Yeh i know hes left but theres another i think........yeh of course he has
lol, im not on the wind up if thats what the roll eyes are for, there are plenty of man u fans here for that ... check his press release or any comments since promotion.
** Official ** Summer 2010 Transfer Thread - Signings, Sightings and Rumor's in Here
- Thread starter Loki
- Start date
- Status
lol, im not on the wind up if thats what the roll eyes are for, there are plenty of man u fans here for that ... check his press release or any comments since promotion.
Nah, much fairer if we gave you a keeper. That way you wouldn't lose a player in such an important position.
Go on, take your pick. Have any of them*. Or the lot. Please.
*Except Szcziesny.
Actually to be fair to the lad I think he was aiming that rolleyes at the press statement. He doesn't seem great at making himself clear.
Hahah
. Apparently we value Schwarzer at £4m, and Arsenal won't pay that (they had £2-2.5m rejected). Not sure if the fee would be £2m+Vela or not though. I'd possibly even take Almunia + £3m or so personally, new start for him. Rumours about Given are still happening though, if that happens it'd be an immense signing...shame he'll probably end up at Celtic.Aye, so be it ... Its no surprise anyway he'd been on about leaving before iirc
edit: i thought he'd taken it as another dig at man city money bags btw
Last edited:
It'd be hilarious.
Everton's net spent has been £4m...
I can't remember the others.
This is since 2006:
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html
Syke spent all night dreaming about that happening.
Yeah sorry I meant average per each season.
Yeah sorry I meant average per each season.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 26,303
Arsenal have made £30m and still tighter than a duck's arse.
Furthest column to the right.
Had enough of themedit: i thought he'd taken it as another dig at man city money bags btw
Hey, we're only making sure the bailiffs don't come knocking.
It's because that's starting from 2006. Thus you miss out the three previous seasons where they spooged £300m on anyone they could find.
EDIT: If you click on the side, there's net spend since 2003 and 1992 tables where they're second in both.
Man City have only been throwing money around for two years, yet they've already spent more than Man United have in 18 years. Madness.
I can't believe Portsmouth actually made a profit on players! Considering how far up **** creek they went, they must really have overdone those wages.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
well is that inflation adjusted?
football fees these days are much higher than say they were 18 years ago...
football fees these days are much higher than say they were 18 years ago...
Same as Whelan, £4 million in his back pocket and he wonders why we are crap.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Honestly Utd's spending up to the point before City starting spending, vs CIty's spending was embarassingly worse than City vs Utd now. City spent a ludicrously small sum up to that point.
Thing is though people just throw around the spending think like its an issue.
If you add up all the wages Utd have spent since the premier league started, even excluding the years City weren't in the premier league, Utd's spending will absolutely dwarf the amount City has spent overall.
Though their yearly wage bill over the next 5 years will also make their total spend now seem utterly trivial.
It takes money to get at title, every team thats won it has "bought" it, every team that won was paying much higher wages to more players than people outside the top 4-5 players.
Arsenal's spending isn't pathetic, theres no requirement to spend, however we're spunking wages on so many players who will never even be championship quality, while refusing to spend money to replace them.
Who cares basically at the end of the day, though it would be interesting to see the yearly transfer against the yearly wages, and the teams total spends over the same time periods with wages and transfer included, because it will make the current numbers seem stupidly small.
Chelsea haven't spent much at all in recent years, and mostly good value deals, Anelka was cheap for such a top striker, and Ivanovich, Sturridge were great deals aswell. But due to the bigger spending before and the wages they were giving out their wage bill in the past several years will have been painfully high. City will suffer from a silly wage bill in the next 5 years aswell. Chelsea have done pretty well to limit wages on newer players, reduce squad size and recoup money though.
Thing is though people just throw around the spending think like its an issue.
If you add up all the wages Utd have spent since the premier league started, even excluding the years City weren't in the premier league, Utd's spending will absolutely dwarf the amount City has spent overall.
Though their yearly wage bill over the next 5 years will also make their total spend now seem utterly trivial.
It takes money to get at title, every team thats won it has "bought" it, every team that won was paying much higher wages to more players than people outside the top 4-5 players.
Arsenal's spending isn't pathetic, theres no requirement to spend, however we're spunking wages on so many players who will never even be championship quality, while refusing to spend money to replace them.
Who cares basically at the end of the day, though it would be interesting to see the yearly transfer against the yearly wages, and the teams total spends over the same time periods with wages and transfer included, because it will make the current numbers seem stupidly small.
Chelsea haven't spent much at all in recent years, and mostly good value deals, Anelka was cheap for such a top striker, and Ivanovich, Sturridge were great deals aswell. But due to the bigger spending before and the wages they were giving out their wage bill in the past several years will have been painfully high. City will suffer from a silly wage bill in the next 5 years aswell. Chelsea have done pretty well to limit wages on newer players, reduce squad size and recoup money though.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
You do know that transfer fee's is what those numbers are, Pompie made a profit in transfer and still ended up 100mil + in debt.
The difference is Arsenal are highly profitable every year, we make around 30-40mil a year right now, on top of 30mil from transfers in the past4-5 years, thats tight, thats around 200mil in profits and we still won't replace Diaby.
Our owners are also pretty damn rich and not really requiring the money, though I have no real problem with it being run as a business. Other clubs are owned by a single person without billions in the bank, to ask them to simply spend millions because the team isn't great, is daft. Firstly if he bankrupts himself and puts the club in debt, what happens then?
- Status