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

He overperformed the seasons prior to that too and you didn't finish 2nd. And you cannot put the entire blame on Mourinho. He finished 2nd with the players you mention and in Smalling's case, I think he would still be your best CB now.

Anyway, we're going round in circles. It sounds like we're both happy he's getting a new contract though.
 
I am honestly not sure who or what people want to do better than Ole though. People make it like we can compete with the likes of City and PSG.

Unless you can get someone like Klopp and get all the stars to align and be injury free that is the only way you are going to beat City to a league title.

City's problem was always attracting the players because as it did have money it had no heritage to attract the top names. If they go on to win the quad this year it will lead to a dominance unseen before.

This summer they will get Messi or Haaland and just go into the stratosphere.

Liverpool will be no where near them next season either as they just don't have the resources to spend and they need to spend a lot this summer.

The only team who can compete with City are more than likely Chelsea and that is really it.
 
Your defeatist mentality is baffling Adam. Liverpool didn't spend fortunes to challenge them nor were we injury free. And Utd are spending as much as City!
 
We're not spending as much as City, their first team squad cost a lot more than ours (850m on Transfermarkt compared to 682m for ours with one more player) That's a pretty significant difference.
 
Shamikebab said:
We're not spending as much as City, their first team squad cost a lot more than ours (850m on Transfermarkt compared to 682m for ours with one more player) That's a pretty significant difference.
Click to expand...
Yes you are and who needs Transfermarkt when we have clubs audited accounts?

Between the 11/12 season and 19/20 season both sides have a gross spend of £1.2bn. Utd's net spend £938m and City £832m. So in gross terms Utd have spent just as much but their net outlay has actually been nearly £100m more than City's. In that period Utd have also spent more on wages than City too. So yes, Utd are spending as much on their squad as City. The reason why Utd's squad might not have cost as much (I've no idea if that is the case) is because Utd have spent very poorly and have replaced expensive flops with not quite as expensive players.

 
What does the accounts have to do with it? We're talking about Solskjaer, judging him on financials before he was even there seems a bit weird. Plus I've already told you why net spend is a poor way to judge a manager. Surely the amount invested in the current playing squad is a better way to judge how he should be competing against them?

So our first team squad cost roughly 80% what theirs cost.

And we have roughly 80% of their points (with one game played less)
 
Shamikebab said:
What does the accounts have to do with it?
Click to expand...
You literally just replied to me saying Utd are spending as much as City. You denied that was the case so I showed it was :confused:

And for clarity, not that it is needed, I was arguing against Adam's defeatist point that nobody can compete with City because of their money. Well Utd spend as much.

edit: and you can tell me why net spend is a poor way to judge a manager as much as you like. I disagree and it's not relevant to the point above.
 
BaZ87 said:
Your defeatist mentality is baffling Adam. Liverpool didn't spend fortunes to challenge them nor were we injury free. And Utd are spending as much as City!
Click to expand...

It is not defeatist it is reality.

Man Utd's normal eleven for the past two seasons = 372m (Doesn't include Pogba but if you did swap him out for Fred it would take the squad to the 400m region)

Liverpool's normal eleven = 338m (This does highlight how well Liverpool have spent but a lot of their signings came before transfers went mad.)

Man City's Normal eleven (Their squad is so strong I simply picked the starting eleven against United). = 503m

Man City B team made up of players that didn't start against United (Had to make it 5 at the back as didn't have enough forwards). = 343M

That's over 420 million average between the two teams!!!!!!

Don't get me wrong you get the odd couple of seasons where one team will do extremely well like the Liverpool of the past two but law of averages will come back in the end where oil money rules them all. Even still Liverpool splashed a cool 130m on a CB and Keeper to win a title and champions league.

Both of Cities A and B squads cost more than Liverpool's first and Cities first 11 beats United to the tune of 130 million. I cant even be bothered to calculate Liverpool's and United's B team but it will be a low figure.

If City win the Quad this year it will be 8 major trophies in 3 years which is astonishing and to think where the club were only 10 years ago it is only going in one direction. City are already worth more than Liverpool and catching up on United fast who have history dating back 70 years. Cities history is 10 years old!

I just find it hilarious that getting rid of Ole who is about the only decent thing at the club is the solution. He has shown improvement every year and considering how junior he is into the role compared to other "big" managers we have had is a good sign. His win percentage compared to Jose is near enough the same and took over a far worse squad than he did. We are 455 million in debt with owners that seek to do nothing but leech from the club. No one is beating City on law of average for a very long time.
 
