Winter Transfer Window 22/23

[Doobedoo]

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.

But it’s not on the same level is it? Did you not do the same at the height of your powers? Did you not attract the best players, pay better wages, offer better cars as incentives. How far do you need to go back.

You can’t be seriously putting the way we did it in the same bracket as, Chelsea, City ect. Can you. We can compared to Barca, Madrid, AC Milan or any of the other great European clubs who achieved much and spent much. City, Chelsea, PSG and Newcastle are in a different bracket.

 

[BaZ87]

But it’s not on the same level is it? Did you not do the same at the height of your powers? Did you not attract the best players, pay better wages, offer better cars as incentives. How far do you need to go back.

You can’t be seriously putting the way we did it in the same bracket as, Chelsea, City ect. Can you. We can compared to Barca, Madrid, AC Milan or any of the other great European clubs who achieved much and spent much. City, Chelsea, PSG and Newcastle are in a different bracket.

No it's not the same level just like a mid table PL side is spending more now than a mid table PL side in 1995. Or Jack Walker's spending is not the same level as RA and his is not the same as Qatar. Your complaint though was that these clubs are setting new bars for spending but that's always happened. You cannot complain about them while ignoring Utd doing the same prior.

In 1991, before Utd had any success, Utd raised circa £7m to fund their growth. £7m doesn't sound like much now but adjusting for football inflation (Utd's revenue back then would have been sub £20m), you're talking about £250m odd in today's money. That investment allowed Utd to grow and to set new bars for spending. Jack Walker come along and put £xm into Blackburn to fund their growth - again that amount seems like nothing now but was big money back then. Even RA's spending in the mid 2000s is nothing compared to today. You might not believe it will happen at the time but somebody richer always comes along.

 

[sigma]

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 are MUFC, do as we say, not as we do.

We're also the greatest team on the planet!

 

[Doobedoo]

No it's not the same level just like a mid table PL side is spending more now than a mid table PL side in 1995. Or Jack Walker's spending is not the same level as RA and his is not the same as Qatar. Your complaint though was that these clubs are setting new bars for spending but that's always happened. You cannot complain about them while ignoring Utd doing the same prior.

In 1991, before Utd had any success, Utd raised circa £7m to fund their growth. £7m doesn't sound like much now but adjusting for football inflation (Utd's revenue back then would have been sub £20m), you're talking about £250m odd in today's money. That investment allowed Utd to grow and to set new bars for spending. Jack Walker come along and put £xm into Blackburn to fund their growth - again that amount seems like nothing now but was big money back then. Even RA's spending in the mid 2000s is nothing compared to today. You might not believe it will happen at the time but somebody richer always comes along.

I remember as a kind hearing about Ronaldo being signed for Inter Milan and he was on £100,000 a week and thinking wow that is ridiculous. Remember football was much more competitive on a European stage back then.

Chelsea started their rampage and remember John Terry and Lampard getting new contracts of £130,000 a week so inflation wasn’t solely caused by us. Since then wages and fees have skyrocketed.

 

[BaZ87]

I remember as a kind hearing about Ronaldo being signed for Inter Milan and he was on £100,000 a week and thinking wow that is ridiculous.

Chelsea started their rampage and remember John Terry and Lampard getting new contracts of £130,000 a week so inflation wasn’t solely caused by us. Since then wages and fees have skyrocketed.

I'm not saying it was just caused by Utd. My point is that we've always had somebody richer, spending more money than others. Whether it was the Italian clubs in the 80s or PSG and whoever today. You're singling out Chelsea, City etc but it's always gone on, including with the club you support. As I said in a previous post, we're just seeing new extremes but fundamentally it's no different than before.

 

[robfosters]

Baz is busily justifying it for when a mass murdering Saudi mob take over Liverpool and start doing it

 

[BaZ87]

Baz is busily justifying it for when a mass murdering Saudi mob take over Liverpool and start doing it

They're not mass murders rob, their culture is just different to ours!

 

[Doobedoo]

I'm not saying it was just caused by Utd. My point is that we've always had somebody richer, spending more money than others. Whether it was the Italian clubs in the 80s or PSG and whoever today. You're singling out Chelsea, City etc but it's always gone on, including with the club you support. As I said in a previous post, we're just seeing new extremes but fundamentally it's no different than before.

Yes but wether Chelsea and city are solely responsible for it or spawned the origins is a different matter, they certainly have made a measurable increase to the bar or is that wrong?

 

[sigma]

Baz is busily justifying it for when a mass murdering Saudi mob take over Liverpool and start doing it

Ironically the Americans have probably started more wars in recent history than the Saudi mob have?

 

[Doobedoo]

Ironically the Americans have probably started more wars than the Saudi mob?

Averaged a major war every 20 years or so as Carlin said.

 

[BaZ87]

Yes but wether Chelsea and city are solely responsible for it is a different matter, they certainly have made a measurable increase to the bar or is that wrong?

No. If you look through historical wages, you see a spike when RA tookover Chelsea and again when City arrived. Again, my initial reply to you was that it's always happened, including when Utd started spending more than everybody in the early 90s. It happened in the 80s too when English clubs were trying to stop players from going off to Italy.

