
Bingo.
Apparently it's not fair to count them as the same though
Where's your proof of that then? You're speculating it came from an external source because it fits your argument. You said the club had no success prior to the money spent in 89 and that was incorrect so unless you can provide proof that it came from an outside source I'm going to assume the money came from the revenue brought in from those cup wins and ticket sales and however else the club made money back then and I can only assume because unlike you I'm not willing to speculate about something that I know nothing about
"every player we've ever purchased has been paid by the revenue the club brings in."
Can you tell me where the money for the biggest outlay on players, taking inflation and the money in the game into account, came from? As you've stated that the players that seem to have kick-started the clubs success and saved their managers job by winning the FA Cup were paid and paid for by nothing other than revenue. I want proof of that.
If you can't give me proof then to all intents and purposes it seems to have come from external sources, just like City's, Just like Chelsea's, and just like Blackburn with Jack Walker's millions.
Bingo.
Apparently it's not fair to count them as the same though
Big difference (even allowing for inflation) between £8m in 1990 (lets say) and £200m in 2010/11 (or whatever obscene amount City paid out.
Personally I always thought the big outlay at OT came from the original float on the stock market, then another one when Magnier/ Irish mafia (lol ) took over (and another is expected if /when Glazers launch the IPO in Singapore)
Well the money going into football is obviously a lot higher than the rate of inflation. Never the less, 8m was a lot of money back then.
Where's your proof of that then? You're speculating it came from an external source because it fits your argument. You said the club had no success prior to the money spent in 89 and that was incorrect so unless you can provide proof that it came from an outside source I'm going to assume the money came from the revenue brought in from those cup wins and ticket sales and however else the club made money back then and I can only assume because unlike you I'm not willing to speculate about something that I know nothing about
You already have speculated on something you know nothing about, and have even quoted it as fact.
I never stated it as fact. I said it seems to be external money because it wasn't from success. It had been 5 years since they won anything.
4 years and no I haven't speculated about anything, to my knowledge the club has never had a billionaire owner inject his own money into the club that's not me speculating whether or not that's the truth that's me (as you said) stating it as fact as I've got nothing that says otherwise.
You're speculating that a billionaire owner you cant name may or may not have injected money into the club, I'm flat out disagreeing. If you can prove otherwise then I'll hold my hands up and admit I'm wrong.
Last edited:
Is there? Money within football has risen disproportionately compared with most other industries.
I'm not sure which year in the 80's Utd are supposed to have spent £8m on players and I can only find their turnover since the EPL began anyway, but in 1993 Utd's turnover was just £25m compared with over £330m in 2010/2011.
What about money gained from selling players?
edit: are we are talking prior to Sky pumping loads of cash in?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,107
- Location
- Shepley
Back on topic time perhaps?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
its the beginning of a decline. you can argue our league points total. but what happened to the champions league? the domestic cups? nowhere near.
the reason is the decline in average player quality in almost every position in the team.
Rafael isn't as good as Gary Neville. evra isn't as good as evra was. rRio is older and slower than he was. our midfield is worse. we don't have an effective strike partnership etc.
yes we have players for the future but we are playing them in the present and sadly throwing too many inexperienced players in with too many other players who aren't good enough/are worse than they were 5 years ago.
I think the £8m year would have been when we got Neil Webb, Mike Phelan & Gary Pallister. 1989 possibly 1990 iirc.
Can you find where I've mentioned a billionaire owner please?
Those are the players. I thought it was 88-89
Is it the begining of the end ?? Im sure you were saying that a few years back.
Rafael isn't as good as Gary Neville - Prove it and by what measure are you defining 'better'
Evra isn't as good as Evra was - No **** Sherlock
Rio is older and slower - Not one for repetition but again No **** Sherlock
Midfield is worse - Everyone knows this
We don't have an effective strike partnership - 89 goals scored in the league says otherwise but lets not allow the facts get in the way of whipping up some hysteria.
As has been said by many Utd fans and ABU's This is the worst United team in the history of bad United teams right ??? Surely they can't all be wrong. Yet we managed to finish with exactly the same points as City and conceding the title on goal difference, Scored more goals than last year, conceded less and scored more points. Oh and for the purposes of statistics, the last time such an ineffective strike force scored more than the 89 goals from this season was in season 1999-2000.
For the love of god please use a slither of fact before posting such bile that is as proven above without foundation.
'89 was also the season Michael Knighton was supposed to have bought us for £10m
I'll assume you're splitting hairs because you're out of any other retort?
No, I'm pointing out your straw man argument. I didn't mention a billionaire owner anywhere. I didn't mention an individual either. I was talking about money made away from the game and brought into it by them, just like city and chelsea. You're the only one banging on about a billionaire owner.
Makes no odds how the money is made. If you want everything fair you'll accept that the best way forwards is for those with the biggest turnover to put money into a pot for those with smaller turnover. That'll hit your club hardest.
The bottom line is that your club massively overspent previously. Another is doing it now, and there's nothing you can do about it.
What money? Brought in how and from where? Basically you have no idea what you're going on about do you.
The astronomical amount of money they spent without having had success.
Are you just refusing to see the point to be difficult? I know that you're not stupid and it's a pretty basic point.