Winter Transfer Window 22/23
- Thread starter Bigpig
- Start date
- Status
You cannot compare United to City, Chelsea and the others. We are completely self funded through commercial enterprise. We have never had a billionaire owner or a state come in and pump money into the club, we’ve had the opposite, American owners come in and funnel a billion out of our club.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,276
- Location
- Dormanstown.
We're after Andre Ayew, who's 33 years of age.(Free agent)
Just lol.
He's got plenty of championship experience
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,253
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
How much have we injected into the stadium, academy and training facilities?
The only reason we could spend that money was decades of success and there isn't much left. Just look at Barcelona as we are going the same way if we are not careful. Newcastle can now outspend us and haven't won a thing for over 50 years. You wouldn't be jealous of that?
Last edited:
I think this very forum is a good indication that isn't true. People have always been bent out of shape because of the spending when clubs have been successful. I'm not even sure people genuinely care about human rights other than it's another drum to bang against a successful club. It's not like they are worse than China and I'm sure they take no moral high ground filling the house with Chinese made electronics. We have had about 10 years of United fans complaining City pushed the spending up while ignoring the 15 years before. It's such a broken game/competition. Yet despite all these billions poured into the game you still cannot legally watch all 38 of your teams league games. Or buy a TV season ticket because they dilute it across multiple platforms.
No better example of the cares of Human rights over money than Newcastle fans. How many season tickets were given up despite years and years of them bleating on about dirty money and human rights. How many will be given up if the Middle East buys Liverpool? Almost none. Yet you have great owners and right up until they decided they were seeking buyers the rumblings of discontent had started about wanting the yanks out. Doesn't sound to me like fans that value good owners over spending almost endless money.
The Saudi's could kill 100 women per day and as long as Newcastle win cup competition and continue to throw money at the club the stands will remain full.
No. We are in this position because we have been poorly run. We can complete just fine if we weren’t wasting huge sums of money. We don’t need a sugar daddy we just need competence.
Newcastle cannot outspend you. If they did they would end up in the same position Everton are in. Man City managed it because they had a period of time to build up fast pre FFP. Yeah they have still had some creative book keeping and sponsors but it's a different time now than when City burst on the scene with an endless pot of gold.
I'm not sure if you read my full post. I literally mentioned in the paragraph before the one that you've quoted that the majority don't care where the money comes from, they just want somebody to spend spend spend. I've commented in the past but these supporters are a big reason why football is broken.
The part you've quoted is in reply to sigma's post re the minority that do care. As you say, we've always had clubs that spend more than others. We've had somebody just now talk about Utd being self sufficient however in the 90's they floated on the stock market to raise capital in the same way City or whoevers owners have put capital into their clubs. The difference between Utd or Blackburn and now with Saudi, Qatar etc is the background of these states and why they're investing in football. Investment in Utd in the 90s was a business decision, Jack Walker putting money into Blackburn was because he loved the club where as RA bought Chelsea to stop himself mysteriously committing suicide and these Arab states are trying to wash away their dirty image.
Private equity is probably dirty money as well, what's to say it's not Oil money or even worse!
We've still spent big though.
Not jealous no, I'd prefer it if football wasn't so money focused. I guess it is what it is though.
Of course that’s never been in question. We are a huge commercial operation that generates big sums of money and the bar of entry has been raised by the likes of Chelsea, City, PSG and now Newcastle.
Possibly and it's often used as an excuse from supporters of state owned clubs for them to justify turning a blind eye to their owners however these arab states aren't investing into these groups or buying shares in large businesses to cover up the fact that 1000s of migrant workers are dying in their country each year or to take the attention away from x amount of executions or worse. These are commercial investments. Their motives for buying into football are political and image based investments. Football clubs, even the very biggest, are tiny businesses in the grand scheme of things however no other business can get you the same level of coverage or support as a football club can.
And Utd set the bar in the 90s and early 2000s thanks to outside investment they received to grow. From a purely financial and competitive advantage pov, why was Utd floating on the stock market to raise money different to a single investor putting money into these clubs?
Which was driven in the first place by United. What choice did anyone have when United would leak interest in Dwight Yorke or Andy Cole and pay huge fees for the time. Even the 3.75m you paid for Keane would be near £90-100m in todays money (as reported in the Athletic). For the time you were paying huge fees, that's what drove the money up and why Newcastle had to pay £15m for Shearer. If United hadn't been out spending everyone then we might actually have more British owned football teams. The reason they went searching for anyone with money was because of United, not Chelsea, City and co. The 30m you paid for Rooney in todays market is more than Chelsea just splashed out on Fernandez.
None of that would been a problem to United fans if they hadn't spent so utterly awfully.
We were the most successful club in English football and we received the spoils from that success.
The Glazers owned the club at that time, they are money men who not only took huge sums out of the club in the form of dividends and interest payments but also are set to reap a huge profit from the sale. They put little to no money in themselves it was all leveraged.
If Liverpool we as successful as we were you would’ve been in the same position. One title in 30 odd years means you’ve only just come to the table.
Blackburn? We were successful what do you expect lol.
I'm talking about in the 90s not under the Glazers ownership, when Utd weren't the most successful club in England Liverpool were (and are). Why was it ok for Utd to receive outside investment and increase the bar for spending? Your complaint re Chelsea, City etc is they're getting money from the outside and increasing fees and wages, Utd done the same in the 90s.
The only difference from Utd to Blackburn and beyond is new extremes but it's always gone on before.
Chelsea had a sugar daddy that came on day one and spent heavily. It wasn’t a natural process of success which earned money/investment it was the equivalent of a money cheat code. Different ball parks. Like I said if it was Liverpool instead of us which it was in the 80’s you would be in a different position.
I'm talking about in the 90s not under the Glazers ownership, when Utd weren't the most successful club in England Liverpool were (and are). Why was it ok for Utd to receive outside investment and increase the bar for spending? Your complaint re Chelsea, City etc is they're getting money from the outside and increasing fees and wages, Utd done the same in the 90s.
The only difference from Utd to Blackburn and beyond is new extremes but it's always gone on before.
We won every premier league title in the 90’s bar a few. Don’t forget one if not our most successful side had 5-6 homegrown players.
Last edited:
You're not answering the question. Utd raised capital to allow them to grow. Chelsea done the same, as have City and now Newcastle. From a spending and competitive advantage point of view, why is Utd raising money from multiple investors any different to Chelsea, City and Newcastle receiving their investment from a single investor?
You can have justifiable issues with these owners but you cannot complain about them setting a new bar for spending when Utd done the same thing before.
- Status