If people have issues with these state owners around human rights and the like then fine but you cannot complain about their spending when we've always had somebody spending more than everybody else.

Ironically the Americans have probably started more wars than the Saudi mob?

Don't start this argument! John Henry and the Glazers had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq! Being American doesn't make your responsible for the actions of America, just like being from Saudi doesn't make you responsible for the actions of the Saudi state. The difference is, I'm very doubtful that there's any Saudi with the money to buy a major PL side that isn't connected to the Saudi state.

 

[Doobedoo]

No. If you look through historical wages, you see a spike when RA tookover Chelsea and again when City arrived. Again, my initial reply to you was that it's always happened, including when Utd started spending more than everybody in the early 90s. It happened in the 80s too when English clubs were trying to stop players from going off to Italy.

If people have issues with these state owners around human rights and the like then fine but you cannot complain about their spending when we've always had somebody spending more than everybody else.

Don't start this argument! John Henry and the Glazers had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq! Being American doesn't make your responsible for the actions of America, just like being from Saudi doesn't make you responsible for the actions of the Saudi state. The difference is, I'm very doubtful that there's any Saudi with the money to buy a major PL side that isn't connected to the Saudi state.

Round in circles we go.

 

[Doobedoo]

I’ve always had an issue with the way Chelsea have gone about it, it’s why I’ve never really been Jealous of City’s success on the pitch, I’ll always rather City win the title than Liverpool for example, because I’ve always seen City’s success as soulless, as a form of cheating, where as Liverpools would be genuine success. Whether that’s right of wrong is another thing but that’s how I will always view it.

 

[BaZ87]

Round in circles we go.

I'm not sure if you've misunderstood something. My 'no' was in answer to your question "is it wrong" - no it's not wrong. There's no debate that the arrival of RA took spending to a new level, just like City's ownership have but again, it's always happened which you're not really willing to acknowledge.

 

[Doobedoo]

I'm not sure if you've misunderstood something. My 'no' was in answer to your question "is it wrong" - no it's not wrong. There's no debate that the arrival of RA took spending to a new level, just like City's ownership have but again, it's always happened which you're not really willing to acknowledge.

Thanks so after multiple posts you’ve finally acknowledged the exact point I actually was making.

 

[BaZ87]

Thanks so after multiple posts you’ve finally acknowledged the exact point I actually was making.

LOL! You're taking the biscuit now. You began by not acknowledging that Utd set the spending levels in the 90s, you then claimed it was self sufficient when Utd had actually received outside investment, you then claimed it was off the back of success, despite that investment coming in before Utd won anything! You don't half change your argument sometimes

 

[Doobedoo]

LOL! You're taking the biscuit now. You began by not acknowledging that Utd set the spending levels in the 90s, you then claimed it was self sufficient when Utd had actually received outside investment, you then claimed it was off the back of success, despite that investment coming in before Utd won anything! You don't half change your argument sometimes

Ok no worries I never said it was only Chelsea and City that raised the bar but look your level of knowledge is impressive but wasn’t needed.

 

[Doobedoo]

Your posts were food for thought so I did a quick bit of Googling and came across this.

article was published on RoM last weekto quell the misconception that the reason why United ended the title drought of 26 years was because Sir Alex Ferguson spent a load of money, the same as Chelsea and City have done more recently. When Chelsea or City are criticised for “buying” success, a usual response is that United did exactly the same in the 80’s and 90’s. This is quite simply not true.

In Ferguson’s first five years he spent the same amount as Spurs (£19m) and less than Liverpool (£24m). Whilst United’s spending was more than the average team, we were by no means blowing others out of the water in the same way that Chelsea and City have done.

In one of United’s most successful eras, our net spend over six years was in negative numbers. We won four titles in this time as well two FA Cups. It’s worth noting that during this time, Ferguson put his faith in players from the youth team, despite the mocking of others. When Mark Hughes, Andrei Kanchelskis and Paul Ince were replaced with the likes of Paul Scholes, David Beckham and Nicky Butt, Alan Hansen wasn’t the only person saying we wouldn’t win anything! It’s also interesting to note just how much money Arsenal spent ahead of their double win in 1998.

Did United buy success like Chelsea and City? Course not - Republik Of Mancunia: A Manchester United Blog

An article was published on RoM last week to quell the misconception that the reason why United ended the title drought of 26 years was because Sir Alex Ferguson spent a load of money, the same as Chelsea and City have done more recently. When Chelsea or City are criticised for "buying" success...

therepublikofmancunia.com

 

[dannyjo22]

So how do Leicester get away with a debt to equity clear out again. So they run up 194m in debt and the parent company can just clear it? How does that work with FFP? Someone educate me how that works.

 

[BaZ87]

Your posts were food for thought so I did a quick bit of Googling and came across this.

Ferguson took the Utd job in 1986, Utd's investment arrived in 1991

Utd were the biggest spenders in the 90s, setting new levels on fees and wages and they were able to do so thanks to raising equity in 1991 that funded their growth.