BaZ87 said:
edit: and you can tell me why net spend is a poor way to judge a manager as much as you like. I disagree and it's not relevant to the point above.
Click to expand...

Ok Let's say for example we lost three players on a free transfer and that was our only transfer dealings in a window. Do you think the squad strength has gone up, down or remained the same? The net spend hasn't changed, so by your logic the squad should be capable of exactly what they were before right?

This is why judging on net spend is completely nonsensical, even ignoring other issues like players retiring/signing on a free transfer, wages, differing player ages etc.
 
BaZ87 said:
Well Utd spend as much.
Click to expand...

I just worked out our B team which comes to 252m so a combined 22 players = 624

Cities is 846 which is 222 million more than United.

That gives United a Sancho/Harry Kane type player with spare change for decent CDM and CB. Where would we be in the league with that.................
 
I'd save time on the calculator Adam, I've just posted the audited figures. Utd have invested more money into their squad than City have. You can't argue with that, sorry.
adam cool dude said:
It is not defeatist it is reality.
Click to expand...
It's not. Liverpool beat them to the title and went neck and neck with them the season prior. And City, despite all their money, have failed to win the CL which we did win. And as above, Utd have invested more money into their squad than City have over the last 10 years. The reason why City are doing better than Utd is because they've spent it better and smarter.

This stuff about City was said about Chelsea in 2007 too. It never works out like that. Yes, the more money you have the easier it is and City will be there or there abouts most seasons but as Utd have shown, teams can spend it badly. There's enough good players to go around for Chelsea, Utd and Liverpool to build squads capable of challenging and beating City.
Shamikebab said:
Ok Let's say for example we lost three players on a free transfer and that was our only transfer dealings in a window. Do you think the squad strength has gone up, down or remained the same? The net spend hasn't changed, so by your logic the squad should be capable of exactly what they were before right?

This is why judging on net spend is completely nonsensical, even ignoring other issues like players retiring/signing on a free transfer, wages, differing player ages etc.
Click to expand...
You're using an extreme example and all you're proving is that it shouldn't be used in isolation, although even things like that ultimately fall at the feet of the manager and or director of football. Fernandes, Pogba, Rashford & Greenwood cost Utd a combined £160m odd - if Utd sell those for £300m this summer and spend £200m on replacements should they automatically be better off? Afterall they only spent £160m on the players they sold and have spent £200m on their replacements?

A club can only give a manager and or DoF money to invest. How they build their squad, including how they deal with players approaching the end of their contract, is their decision. If the manager/dof decide to allow or risk players running down their contract they are accountable for that.
 
So we're agreed, net spend is a dumb way of comparing managers. Glad you agree. I love how my 'extreme' examples are all things that happen on a yearly basis.
 
BaZ87 said:
I'd save time on the calculator Adam, I've just posted the audited figures. Utd have invested more money into their squad than City have. You can't argue with that, sorry.
Click to expand...

We have a current squad of 22v22 players that cost 222 million less than Cities. That is present day fact not looking at transfers from 5 years ago.

I never said we haven't spent bad but the fact is Cities current playing squad cost 222 million than ours. I also do not know what figures you are looking at but pretty much every single one puts City as the highest net spenders of the past decade.

I also never said that teams couldn't beat City. You will have seasons where that will happen but in general it will be Cities to lose for the foreseeable future. Especially as their revenue becomes larger and larger as they start winning more and more.
 
adam cool dude said:
...
Click to expand...
Adam, I have no idea where you've got your figures from but I'm looking at the correct ones. These are the figures that are recorded in clubs accounts and filed with companies house. You cannot dispute the fact that Utd have spent more money over the past 10 years than City, both in net spend terms (and equal in gross spend terms) and wages. The argument that nobody can compete with City because of the money they have is simply not true, you are spending more money than them.

I have no idea if the players in your current squad cost more or less than City's and I couldn't care less - all that shows is you've spent money terribly on players that have been sold at huge losses or given away, not that you've not spent it. Liverpool have shown that you can have a net outlay a lot less than Utd and compete with and beat City.
Shamikebab said:
So we're agreed, net spend is a dumb way of comparing managers. Glad you agree. I love how my 'extreme' examples are all things that happen on a yearly basis.
Click to expand...
No, unless you can't read. Net spend is a key measure when judging a manager, certainly more so than total cost of a squad or gross spend, because they don't take into account how poorly a manager has spent money or what they've had to sacrifice to generate money.

edit: and please tell me the last time Utd lost 3 players on free transfers and didn't sign a single replacement. As it's so common, I assume that's happened numerous times in the PL era.

Managers & DoF's take their share of responsibility for players leaving on a free, so even if your make believe scenario that's never happened to a top flight club did happen, the manager/dof would be at least partially responsible. And for every player lost on a free you have a player signed on a free :)
 
BaZ87 said:
Adam, I have no idea where you've got your figures from but I'm looking at the correct ones. These are the figures that are recorded in clubs accounts and filed with companies house. You cannot dispute the fact that Utd have spent more money over the past 10 years than City, both in net spend terms (and equal in gross spend terms) and wages. The argument that nobody can compete with City because of the money they have is simply not true, you are spending more money than them.

I have no idea if the players in your current squad cost more or less than City's and I couldn't care less - all that shows is you've spent money terribly on players that have been sold at huge losses or given away, not that you've not spent it. Liverpool have shown that you can have a net outlay a lot less than Utd and compete with and beat City.
Click to expand...

You couldn't care less what our current squad cost but interested in players we bought ten years ago who are not longer at the club. I got my figures from transfermarkt and whilst not 100% accurate will give you a clear indication.

Whilst our transfer spending has been close to Cities over the past ten years it cannot go on forever as ours is riddled with debt where as Cities is just pocket change. It is money built up on decades of success that will run out eventually.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1

I am not arguing that we haven't bought poorly because we have but it still doesn't change the fact that cities squad is roughly 200 million more than ours on bought players. That is 25% more than our current assembled squad. Yet people are expecting Solskjaer to compete head to head. I think the fact that Solskjaer is the only manager who has beaten Pep more times than he has beaten him and is also on course to be the first manager since SAF to qualify for the Champions League through league position in back to back seasons is something to be happy with. We haven't lost away in the league for over a year and haven't lost in the league since January. All this with injuries to our top players yet we are not languishing mid table.

The only thing eluding him is that first trophy to get that winning mentality back into the squad and his only option now is the Europa League.
 
You chaps going on about cost etc... I guess that’s not important to me as it doesn’t escape the fact that 95% of the games in recent years have been boring/awful to watch and incredibly inconsistent.
He could spend a billion quid, I don’t care, I just want to watch entertaining football and feel like the team is doing their best and on a consistent basis.
Ole doesn’t seem to be getting this out of the players or inspiring this or coaching this.
People have mentioned that we only did well because of DDG one season, which I completely agree with, but we’ve only been doing well the last year or so because of Fernandes! So... go team Ole!

Any more money talk, your punishment will be watching all the games where we’ve somehow won from a penalty, a terrible decision/plain luck or the awful form of the other team, not from cohesive, exciting football. :D
 
Last edited:
adam cool dude said:
You couldn't care less what our current squad cost but interested in players we bought ten years ago who are not longer at the club.
Click to expand...
Correct. At least twice in the past few days you've commented on how nobody can compete with City's oil money or words to that effect. That is simply untrue! Utd have been spending more money than City.

The reason why Utd haven't been able to (or can't) compete with City is not because of finances but because City have a far better manager and structure behind him. When they've spent and they've spent a lot, more than any other club except Utd in fact, they've got better value both in terms of resell value when that player has moved on and contribution to their side.
 
BaZ87 said:
The reason why Utd haven't (or can't) compete with City is not because of finances but because City have a far better manager and structure behind him. When they've spent and they've spent a lot, more than any other club except Utd in fact, they've got better value both in terms of resell value when that player has moved on and contribution to their side.
Click to expand...

This is the sad truth of the matter. City, Liverpool, Bayern all have a very strong management structure and a clear plan for their future.

I don't think many sensible United fans believe that we will be competing with City for a while yet. Its not unreasonable to expect a certain quality of football, a certain level of progress in our style and ability on the pitch (as there is so much to improve). I made peace with the fact that we wouldn't be winning the CL or league for a long time years ago. Barring a miracle that still stands true. Even if we got a top manager tomorrow I think it could be 3 years until we could be at that stage. We don't expect miracles. We expect progress and the hint that somewhere on the horizon there is some of our old success.

Think about Liverpool for the first few years under Klopp. Flashes of what was to come and a definite upward trajectory in their results, style of play, entertainment value and consistency. I see almost none of that at United at the moment. You have some vague argument that results are better but this is a bizarre season and we have still scraped our way through so many games and we are still getting out played by the ******** teams in the league regularly. They just don't have the strikers to punish us.

Ole will clearly be here next season and I think he will be sacked after Christmas when it becomes clear that we haven't made any progress for a few years under him. Rinse. Repeat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom