Manchester United Thread

To be fair Beach, De Gea is goal keeper at biggest club in the world (apart from real Madrid)

The number 1 there will always be scrutinized.

He is the best young keeper in the world right now, even talk of Barca being interested.

Dont know why modern football supporter worries about the media so much either.
 
Good read if you've any interest in dispelling common football myths with facts. http://therepublikofmancunia.com/did-united-buy-success-like-chelsea-and-city-course-not/

Not that it will halt the narrative, but I found it rather stark. The basic gist is that at only one period in United's last 30 years have they spent more than rivals - and that was 1999-2003, when we weren't even that good!

The big point for me is what ROM highlights - this idea that City/Chelsea are just doing what United did. This has become 'common knowledge' - but in fact isn't true at all. As a brief summary:

Fergie's first 5 seasons: United spent less than Spurs and Liverpool
92 - 98: 7th highest spend (behind Spurs, Newcastle, LFC, Chelsea and yes, Manchester City
99 - 03: United highest, LFC second
04 - 12: United 4th, behind (obviously) City and Chelsea, less obviously behind LFC
 
First of all: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Second: Interesting how the periods are split up. You could probably paint a different picture by choosing different periods.

I remember in the late 80's, when building the team that would go onto end Utd's title drought, they spent around 10m or so in the space of a 12-18 month period.
 
Godotelli said:
First of all: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Second: Interesting how the periods are split up. You could probably paint a different picture by choosing different periods.

I remember in the late 80's, when building the team that would go onto end Utd's title drought, they spent around 10m or so in the space of a 12-18 month period.
Click to expand...

Wait, a City fan that finds financial discussions zzzzzzz? Shock.

Just saying, the media and fans of other teams have painted a picture that United outspent everyone under Fergie. It's not true.

They may have spent 10m in 2 seasons back in the late 80's, but that surely even moreso makes it useful to look at a 5 year period? That's like saying LFC have outspent Manchester City recently - because if you just look at a 9 month period they did.

I've heard numerous LFC fans say Fergie just came into United and outspent everyone to create his first title winning team. When you look at the numbers, in that time period United spent less than Liverpool. I find that interesting.

Also worth noting as I've said many times that City/Chelsea's spending as % of the rest of the league is utterly unprecedented. Even at the most divergent point United was spending around 15-20% more than other clubs. City/Chelsea is more like 300%.

Let me put it one last way. As a City fan, would you have any respect whatsoever if United spend 300m over the next year and win the title again?
 
Just bored of you obsessing about money! You're like Benni and Benitez ;)

Slicing stats up into arbitrary periods is at best naive and at worst dishonest. Stats can be played about with to paint almost any picture you want to paint. Let's say City sell Mario and Dzeko in Jan or the summer for a combined 50-55m, I don't get to take away that amount from the money we have spent in the previous 2 years. That'd just be dishonest/stupid.

It'd be more interesting to see how much the players cost who played substantial parts in any success. Wasted money is wasted money and doesn't go into the gaining of success. For instance, signing a player for millions who doesn't play very often and doesn't contribute much has by definition contributed little to nothing of any success gained. It's a spectrum and not black or white. The money we wasted on the likes of Santa Cruz shouldn't really be added into any equation of success buying.

Also, you can't just look at figures even if you take into account basic inflation. SKY, homegrown rules, CL rule changes, the introduction of the transfer window and the 'rich tax' the likes of Chelsea and City have had no choice but to put up, as well as general global economic changes, these types of environmental facts have all contributed to the differences in spending by different teams at different times in order to solidify or gain their success.

(Also, on the other side of the equation, some of the overinflated/rip-off amounts spent by Chelsea and City have helped swell the coffers of other clubs leading to lower net spending on their part. Off the top of my head I wouldn't expect it to be one of the major factors but it is likely worth looking at.)


On a side note, if you look at other changing factors that contribute towards success (both on and off the field). How many more European Cups would Liverpool (or any half successful team) have won by now had the qualification for the tournament been as it is now?. Back then only the top team could enter. When Utd won it in 99 they weren't champions, iirc. (granted Liverpool won it last without being Champions!)
 
Last edited:
Godotelli is right on this one Beach, it is boring going on about what Utd have/haven't spent.

Man City are an oil tycoons play thing, you just have to accept it.
 
Godotelli said:
Just bored of you obsessing about money! You're like Benni and Benitez ;)

Slicing stats up into arbitrary periods is at best naive and at worst dishonest. Stats can be played about with to paint almost any picture you want to paint. Let's say City sell Mario and Dzeko in Jan or the summer for a combined 50-55m, I don't get to take away that amount from the money we have spent in the previous 2 years. That'd just be dishonest/stupid.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. This is sliced into equal 5-year increments. It was designed to look at the 4 'teams' Fergie built. Maybe that's arbitrary, but I don't really see why.

I also agree on inflation, which is why I liked the approach of the author. Rather than doing it in absolute terms, he did it relative. Because that removes the inflationary affect. United spent 50% more than LFC between X and Y is the same regardless of when it happens.

These are exactly the reasons why I like the analysis.

Listen I could care less about City's financial position. But it does bug me when the defense is 'oh this is exactly what United did in the late 80s/mid 90s/etc'. It's a non-truth that has been repeated enough times to become truth.

Just like Roy Keane ending Haaland's career. If you ask 90% of football fans, they believe he did.

It annoys me in the same way that 37% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
 
It's not 5 year increments tho is it. (not that choosing 5 year increments wouldn't make it any less arbitrary)

Utd didn't do exactly, it's a question of degree, what Chelsea or City did, but you can't compare the environments (for the reasons I've already stated). To put it in very basic terms, Utd came into their successful period (with the help of big spending - even if it was wiser than rivals) at a convenient time.

RE: Haaland and that thug, bit of a coincidence that he never managed a full game again
 
The point about not counting Santa Cruz cause he sucked is ridiculous. City have so much money they can afford to buy failures at will... No repercussions
 
gomito#10 said:
The point about not counting Santa Cruz cause he sucked is ridiculous. City have so much money they can afford to buy failures at will... No repercussions
Click to expand...

If a club spends 120m on players in the summer -100m of that on one player- and the team goes on to have success in the following season, even tho the 100m player didn't contribute for whatever reason, has that club bought the success it gained?
 
Godotelli said:
If a club spends 120m on players in the summer -100m of that on one player- and the team goes on to have success in the following season, even tho the 100m player didn't contribute for whatever reason, has that club bought the success it gained?
Click to expand...

In that particular example, probably not, unless of course they bought the player from their rivals to weaken them.

To the point above, that is always the advantage that the sugar daddy clubs have over profit-requiring clubs: the ability to gamble in the transfer market.

In the hunt for 4 quality forwards, in 5 seasons City have purchased: Bojinov, Benjani, Jo, Robinho, Bellamy, Adebayor, Tevez, Snta Cruz, Balotelli, Dzeko and Ageuro.

Now I think City have done very well, and now probably have the best collection of 4 truly class forwards in the league, perhaps only rivalled by Real Madrid in that area. But to do that they had to spend near enough 250m quid, and basically write off all but 4 of those players. That's the sugar daddy advantage.

Put in context, in City's search for 4 strikers, they've spent more in the past 5 seasons than any team bar Chelsea have spent on their entire squads.
 
Godotelli said:
If a club spends 120m on players in the summer -100m of that on one player- and the team goes on to have success in the following season, even tho the 100m player didn't contribute for whatever reason, has that club bought the success it gained?
Click to expand...
This is rather irrelevant to the particular case that we're speaking of (that would be City). Your example clearly favours the amount spent for the player who turns out to be a failure, though in City's case it has been the opposite - let's say 5:1 in terms of the "success : failure" outcome.

The point is, transfers are based on many, many factors, such as scouting, a club would rarely buy a player without analysing his abilities or whether he would fit into the team's system. With that said, clubs which can't afford to spend much also can't afford to take risks with their transfers and this is where the massive advantage of money kicks in - City can afford to buy for instance 5 players, two of whom would be classified as risky to an extent (Robinho, Santa Cruz, Balotelli, Javi Garcia, etc). But for the owners the money wasted for the failures is not so important, they tend to do it over and over again, take massive risks, without having to worry about losing a wee bit of a tiny 20m.

I'm not sure if I have made my point clear, but in general I was trying to say that the advantage of City comes from the amount of players the could afford to buy and the risks they could take on the transfer market.

EDIT: I see Beach has posted something similar to mine, oh well... :D
 
Last edited:
beachryan said:
In that particular example, probably not, unless of course they bought the player from their rivals to weaken them.

To the point above, that is always the advantage that the sugar daddy clubs have over profit-requiring clubs: the ability to gamble in the transfer market.

In the hunt for 4 quality forwards, in 5 seasons City have purchased: Bojinov, Benjani, Jo, Robinho, Bellamy, Adebayor, Tevez, Snta Cruz, Balotelli, Dzeko and Ageuro.

Now I think City have done very well, and now probably have the best collection of 4 truly class forwards in the league, perhaps only rivalled by Real Madrid in that area. But to do that they had to spend near enough 250m quid, and basically write off all but 4 of those players. That's the sugar daddy advantage.

Put in context, in City's search for 4 strikers, they've spent more in the past 5 seasons than any team bar Chelsea have spent on their entire squads.
Click to expand...

Boj, Benjani and Jo were signed before ADUG and Robi and Bellers played wide (tho I suppose that could be classed as a forward since we played the 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 back then) but, yes, clearly, we could afford to write off bad buys.

Still, once you accept that the 100m player not contributing to success gained =/= buying success it is not ridiculous to omit someone like Santa Cruz from the buying success equation.

I'm the first to lament how much money has been wasted by City, esp. pre-Mancini, but it is what it is.
 
Cristiano Rossinho said:
I can't see a point in this argument, but it's your issue.

On the better news: media speculate that we can finalise Zaha's transfer tommorow. Moreover, Fergie hasn't been seen in Quatar with our team, but instead he was on Celtic's match, where Wanyama scored... Something's going on ;)
Click to expand...

Haven't seen much of Zaha. Looks a bit of a show pony from what I have seen ...but then look how the last show pony to roll up to Old Trafford turned out... :SHOCK:
 
I don't get this spending crab Mutd are still in debt to their eye balls. I think MCity/Chelsea pay their bills . It's clear to me Mutd don't have a sugar daddy unless they lost their sugar and are stuck w/ a grumpy daddy.
 
I don't want to continue this spending debate as I agree stats can be used to paint any picture you want, but if you want to take off money spent on "failures" or players that did not contribute to success, can we then take off the amount of Veron which was spent on that part where we weren't succeeding, but costed a lot??

Anywayz, do we really need Zaha? and is this the end of Macheda (never really liked him though)?? Cause i don't see how Zaha will have a chance to play with RvP, Rooney, Hernandez, Welbeck, and we just bought Henriquez earlier. Why are we still buying strikers??
 
Yeah he's a wide player, probably going back on loan, with Nani yet to sign a new deal and Valencia losing all his talent to some monsters from Space Jam you can see how it makes sense.
 
bebo said:
I don't get this spending crab Mutd are still in debt to their eye balls. I think MCity/Chelsea pay their bills . It's clear to me Mutd don't have a sugar daddy unless they lost their sugar and are stuck w/ a grumpy daddy.
Click to expand...

:LOL: You made me spit chicken soup all down me, you bastard! :LOL:
 
Man Utd will be debt free by 2017.

love or hate the Glazers, they are superb business men. And the reach of Man Utd's global audience means that they'll always attract other buyers should the Glazers want out.

This cant be said for Chelsea or Man City.
 
espn soccernet are saying that Man Utd are willing to accept offers in the summer for De Gea...

This is stupid. the kid is just 22!! give him some years and he'll be one of the best in the world. I really don't understand why we're rushing through this especially when there aren't any better keepers out there available. We won't get Neuer, and Valdes really ain't that much better than De Gea. Heck, if we do get another keeper, i'd rather sell lindegaard and keep De Gea as back-up to learn from that world-class keeper. I really don't understand the goalkeeper coaching staff and why we constantly can't have stability between the posts...this is not good for our defence. stability helps create chemistry and then a more solid defence can be set-up!!

ok, i'm sorry that i ranted there, but i like De Gea (and I'm one of the few that like Anderson) and really want his potential to be fulfilled.
 
I would personally sell De Gea and bring in Stoke keeper Bergovic (sp?)

De Gea too lightweight for PL and every opposition knows this and they target him.
 
Well light weight is one thing and De Gea is able to walk through the net. That could put anyone out. It's proof top draw in one league and nothing in another. He'll be the next Piqué I reckon.

@godotelli cheers , although I was being serious.
 
:LOL: I doubt it very much, we won't sell De Gea if its anything to do with management, if he ever does leave it'll likely be because he wants to return to Spain, the media as usual trying there hardest to cause a problem when there isn't one.
 
I'd be surprised if he was sold at this stage, given he's obviously a long-term investment and Fergie's been very patient with other examples like Anderson and Nani.
 
It's just the media as per my post yesterday. There's no way United are going to sell a £22m kid they just bought - especially as the management know that he's got the potential to be one of the very best in the world.

On hindsight I do think he screwed up at Spurs - but only because he didn't yell for Vidic to get the f*Ck out of the way. The reason his punch was so weak was cause he took a 6'1" Serbian to the chest as he tried to connect with the ball. A VDS would have yelled so loud he could be heard back in Manchester.

That's something that is just going to come with time and experience. It can't be taught - not fully. And it must be intimidating, he's only 22 ffs.

The only line of reasoning I can see would be if Barca came in with a bid that is more than what we paid, and then Fergie just bought some ancient but 'safe pair of hands' keeper.

Given how woeful our defence has been this season, I shudder to think how a less agile keeper would cope.
 
Pique? Rossi?

I know they wasnt 22m signings but they wanted to go back home where their style suited Spain more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom