Do people still think United have got no money to spend?

[Deleted member 14625]

Over the last few years I've noticed a huge amount of ridicous comments about United being on the slide and will be flopping as a club over the coming years; "no money to spend" n all that. For some whacky reason I've known that United's money situation isn't as bad as everyone thought it was. Low and behold - £55m already looking like it will have been spent and more to come! What planet do a lot of you live on?!

As for us, I'm looking forward to some of our signings over the next few months. Don't know about anyone else but I've had just about enough of Tevez. Couldn't give a flying fuck if he leaves now - he didn't een play well from February to his injury in April!

 

[Anonymous]

Of course the rags have money to spend , if they didn't Fergie would have given up the ghost by now ..... their annual turnover is such that they'll always have money to spend ..... they can look a bank manager in the eye and guarantee him money every year , whereas we , at the moment , could probably only offer him a lump sum from Abu Dhabi ..... and it's the 'lump sum' bit that Platini doesn't like , he wants to see this club (and others) become self sufficient and makin' decent profits every year.

But the rags heirarchy will only allocate a certain amount of money to the transfer kitty , due to all their other financial obligations , and whether Fergie will actually get the amount of cash that he's been promised is another matter.

And don't bank on us makin' too many signings either ..... we are in a different boat to United , due to Platinis time-structure fair play plans , despite our obvious wealth .....

the City squad will be pruned , tweaked , and 'gently' added to ... and that's it!

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

It was always obvious they had money to spend, just werent spending it. Unless the Rooney thing had happened i dont think they be going all out like they are either. Always will wonder why they didnt spend the money, i dont believe what whiskynose was saying about the transfer market to then go and spend £16 million on Jones

If Young goes for £16 million then that is lunacy on Villa's part as they brought him for £9 million 5 years ago i think

 

[psychocandy]

they are being forced to spend

us,liverpool,chelsea and the arse would have pushed them too hard without them improving that aged squad, they were very lucky to win the prem this year, us and chelsea should have pushed them a lot harder

 

[lancs blue]

From their last accounts I think they had something in excess of £100m as cash in hand at the bank so they'll be able to spend that without increasing the debt.

 

[matt99is]

They don't have a lot of money, they have a lot of debt that needs nursing. Of course they make a lot of money, but large amounts of that is spoken for. why the hell else do you think they have been so conservative with the cash in recent seasons?.....the simple fact that they are spending money now is because they have to or they will be on the slide. The glazers know this year they have to stop lining their pockets at the risk of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. what planet do you live on?..

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

Ocean Finance

 

[LongsightM13]

They've spent less than the Premier League guaranteed TV income for the last few years. Remember they got £80m for the Tranny and didn't spend it, because it went to service debt.
This year, they HAVE to spend due to retirements, an ageing squad low on true quality in depth and the likes of City and Chelsea closing fast.
To do this, they will spend the TV income plus what they can raise from sales. Hence Berbatov will be gone and the likes of Brown, O'Shea, Gibson being flogged to Sunderland and the like to fund new signings.
They will then get the kids to make up the squad on lower wages.
I imagine they'll spend £60-70m

 

[bluemoondays]

Relying on the kids could prove risky. Some of them look half decent but the likes of Smalling, Evans, Macheda aren't going to strike fear in PL sides. They don't appear to have a RB backup to the brazilian (if they do sell O'Gay & Wes Orange).

Also, signing De Gea could be a risk although they obviously need a new keeper, he could turn out to be another Roy Carroll or Barthez. I'm surprised he didn't try to bully Jaaskaleinen (sp?) out of Bolton.

It could be interesting next season if they get a couple of long term injuries (say Wio).

 

[Viva Rivaldo]

Relying on the kids could prove risky. Some of them look half decent but the likes of Smalling, Evans, Macheda aren't going to strike fear in PL sides. They don't appear to have a RB backup to the brazilian (if they do sell O'Gay & Wes Orange).

Smalling has been quality when he was called on this season; Evans had a really poor season, and Macheda's been largely crap - but they're all capable of being good players.

Also, signing De Gea could be a risk although they obviously need a new keeper, he could turn out to be another Roy Carroll or Barthez. I'm surprised he didn't try to bully Jaaskaleinen (sp?) out of Bolton.

I agree - 'keeper is probably the position you'd least want to take a risk on and designate to a youngster, however it's not often that the option to get a keeper as good as De Gea comes along. If we buy him, for 18-20mil, he could be here for a decade at least...youth works both ways.

It could be interesting next season if they get a couple of long term injuries (say Wio).

I don't think Jones, Smalling and Evans are bad 3rd, 4th and 5th choice centre-halves.