The Manchester United Club Thread **Sponsored by Comedy Central**

adam cool dude said:
I really hope this isn't true. Would rather be in the championship then be owned by them. We wouldn't be any different to City
Click to expand...

As the old saying goes - if you cant beat them, join them.

There would only be two good reasons if it were to happen (and as the rumours are just that, with very little to actually back them up , its highly unlikely to happen anyway)

1) The new owners would have their own money - so they wouldn't be taking out £10's of millions each year from the clubs turnover / profits.
2) They seem like they are actually interested in football, rather than just how to make more money.

Its impossible to compete with City on such an unlevel playing field (due to Utd's current owners) so the only way Utd are really ever going to get back to the very top of the league / Europe is by getting in owners who actually care about the club itself, rather than just what the bottom line means for their pockets.

Even with a DoF, with the amount of £££ going out to refinance the debt and paying the Glazers every year, even turning over the amount Utd does - we cant generate enough to pay the ever increasing transfer fees required to improve the 1st team dramatically. Don't get me wrong they are playing within themselves, but the current squad is still a mismatch of players from at least 4 different managers who want to play totally different styles
 
Moses said:
Lol. You say that as though Citeh are in a different universe in terms of spending. Which isn’t the case. If you’d spent sensibly you’d be fine right now/competing at the very top in all comps.
Click to expand...

Man Utd's best ever players have all been reasonably cheap buys. Rio, Dea Gea and Andy Cole are only the few expensive players I can think of that have actually made a difference. Both Man Utd's and Barca's dominance came from a group of home grown talent at its core.

That is not saying City's way doesn't work just their are many ways to a skin a cat but City's is the easiest way.
 
adam cool dude said:
Man Utd's best ever players have all been reasonably cheap buys. Rio, Dea Gea and Andy Cole are only the few expensive players I can think of that have actually made a difference. Both Man Utd's and Barca's dominance came from a group of home grown talent at its core.

That is not saying City's way doesn't work just their are many ways to a skin a cat but City's is the easiest way.
Click to expand...
I think the point Moses is making is Utd are spending comparable amounts to City, just spending it badly.
 
adam cool dude said:
Man Utd's best ever players have all been reasonably cheap buys. Rio, Dea Gea and Andy Cole are only the few expensive players I can think of that have actually made a difference. Both Man Utd's and Barca's dominance came from a group of home grown talent at its core.

That is not saying City's way doesn't work just their are many ways to a skin a cat but City's is the easiest way.
Click to expand...

That was when you had time to bed players in - now its nigh on impossible to get one or two decent players simultaneously (in the same age group ) coming through and actually make the jump to 1st team.

Depends on your definition of cheap - that same level will still have gone up significantly because of the general market prices (and then you have to add on significant agent fees as well)


600m extra in 10 years - yeah that's the same kinda level...not
 
FrankJH said:
600m extra in 10 years - yeah that's the same kinda level...not
Click to expand...
Frank please explain 2 things to me:
  1. Why are you talking about gross spend in this argument? Gross spend has no relevance to a debate on levels of backing given by owners. You could spend £500m gross every season without the club/owners spending a penny in actual terms.
  2. Why are you using a 10 year period? How many players do City or Utd have in their current squads that were signed 10 years ago? Why not make it 25 years? Is it because it gives a misleading representation of how much both sides are spending right now, to suit your argument?
Since Mourinho and Pep took over City have spent approximately £85m net more than Utd and as above, I'm using net spend as that indicates the amount of money a club is actually investing in players rather than just replacing sold players with money raised by selling them. In Mourinho and Pep's first season Utd's wage bill was approximately £20m more than City's, last season it was approximately £35m more than City. Even if we ignore the fact that Utd's wage bill is increasing quicker than City's and even cut the difference to just £20m for this current season, that's your £85m difference in net spend cancelled out. As of right now and for at least the last few seasons Utd are investing almost identical amounts to City in their squad.
 
BaZ87 said:
I think the point Moses is making is Utd are spending comparable amounts to City, just spending it badly.
Click to expand...

Only in the past few years. Aguero and Silva go back to 2010 with Kompany 2008. It is only since Jose has taken over that we have really spent big in the transfer window on the levels of City. City have been doing it for a decade now.
 
adam cool dude said:
Only in the past few years. Aguero and Silva go back to 2010. It is only since Jose has taken over that we have really spent big in the transfer window on levels of City. City have been doing it for a decade now.
Click to expand...
And Utd massively outspent City before City's takeover. That doesn't effect what's being spent right now and in the previous few years.

Nobody is questioning whether City have spent a lot, they had to in order to catch up but as of the last few years Utd have been spending just as much as what City have been spending. Frank's argument about it being impossible to compete with City on such an uneven playing field is nonsense on two levels - it's not uneven (at least from Utd's pov) as Utd are spending just as much and we've seen other sides including Utd challenge for and win the title since City's takeover.

The reason for the difference in level between City and Utd now is not that City are spending more money, it's that they've spent it better, have a proper structure in place with everybody working together and have a maanager making better use of the players at his disposal.
 
Money aside we just need competent people in there, don't care where they're from. Aren't there plenty of dodgy owners already? Not saying that makes it acceptable but it wouldn't be out of the norm.

I think it's wishful thinking anyway. They probably won't give up the cash cow easily.
 
If you were the Glazers would you give up the guaranteed income? think it would take an absolutely stupid offer for them to even consider it
 
BaZ87 said:
The reason for the difference in level between City and Utd now is not that City are spending more money, it's that they've spent it better, have a proper structure in place with everybody working together and have a maanager making better use of the players at his disposal.
Click to expand...

This summarises the difference between the two clubs perfectly. We should still be ahead of City based on our spending. We started at a much higher level, had much greater pulling power and literally everything was in our favour. Now its the other way around. It's embarrassing what we have allowed to happen.
 
I don't think there's a shame or embarrassment in it happening (switch in power to city), I think the embarrassment lies in our inability to see it occurring and reacting to it. Plenty of us saw it even before Fergie retired. The landscape was shifting and the board somehow failed to see the movement despite the results, in Europe at first.
 
Lukaku is not 'all that'.
Given his size, he should be 'bullying' defenders.....but ends up on his arse far too often.
Misses a lot more simple chances than he should, given his price tag & reputation.
 
Lukaku seems too cumbersome to me to play in a top footballing side. He's just a big lad who likes to throw his weight about in and around the penalty area.

He's a glorified Heskey.
 
Always thought he was a flat track bully to be honest. Not one to rely on for a goal against a City/Liverpool or Chelsea as he usually goes AWOL.

Would do a good job playing for a West Ham level side but he's not United quality. Certainly not worth the 70 mill he cost.
 
Lukaku is an odd one - statistically he's remarkably consistent long term in terms of goals per game;

Anderlecht 0.45 goals per game
Chelsea 0 goals per game
West Brom 0.48 goals per game
Everton 0.48 goals per game
Man Utd 0.45 goals per game

This trend is generally reflected on a season by season basis too, pretty much right up until this season where it's completely tailed off - is it a Lukaku problem, or is it a Jose influence problem? He wouldn't be the first player to perform worse.

That said i'd say there is an argument that his performance/stats should have improved at better teams where he should have been getting and converting more chances. Also such high level numbers don't account for whether he's scoring these goals against relegation teams or title contenders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom