MadchesterCity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 17,931
Bony?Steve Daley wasn't worth 1.4M in today's money, nevermind 44 years ago!
He is possibly our worst ever value for money signing.
Bony?Steve Daley wasn't worth 1.4M in today's money, nevermind 44 years ago!
He is possibly our worst ever value for money signing.
We could afford to waste money on Bony. We couldn't afford to waste money on Daley and that's the difference.Bony?
Bony wasn't that much according to transfermarkt we only lost €19m when we sold him back to Swansea. Mendy on the other hand, now you're talking...Bony?
We blew all our money on Samaras under Stuart Pearce, that went well!!We could afford to waste money on Bony. We couldn't afford to waste money on Daley and that's the difference.
Hard to argue with that. Then there was Jo.Bony?
Mendy?Bony?
Bradbury.Bony?
It would be interesting to find out what the figures are for the last 15 and twenty years also...I.e. since the takeover and since the move to the etihad.From BBC.
So Rags, Chelsea and Arsenal have a higher net soend than us over the last decade:
Manchester United have spent a record £1.19bn more on transfers over the past decade than they have recouped through player sales, according to a new study.
Since 2014 United have spent around £1.67bn on new players, and brought in around £481m, says Swiss-based research institute, CIES
Chelsea are second with a negative net spend of £883m, followed by French side Paris St-Germain with £863m.
Arsenal (£745m) and Manchester City (£732m) complete the top five.
Bony, Mendy and Crocky Santa Crock.Steve Daley wasn't worth 1.4M in today's money, nevermind 44 years ago!
He is possibly our worst ever value for money signing.