Winter Transfer Window 22/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everybody is friends here, there's nothing to worry about there but I really am going back to work now or I'll be in big trouble with myself. And we've gone miles off topic, don't tell a mod.

@Doobedoo - Utd had spent as much if not more than any PL side in transfer fees too.

@adam cool dude - no they hadn't and over the 90s? I don't have to hand but in the first 10 years to 2002, circa £50m.
 
Last edited:
BaZ87 said:
Yes. We get lots of made up reports on transfer fees when the actual numbers are reported by football clubs in their accounts and usually completely different. I know you've previously argued with me about Utd's spending because you've read something on the internet that's different to what Utd have submitted to companies house. And as above, transfer fees are only one part of what a club spends on it's squad. Over the first 10 years of the PL Utd spent considerably more than any club in wages, far in excess of any possible difference in transfer fees.

For instance, Utd spent £100m and £130m more in wages in that period than big spenders Newcastle and Blackburn. Bearing in mind revenues in the early 90s were in the £20m range and only grew to £100m by the start of the 2000's, that's a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Liverpool spent 20 million more on players than United in 90's. What was the difference in wages?
 
adam cool dude said:
Liverpool spent 20 million more on players than United in 90's. What was the difference in wages?
Click to expand...
the wages part seems off. £130 million in the early 90’s yet what is it now £3-400 million.

Edit £231 million was the first result.
salarysport.com

Manchester United 2024 Wages | Player & Team totals

Manchester United's total wage bill per year is £185,120,520 and £3,560,010 per week | Search the most comprehensive salary and contract database.
salarysport.com salarysport.com
 
Last edited:
adam cool dude said:
Is this wrong then Baz as it clearly states @53 seconds that net spending for the end of the 90's Premier League clubs. Guess who spent the most?


Liverpool 99 million
United 80 Million
Newcastle 68 Million

Even when you look at 90's transfers that 19 million extra basically buys you an Andy Cole, Dwight Yorke, Teddy Sheringham and OGS altogether! How many league titles did Liverpool win that started in the 90's? Yes we had the class of 92 that does sway it a little but even still United won 7 titles in that period and Liverpool and Newcastle won absolutely nothing. Infact Liverpool won two cups in the 90's and that is it. This myth that United spent like crazy is annoying as hell.
Click to expand...
We weren’t even on that chart while winning doubles and going undefeated.

Legends!
 
Doobedoo said:
Debt? Training Ground? Stadium? Or just on the playing squad.
Click to expand...
BaZ87 said:
It went into funding Utd's growth through all or any of the above. I'm not really sure the relevance of the question. Utd had £x to spend on debt, training ground, stadium and players, after the investment they now had £x + £7m to spend on debt, training ground, stadium and players. Had they not had the investment then they couldn't have spent whatever they spent on all of those things.
Click to expand...

The investment UTD received after floating was mostly spent on renovating The Stretford End. They won the FA Cup & Cup Winners Cup and bought some players like Pallister, Ince, Phelan, Webb, Wallace for 8m before they had that investment and then later on Cantona plus young players like Giggs and Sharpe were pivotal in winning that first PL. Not to mention the class of 92.

There was plenty of spending happening in the 90s, some more than UTD, nowhere near comparable to what's happened with Chelsea or City. UTD grew much more organically than those two clubs. Its a lazy argument to just say yeah its always happened, its more complex than that.

Not sure what spurs were doing after they floated in 1983, maybe they should have won loads of trophies too?
 
gingergundog said:
Its a lazy argument to just say yeah its always happened, its more complex than that.
Click to expand...
What's complex about it? City (or whoever) have received investment from their owners to fund their grown, just as Utd and others did before. The numbers are just getting bigger but there's no fundamental difference to what happened before.
 
BaZ87 said:
What's complex about it? City (or whoever) have received investment from their owners to fund their grown, just as Utd and others did before. The numbers are just getting bigger but there's no fundamental difference to what happened before.
Click to expand...
UTD's growth back in the early 90's was more natural than say City since 2008, as soon as they were bought they broke the British transfer record. Yeah you can say we received 7m from the floatation in 1991 but that was spent on the stadium(think it cost more like 10m) and you can argue that is growing the club with the additional gate receipts etc but surely that takes a long time to get a return.
Arsenal, Blackburn and Liverpool for example were spending similar amounts to UTD in the early days of the PL.
 
gingergundog said:
UTD's growth back in the early 90's was more natural than say City since 2008, as soon as they were bought they broke the British transfer record. Yeah you can say we received 7m from the floatation in 1991 but that was spent on the stadium(think it cost more like 10m) and you can argue that is growing the club with the additional gate receipts etc but surely that takes a long time to get a return.
Arsenal, Blackburn and Liverpool for example were spending similar amounts to UTD in the early days of the PL.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you're determining what's natural growth or not - the £7m Utd received equates to 100s of £m's in today's money. And you say other sides were spending similar amounts to Utd - teams spend similar amounts to City today. Utd have spent as much as City have in the past decade.

Is state ownership of football clubs right? No and football finances are broken however they've been broken for decades. Football clubs have consistently lost money because they spend more than they generate and why do clubs spend more than they generate? Because there's always one or a collection of richer clubs that are setting the benchmark for spending. It's not been created by these Arab states, they're just the next big spenders that have taken spending to another level.
 
Utd were already spending well before that investment so disagree that was the catalyst for the success they had the following seasons, the backbone of the team was already established plus they already had some trophies. It was more spending off the back of success rather than someone coming in and giving them a blank cheque to buy whoever they wanted. The squad actually had a few average players but Sir Alex got the best out of them plus made some smart buys and its not like they went out and raided Serie A/La Liga for example. It played out differently to City/Chelsea.
 
gingergundog said:
Utd were already spending well before that investment so disagree that was the catalyst for the success they had the following seasons, the backbone of the team was already established plus they already had some trophies. It was more spending off the back of success rather than someone coming in and giving them a blank cheque to buy whoever they wanted. The squad actually had a few average players but Sir Alex got the best out of them plus made some smart buys and its not like they went out and raided Serie A/La Liga for example. It played out differently to City/Chelsea.
Click to expand...
I didn't state that the investment was the catalyst for success - I think you're trying to argue against a point that's not been made. The original point that sparked this chain of posts was in regards to the City's of this world having money pumped into their clubs and raising the bar for spending. This is nothing new. For decades we've always had a richer club, thanks to the help from outside investment, spend more than others and raise the bar.

Without investment, Utd would not have been able to grow as they did. That money allowed Utd to expand Old Trafford, further increasing their financial advantage, while maintaining their ability to spend as much if not more than anybody else. You cannot complain about other clubs now receiving outside investment that allows them to do the same thing, just because there's an extra 0 on the end of the numbers involved.
 
I wasn't arguing about clubs getting investments as that has always happened, more the wider argument by some people that they would not have had the success they did without the floatation. My point was more against utd being able to spend spend spend in the 90s, when in some seasons other teams were buying more players and spending more. It was a number of teams spending heavy that led to the increase. Cant compare the City success with what Utd achieved, totally different.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom