UEFAs salary cap

[FrankJH]

Very much so, that’d be an extra £1.3bn to spend on the club. Although with the way Utd have been blowing through money in recent times maybe it wouldn’t be that much of an improvement.

Although going from Jones > Verane, Lingard/James > Sancho certainly helps and would certainly have seen an upgrade from McSauce and Fred.

To be fair Ole's spending so far has been brilliant, but certainly from 2013 -2019 or so Utd wasted a **** load of money without doubt.

Ole hasnt done a duff deal imo - even James has been value for money given how little we spent on him (£15m) , although he does look out of his depth most of the time - and at any point as he is still very young we should get our money back at the very least.

With the new structure in place we should be good going forward (allowing of course that even well planned targets dont always work out for a multitude of reasons)

How many teams did Manu help pick apart? If you only allowed clubs to spend what they generated in profit it would be even worse. Manu would pick apart every team. How would that be better?

The market in general will still find a reasonable price for every player.

I do think every 20 year old that any team barely showing interest at going for £30-40m is a bit extreme (before Covid admittedly) , but in general the market works (and thats foreign players, not even including "british tax" that can double that amount for an EPL player going to another EPL team).

I dont think Man Utd picked any team apart - yeah of course we might have taken one player (from a particular team) - just like the whole market, generally players move to somewhere with a higher profile / better pay / more - or different - countries for the different league experiences on offer - no different from what Barca/ Real Madrid/ City or Chelsea or PSG have also done for years.

It just appears that Man Utd do the most because of how many players they are linked to every summer most of which is click bait / column inches and there is no basis at all.

Thats just how the market works.

The team being "picked apart" as you put it can then usually go and buy better player(s) to make themselves better in the long run.

Remember it takes two (or three) to tango - the interested club, the player themselves and the selling club....a lot of times for one reason or another they dont align at all and people forget about it (like Ronaldinho being on the verge of signing for Man Utd and ending up at Barca instead)


Is it fair that Chelsea have an academy thats larger than all EPL squads? They routinely have vast amount of players out on loan still on hefty contracts (for their age group /experience) ?
This means they regularly hoover up all the best talent from across Europe put them on a decent contract and ship them out on loan with very little risk and vast potential reward even if they never get a real chance in the EPL or sometimes even playing for the club.

 

[fez]

Not sure you could argue that United have picked apart any teams over the years. We have never bought from our direct rivals as far as I can remember, certainly not because we were United and they were a smaller club. Happy to be corrected.

The bigger issue in that regard is having 4-5 rich clubs in the league because they will have 44-55 first team spots to fill and will indeed reduce the strength of a lot of the other teams in the league.

 

[adam cool dude]

Not sure you could argue that United have picked apart any teams over the years. We have never bought from our direct rivals as far as I can remember, certainly not because we were United and they were a smaller club. Happy to be corrected.

The bigger issue in that regard is having 4-5 rich clubs in the league because they will have 44-55 first team spots to fill and will indeed reduce the strength of a lot of the other teams in the league.

Your memory of 2012-13 seems to evade you. Back then Arsenal were a top 4 club and we got RVP for a steal

 

[fez]

Your memory of 2012-13 seems to evade you. Back then Arsenal were a top 4 club and we got RVP for a steal

Oh I did think of RvP but he was in his last year of his contract and wanted to actually win something. I wouldn’t say we stole him away from a direct rival. Arsenal hadn’t been PL/CL contenders for a while at that point. Man that was a brilliant season from RvP. I still go and watch goal compilations of it.

 

[HangTime]

There has always been ways round these sort of things anyway, it's like the old brown envelopes in the changing rooms etc,
[QUOTE="adam cool dude, post: 35039427, member: 2633]Newcastle, Liverpool and Blackburn all outspent us in the 90's. That is a fact.[/QUOTE]
Numbers vary depending on what source you look at but for 92-00 it looks like about an £8m net spend for Blackburn compared to ~£42m for MU.
In the early years it's true Blackburn were spending more than rivals but overall their net spend actually wasn't that high in the 90s overall, about £1m/season average.

 

[adam cool dude]

There has always been ways round these sort of things anyway, it's like the old brown envelopes in the changing rooms etc,
[QUOTE="adam cool dude, post: 35039427, member: 2633]Newcastle, Liverpool and Blackburn all outspent us in the 90's. That is a fact.

Numbers vary depending on what source you look at but for 92-00 it looks like about an £8m net spend for Blackburn compared to ~£42m for MU.
In the early years it's true Blackburn were spending more than rivals but overall their net spend actually wasn't that high in the 90s overall, about £1m/season average.[/QUOTE]

Yes because by the mid to late 90's they were broke and had to sell off their players which reduced their net spend. They got a world record transfer fee for Shearer. 16 Million was unheard of in 1996. They also sold us Henning Berg for £5 which was a record for a defender for the time. We bought Ole Gunnar Solskjaer for £1.5m instead of Shearer.

 

[Eurofighter]

The question I want to know the answer to as a Burnley fan, are we getting some of City's money?

 

[Psycho Sonny]

That sounds like a completely pointless idea if you can just bypass it and pay a tax. City et al don't give a **** about money. This would literally give the carte blanche to buy whoever they want at whatever price. This does no one any good.

Lots of clubs are already at a handicap due to funds available.

Either you limit every football club to £30 million a season to create a level playing field or you just let whoever wants to spend the most do so.

The likes of Ajax for instance can never compete with anyone for players.

 

[adam cool dude]

Lots of clubs are already at a handicap due to funds available.

Either you limit every football club to £30 million a season to create a level playing field or you just let whoever wants to spend the most do so.

The likes of Ajax for instance can never compete with anyone for players.

On the other hand Ajax who have an excellent academy will benefit massively from a cap.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

On the other hand Ajax who have an excellent academy will benefit massively from a cap.

Academies is what everyone should be focusing on rather than just outspending their opponents.

How can you expect a club to compete if one has a budget of say £30 million and the other has a budget of £600 million per year?

It's no longer a fair contest. It's about being in the right league. Right league meaning those leagues which generate the most revenue through TV rights.

The fact Swansea and Cardiff are allowed into the premiership. Yet other bigger clubs aren't from within the UK is an example.

You then have a system where. The likes of Brentford and Southampton which aren't that good can poach quality players from smaller leagues because they cannot match wages.

You have a player who has wasted 3 years of his life on the bench at Southampton and was let go the other day yet was offered a contract last year and turned it down to play first team football because his wages would have been a third of what they are to sit on the bench there.

Messi left because his wages weren't being paid rather than take a pay cut because he's on a million a week and knows he can get similar elsewhere if he leaves on a free.

The champions League is a farce 90% of the team's aren't even champions. Then you have champions who can't qualify because of co-efficient so the rich get richer whilst the poorer teams get poorer.

No wonder they tried to create a super League for more money all the big leagues and big teams only care about bringing on more money to effectively create a monopoly whereby only they have a real chance of winning anything.

That's great if you happen to support one of those teams but effectively you are destroying football and there hasn't been a level playing field for nigh on 2 decades now.

The fact that the team that gets relegated gets more money than all the teams in Scotland combined from the premiership shows the vast difference in wealth. That you could get hammered on every game yet still be given over a hundred million for doing so.

I can see a system where teams who do get into the premiership rather than spending big money and trying to stay up. Actually try and cut costs and pocket as much of the £100 million they can so they have a monopoly in the championship where they can go back up again and then rinse and repeat. Hovering between the two as it makes more sense financially. Because it's extremely hard to go up and stay up without going into the brink of administration for a small club.

Nottingham forest, Leeds United and lots of other teams that used to be great just cannot realistically ever win the premiership ever again.

It's a bit like formula one where the guy with the fastest car wins every year. Smaller F1 teams are aiming for 7th or 8th place as they know the top 6 are taken by the top 3 teams.

 

[Martynt74]

Numbers vary depending on what source you look at but for 92-00 it looks like about an £8m net spend for Blackburn compared to ~£42m for MU.
In the early years it's true Blackburn were spending more than rivals but overall their net spend actually wasn't that high in the 90s overall, about £1m/season average.

Yes because by the mid to late 90's they were broke and had to sell off their players which reduced their net spend. They got a world record transfer fee for Shearer. 16 Million was unheard of in 1996. They also sold us Henning Berg for £5 which was a record for a defender for the time. We bought Ole Gunnar Solskjaer for £1.5m instead of Shearer.[/QUOTE]

I think that his point was that United may not have been the highest spenders in any particular season, but that they were constantly "up there" every season so your point of saying the other teams outspent United wasn't really genuine as that only looked at any given season where teams would need to make big changes, whereas United only needed small additions each year as they'd been building up consistently every year by and outspending all their rivals.