MCFC v Rags money spent on transfers - last 20 years

[knuckles]

He is squirming now, and I'm getting some real bad insults, and (this is the best bit) he's saying that he really wants to get back to watching grass roots football so only goes to see FC ushited now. Hahahaha, with your help this is getting really funny!

 

[mikraphone]

I've just done a quick calculation with the link below on the Veron and Ferdinand transfers, for approximately £30m each around the same time.

Taking into consideration inflation, that amounts to about £84m - allow me to emphasis :two players for £84. And we're getting grief for having spent approx. £80m for 4 class players.

There are so many ways you can analyse the rag's spending, and it'll only equate to what we've done or worse.

I think also we should consider the £80m crazy bid for Ronaldo, which would skew some of the stats somewhat. Ronaldo is undoubtedly a quality player, but with Madrid ready to spunk money through every orifice, United were able to inflate the price somewhat - that rise from the previous highest world transfer is not proportional. So in that respects, Madrid basically just fed money into United.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/inflation/calculator/flash/default.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/educatio ... fault.aspx</a>

According to Wiki Ferdinand cost £34m including agents fees (Leeds received about £30m) in 2002, with the help of your link (thanks for that) equivalent to £46.8m in 2012 for Ferdinand.

Say no more.

Thanks mate. You raise a good point. I'd love to go through all the transfers made by United and add on the difference due to inflation - I'm certain that they'd have spent more than us in real terms during the same period.

Moreover, if we could do it particularly for some of transfers they made during the earlier Bacon Face years just before and after winning their first cup (perhaps even up until their first title), I'd be very interested to know how their transfer costs with inflation taken into account correlate with ours during the past 4-5 years. I say again, I'm certain that they'd have spent more than us in real terms.

If there's any die hard, brave and honourable potential researcher out there, please feel free to do this as I'm sure we'd all be interested, because until the total figures from 92-2013 have been debunked, analysed, etc., it will always be (an admittedly falsehood piece of) ammunition that will float around.

 

[Blue Mooner]

Or you could even go back to the time when they spen 2.3million on Gary Pallister in 1989 or in 1985 when they paid a then british record fee of £7 million for Andy Cole so a straight spend comparison is not accurate when the majority of our big spending has taken place in the last 3/4 years.<br /><br />-- Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:16 pm --<br /><br />If you read the book 'pay as you play' by Paul Tomkins that has normalised most transfers after inflation.

 

[mikraphone]

Or you could even go back to the time when they spen 2.3million on Gary Pallister in 1989 or in 1985 when they paid a then british record fee of £7 million for Andy Cole so a straight spend comparison is not accurate when the majority of our big spending has taken place in the last 3/4 years.

-- Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:16 pm --

If you read the book 'pay as you play' by Paul Tomkins that has normalised most transfers after inflation.

Absolutely. This would have to be one side of a multi-faceted approach to the research. For example, looking back at the fee paid by Blackburn for Shearer in 92, which was £3.3m, that equates to about £5.7m, which is clearly not what a young, talented player would've cost today, thus suggesting that there's more at play here than just inflation, perhaps market forces driving up prices.

Again, only 4 years later, he was transfered to Newcastle for a record fee of £15m, which is about £23m today. At this point in today's term, that'd have been a massive steal. He'd be worth £40m at least today.

So as a rudimentary guess, you'd need to calculate the inflation and add maybe 60-70% plus of the cost onto the calculation.

 

[Deleted member 52846]

I've just done a quick calculation with the link below on the Veron and Ferdinand transfers, for approximately £30m each around the same time.

Taking into consideration inflation, that amounts to about £84m - allow me to emphasis :two players for £84. And we're getting grief for having spent approx. £80m for 4 class players.

There are so many ways you can analyse the rag's spending, and it'll only equate to what we've done or worse.

I think also we should consider the £80m crazy bid for Ronaldo, which would skew some of the stats somewhat. Ronaldo is undoubtedly a quality player, but with Madrid ready to spunk money through every orifice, United were able to inflate the price somewhat - that rise from the previous highest world transfer is not proportional. So in that respects, Madrid basically just fed money into United.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/inflation/calculator/flash/default.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/educatio ... fault.aspx</a>

According to Wiki Ferdinand cost £34m including agents fees (Leeds received about £30m) in 2002, with the help of your link (thanks for that) equivalent to £46.8m in 2012 for Ferdinand.

Say no more.

Football inflation is above the rate of society inflation too.

 

[BlueAnorak]

For those who can be bothered working it out...
<a class="postlink" href="http://transferpriceindex.com/2011/09/transfer-inflation-1112-update-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://transferpriceindex.com/2011/09/t ... -update-2/</a>

 

[NPBlue]

He is squirming now, and I'm getting some real bad insults, and (this is the best bit) he's saying that he really wants to get back to watching grass roots football so only goes to see FC ushited now. Hahahaha, with your help this is getting really funny!

How about some pure, simple, honesty.

<a class="postlink" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG07F50X1t8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG07F50X1t8</a>

 

[knuckles]

Thanks to everyone who has responded, he has gone very quite now. I reckon he just believed the diatribe that the ushited press put out, when faced with the 'truth' he had no where to go.

Thanks again Blues !!!!! :)

 

[Yahya]

Well I think football inflation is different to real world infaltion, and football inflation is what we need to look at when it comes to buying trophies since it tells us what is reasonable and what is moderate in spending in the then market, and what was extravagant.

And football inflation is much higher than real world inflation due to the increased international competition for players and their ability to pay big money for players. Blackburn brought league for what 30 million pounds in the 90s, and that was enough for that time. With real world inflation that would be 40-50 million only now which wouldn't buy a team like Blackburn the title today, so of course 30 million then should be seen as (making a number up now to illustrate my point) 200 million today.

 

[Johnsonontheleft]

Another factor nobody has mentioned is this: when you win things, players will join for less money.

A prime example is Yaya Toure. We were a struggling trophyless side when he joined us. He doubtless had other offers from clubs with a proven track record of winning trophies. We simply had to blow them out of the water with sign on fee and wages in order to attract a player of that calibre - we had no other selling point at the time. Imagine Xavi going to Villa now - simply wouldn't happen.

Imagine if Aguero had 3 equal bids of £30 mill from us, Chelsea and United. Athletico would say to him "who do you want to play for?" He would NOT have chosen us at the time. But when we blew everyone out of the water with £38 mill, Athletico tell him he needs to go to City because the bid is so much higher and they need the money. He's still not sure so we had to convince him with wages.


In short we have been forced to pay well over the odds to attract the players we needed to compete with the established elite. This is never taken into account in the old 'bought success' argument. There was literally no other way.