Read and remember
From 1988-91, United spent £15.2m = 1.62x their 1989 revenue of £9.4m. That's the equivalent of United spending £533m today.
So United were allowed to spend first in order to grow, & continue spending freely for next 2 decades. But City will be banned from doing same. Also, Martin Edwards borrowed the money to fund that investment in players, just like Sheikh Mansour has with City.
The money was borrowed not self-financed. Utd were allowed to do something that City won't be allowed to do, i.e. carry on spending. Utd were allowed to spend first in order to become more successful, and they were allowed to continue spending without any limitations on how much they spent. And it also disproves the myth that Utd didn't spend in order to become successful under fergie.
Uniteds revenue was £9.4m in 1989. Uniteds revenue is now £330m. He invested first in order to grow. It only became self-financing AFTER Utd had grown. But these new FFP rules actually bans clubs from investing first in order to grow.
Utd spent 1.62x their revenue, which equates to a huge amount today and Utd would not have met FFP rules in 1989. Obviously there is inflation but that is almost equivalent to City-style spending
Utd basically bought an entire new first team (in fact the XI fielded v MCFC in the 5-1 defeat was the most expensively assembled team then), and they spent a huge amount doing so, and that new first team went on to win trophy after trophy from 1992 onwards. THAT was the team that started Utd's success.
FFP has been specifically designed to stop clubs like City and Chelsea from outspending rivals. FFP has been designed to stop smaller clubs from being able to compete with bigger clubs. And the people who negotiated it with UEFA were the ECA exec board, which consists of David Gill (Man United Chief Exec), Rummenigge, and CEOs/presidents from Real, Barca, AC, Inter etc.
City have spent first in order to grow, but we won't be allowed to continue spending, so our growth will be curtailed by FFP. MUFC didn't have that limitation that MCFC have.
The point being that why did the rules change to stop MCFC being able to spend money?
The answer: It's because of this bunch of biased club executives below:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ecaeurope.com/about-eca/eca-executive-board/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ecaeurope.com/about-eca/eca-executive-board/</a>
These were the ones who negotiated FFP with Platini, and surprise surprise they managed to get FFP designed in such a way that it stops clubs like City from being able to compete financially with Utd, Bayern, Real, Barca, AC and Inter - the exact teams who have representatives on the ECA exec board. Keep the big teams big and the poor teams poor. Changing the rules to stop certain teams being able to compete is called "cheating", I think you'll find.
FFP rules were originally going to regulate debt and then next you heard about FFP it was based on clubs' revenue and "break-even". Many journos such as Oliver Kay and Marcotti from The Times and Martin Samuel from the Daily Mail all think that FFP has been deliberately designed to protect clubs like Utd, Bayern, Real, Barca, AC, Inter at the top and to stop clubs like City and Chelsea from being able to compete with those clubs. It's not rocket science to see that it has been designed to do that. For example, if FFP came in tomorrow, and assuming wages = 58% of revenue, this shows what each of the top 6 clubs would be allowed to spend on wages:
1. United; 192m
2. Chelsea; 141m
3. Arsenal; 131m
4. Liverpool; 108m
5. Spurs; 95m
6. Manchester City; 89m
My point, which is that Utd were allowed to invest first in order to grow and then to continue spending on winning a title and then the introduction of Sky’s money gave them money to invest.
This demolishing the myth that Utd didn't spend before they became successful, and I'm showing that Utd were allowed to carry on spending after that initial huge investment, whereas City will be banned from doing the same due to FFP
