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.
City V United Spending.
- Thread starter rickmcfc
- Start date
citymad
Well-Known Member
Henkeman said:The way they always justify it is by ignoring transfer inflation. Naturally more recent spending is a bigger figure than past spending. As they're finding out now when lashing out £150 million in one window.
What makes me laugh they conveniently ignore the big signings like the 30 mill they spent on Plug which in todays market would be probably equate near 40 to 45 million.
buckshot
Well-Known Member
City should spend more, they have European obligations.
Jack the United fan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 221
I think that was indeed the case, when we lined up we had the more expensive eleven.
The main thing that i think gets a lot of United fans hung up on the whole 'spending' thing is that United (ignoring the debt, glazers thing completely) by and large are a self-sufficient club. I.e selling photos of Rooney holding a coke to the Chinese.
It's a pretty moot point now anyway, City will get there eventually. Look at Chelsea. They haven't needed Roman's money for ages now, probably Torres was the last big splurge. (Ultimate case of burnt fingers...?) Since then they've offloaded Mata and Luiz for a combined 87m and bought Costa, Fabregas, Felipe Luis and upgraded their keeper. Shrewd.
The main thing that i think gets a lot of United fans hung up on the whole 'spending' thing is that United (ignoring the debt, glazers thing completely) by and large are a self-sufficient club. I.e selling photos of Rooney holding a coke to the Chinese.
It's a pretty moot point now anyway, City will get there eventually. Look at Chelsea. They haven't needed Roman's money for ages now, probably Torres was the last big splurge. (Ultimate case of burnt fingers...?) Since then they've offloaded Mata and Luiz for a combined 87m and bought Costa, Fabregas, Felipe Luis and upgraded their keeper. Shrewd.
Bluekiwi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 3,800
- Location
- New Zealand (since 1974)
- Team supported
- Manchester City (from 1955) & Adelaide Crows (AFL)
BlueTG said:No point in arguing as all of their players are born and bred Manchester United.
Yep, they all came up through their youth policy (including players such as De Gea, Falcao, Shaw, Mata, Rojo and Di Maria, et al). We hadn't heard of them earlier because they were all loaned out to get experience before being thrown into the EPL. And don't forget that RvP used to stand on the terraces as a kid so was obviously just picked out of the crowd! And anyway, rags fans just try to BLIND us with their bullshit.
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-last-five-seasons.html
Net spend for United, City and Chelsea broadly the same for last 5 years
Unbelievable how much press we get and how little Chelsea get on the money side when you consider their complete underachievement over the last few years. They did win the Champions League though but that wasn't by brilliant football thanks to a great squad but rather the opposite.
bowp
Well-Known Member
citymad said:Henkeman said:The way they always justify it is by ignoring transfer inflation. Naturally more recent spending is a bigger figure than past spending. As they're finding out now when lashing out £150 million in one window.
What makes me laugh they conveniently ignore the big signings like the 30 mill they spent on Plug which in todays market would be probably equate near 40 to 45 million.
He cost 25.6 million which taking into account UK inflation (standard inflation as recorded by the government) would equate to 36,562,050 in todays money.
Rio Ferdinand would have been 43 million
Berbatov 37.22 million.
Obviously the above doesn't take into account the fact that transfer fees has risen faster than inflation as has the wages they get.
Transfer league is highly inaccurate. Undisclosed fees just go down as £0 in the additions.
I don't know about the rags, but I did take the time to add up all our ins and outs since the take over. Our net spend per season according to the fees reported on wiki are as follows.
2008. £105 million.
2009. £96 million.
2010. £123 million
2011. £44 million
2012. £28.4 million
2013. £70 million
2014. £30 million not including Negredo sale.
So net spend in 7 seasons. Circa £500 million. United have spent nearly half that in 3 seasons.
If you take the Negredo fee, our net spend since winning the league has been £100 million. That's Di Maria and Mata.
We've spent less than them since catching up, and have opened a big gap.
I don't know about the rags, but I did take the time to add up all our ins and outs since the take over. Our net spend per season according to the fees reported on wiki are as follows.
2008. £105 million.
2009. £96 million.
2010. £123 million
2011. £44 million
2012. £28.4 million
2013. £70 million
2014. £30 million not including Negredo sale.
So net spend in 7 seasons. Circa £500 million. United have spent nearly half that in 3 seasons.
If you take the Negredo fee, our net spend since winning the league has been £100 million. That's Di Maria and Mata.
We've spent less than them since catching up, and have opened a big gap.