UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%
  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%
  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%

  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
The frequently quoted stat is that United were spending 160% of revenues on players. That was totally unsustainable but then they floated on the Stock Exchange, became a plc and the Premier League and Champions League riches started rolling in. If not for all that they'd have done a Leeds.

I've read that stat before but only on forums. Is there a source anywhere for that?
 
I've read that stat before but only on forums. Is there a source anywhere for that?
Companies House
From memory they spent 75% of turnover on new players in 89 with wages at a steady 50% of turnover
So potentially not the 160% quoted but they were spending mad money at the time being bailed out by loans, overdraft etc
 
This has gone really quiet on media outlets,
Very strange

I would imagine the Daily Mail are cooking something up or doing some cut and shut copy and paste of a previous article. Sari is just keeping the Juve seat warm for Pep and Silva is getting off as he knows a ban is looming. Lather rinse and repeat, always repeat.
 
Reading comments of articles these days, it appears City fans know way more about the history of the game than Liverpool or United ones, who wont stop using the word history.


I wasn't aware of this but I checked it out and he's spot on.

1989-90 Topflight Transfers

They did invest heavily just before the 90s arrived, to stand them in good stead to benefit from the influx in cash(maybe they got a tip off that they would be able to pay off the debts they incurred here?). Fergie broke previous spending records in 1989-90. They spent £10.10m that season(close to £9m net spend) when a lot of topflight clubs were barely breaking £1m mark, furthermore what were considered big spenders at the time, were spending between £2-3m maximum that season and normally with some big sales to allow for it. Tottenham's spending the season before must have been seen as excessive for the time, when they bought Gascoigne for £4.8m but their net spend was only £3.2m.

In short United blew previous transfer windows out of the water and it wasn't like they were anywhere near the biggest club, they had just finished 11th place going into that transfer window and hadn't won the title in 22years. After that we all know the story with the formation of the Premier League and uneven splits. "Earned not bought" though...

I think even Spurs would have had a positive net spend as they sold Chris Waddle to Marseille for around £4.5m not long before , the bought Gazza, Lineker and our own Paul steward with the proceeds. United spending was ridiculous during that time....

Ince £1.8m
Webb £1.5m
Palister £2.3m
Wallace £0.7m
 
I think even Spurs would have had a positive net spend as they sold Chris Waddle to Marseille for around £4.5m not long before , the bought Gazza, Lineker and our own Paul steward with the proceeds. United spending was ridiculous during that time....

Ince £1.8m
Webb £1.5m
Palister £2.3m
Wallace £0.7m

Howard Webb? ;)
 
Almost like it was an orchestrated smear campaign after the dippers finished joint first and we won the treble......

And I'm still interested in why none of the other 3 "independent" investigations launched amid such a fanfare at the same time, have published their findings yet. You'd think at least one of them would have reached a conclusion. It's almost as though they were being orchestrated too !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.