Chi-town blues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2012
- Messages
- 31,315
Andy carrot
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Inflating Transfer fees
- Thread starter kinkysdribble
- Start date
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
In the summer of 89, United paid record fees for Neil Webb £2m, Danny Wallace £1.7m, Gary Pallister £2.3m and Paul Ince £1.35m.
Unprecedented. All done on the great premise of Michael Knighton.
Didn't top us slamming five past the bastards.
Unprecedented. All done on the great premise of Michael Knighton.
Didn't top us slamming five past the bastards.
In the summer of 89, United paid record fees for Neil Webb £2m, Danny Wallace £1.7m, Gary Pallister £2.3m and Paul Ince £1.35m.
Unprecedented. All done on the great premise of Michael Knighton.
Didn't top us slamming five past the bastards.
The FT did a really good analysis of the inflating the market thing, where they showed that our wage bill (wage bill being historically a much better indicator of funds invested) we are spending about 2x the average in the league.
United in the 90s spent exactly the same relative to their competition.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
The FT did a really good analysis of the inflating the market thing, where they showed that our wage bill (wage bill being historically a much better indicator of funds invested) we are spending about 2x the average in the league.
United in the 90s spent exactly the same relative to their competition.
They also went big again one summer in paying £28.9m for Veron and £19.7m for van Nistelrooy.
Plenty of revisionism from a club that also paid £30m for Rio Ferdinand when he had already previously switched to Leeds from West Ham for £19.5m.
And what about the players they bid for they didn't actually get?
Marcelo Salas, Ronaldinho?
Talking tens of millions.
Christ, they even made a record bid for David Hirst.
Iamthemusicman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 1,069
No club is to blame for transfer fees inflation. It's merely an affect of the TV money being so high. Whilst it can be annoying for buying clubs, the fact that smaller clubs can afford to keep their best players can only be a good thing.
We’re not completely innocent, we paid over the odds for players in the early years when we had to, many of them proved value for money like Lescott and there was plenty that were overvalued flops like RSC but we’ve changed our approach ever since our first title win as shown by our continued refusal to sign players we’ve sometimes been desperate for because we don’t believe they represent value and have been nowhere near the cause for the inflated market.
United Liverpool Chelsea spurs and even the team who’s fans have been protesting for a decade because they don’t spend money in arsenal have higher transfer records than us as do many other big teams in Europe, they’ve all got more blame attributed to them than we have but it’s the tv money that’s ultimately caused the sharp rise in inflation.
Every club has money to burn now, nobody needs it and as such you get Leicester holding out for £80 million for Maguire when he’s worth about half that, you get relegation threatened teams rejecting £40-50 million pound offers for players that are worth half that because the money is so easy to obtain and good players are hard to find.
Spot on.
A good friend of mine works for a Sports Consultancy in Manchester. He's looked at this very deeply.... Basically it goes like this..... Man Utd have had the monopoly on transfers breaking transfer record after transfer record until Jalk Walker came and Blackburn competed. Then United won that battle and continued to break record after record until Abrahamovic came. Chelsea then spent more than others and this gave another injection to the transfer market. Then United stepped up again and whilst they were competing they werent dominating Chelsea. Then we came along and the cycle continued. The true constant..... Man Utd as well as the general cash coming into the Premier League through TV.
Spot on.
A good friend of mine works for a Sports Consultancy in Manchester. He's looked at this very deeply.... Basically it goes like this..... Man Utd have had the monopoly on transfers breaking transfer record after transfer record until Jalk Walker came and Blackburn competed. Then United won that battle and continued to break record after record until Abrahamovic came. Chelsea then spent more than others and this gave another injection to the transfer market. Then United stepped up again and whilst they were competing they werent dominating Chelsea. Then we came along and the cycle continued. The true constant..... Man Utd as well as the general cash coming into the Premier League through TV.
And super rich owners.
TheThirdDeano
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 8,626
I mean, it’s obviously not us.
Remember when Van Dicky was up for grabs and we flat out refused to pay the inflated figure of £75mil?
Can’t quite remember who ended up paying that figure but I’d point the finger at them rather than us.
Remember when Van Dicky was up for grabs and we flat out refused to pay the inflated figure of £75mil?
Can’t quite remember who ended up paying that figure but I’d point the finger at them rather than us.
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
Spot on.
A good friend of mine works for a Sports Consultancy in Manchester. He's looked at this very deeply.... Basically it goes like this..... Man Utd have had the monopoly on transfers breaking transfer record after transfer record until Jalk Walker came and Blackburn competed. Then United won that battle and continued to break record after record until Abrahamovic came. Chelsea then spent more than others and this gave another injection to the transfer market. Then United stepped up again and whilst they were competing they werent dominating Chelsea. Then we came along and the cycle continued. The true constant..... Man Utd as well as the general cash coming into the Premier League through TV.
Not only that, but it actually serves the interests of the clubs in the CL to drive up prices so that only they can afford the best players thus perpetuating the cycle whilst, at the same time, stripping non-CL clubs of theirs so that there is no competition. All part of the racket.