United Thread 2014/15 (continued)

[redmanc34]

ragmanc34 - Bet logging onto Bluemoon is the first thing you thought of this morning !!

It was mate, i enjoy the debates. No point joining a Red forum is there where nobody is gonna have a debate

Do you enjoy watching your, lump it to the big man football?

You know it's not quite like that. We didn't use that tactic against Liverpool for example. Fair enough we didn't beat Chelsea but we also didn't use it there, if that was our only way of playing then we would have lost that 4-0 and Chelsea would have had 60% possession easily, seeing as though if nothing sticks with your big man then you're just gonna gift possession back to the opposition constantly.

 

[redmanc34]

ragmanc34 - Bet logging onto Bluemoon is the first thing you thought of this morning !!

It was mate, i enjoy the debates. No point joining a Red forum is there where nobody is gonna have a debate

Good man. I've enjoyed this thread as you've stood your corner without resorting to abuse. That you are partisan and tailor your "facts" to suit your allegiance is fine by me, fans should be blinkered. I think what stood out as an illustration of FFP for me was that when we played you the other week, our back 4 and goalkeeper cost less than you paid for Rio Ferdinand way back when. Now I think about it, the whole lot cost roughly what De Gea cost you and less than Luke Shaw. So you'll forgive us if we call bullshit on "Financial fair play"

Yeah, you did well with Kompany, what was it £6.7m for him. Absolute steal. But then Rio was more of investment for the future back then, and he's English, same as Shaw, and you'll always get ripped off. Like i say Mangala cost the same as Rio and then the extra £10m thats come out. I know you can say about inflation and all that, but you can't really use that as football economics don't exactly follow the trend of European or Global economics. For example, I think Mangala and Rojo were both in the Portuguese Team of the year last year. There's only 13 months age gap between them, so if you're going off that, you've either been ripped off for Mangala or we've done exceptional business to get Rojo. Although i'd say it's neither as football doesn't follow any economic trend.

 

[redmanc34]

A lot of nonsense spouted by that United fan.

Firstly, FFP was introduced to stop another Chelsea, another Manchester City. Clubs like Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool hated the fact a team with a rich owner could go above them and they closed the shop. Even if the richest man in the world took over a Premiership club now, his hands would be tied. The shop is closed.

The United fan said FFP was introducted to stop clubs having big debts, the fact that we were punished for having absolutely NO DEBT is proof that statement is wrong.

I'm not in favour of FFP. I don't actually think it'll affect us much anymore, our income is growing and growing. We have a higher income than Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool. But for clubs like Tottenham, Newcastle and Villa, the dream is over. Every fan dreams of winning the league and that's impossible for those clubs now. I don't think there's any chance of a club other than the two Manchester clubs, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool of finishing in the top four anymore. How's that good for the league? That's simply the likes of United and Arsenal protecting their own interests. Without FFP, Southampton may have kept onto all those players last summer and built something special.

Liverpool dominated in the 80s because they had the most money, United dominated in the 90s because they had the most money. Now us and Chelsea have the most money. Anyone else seeing a pattern here...?

I think ourselves and Chelsea have actually made the Premiership more interesting, the two horse race between United/Arsenal wasn't exciting and people would be bored of it by 2015. Those two teams won the Premiership for a decade before Chelsea came along with their money. No team was coming close to challenging United/Arsenal until Chelsea and then ourselves. People would have been bored of a two team league in 2015.

I'd ideally want MORE investment into the Premiership, not less. I think it would be good for the league if big clubs like Newcastle and Southampton got taken over and could start to compete. It was United, Arsenal and Liverpool who wanted to close the shop, not us. We voted against FFP. Big investment into good football clubs should be encouraged, not denied.

I see your point, and we've mentioned this earlier in the post. Everyone looks at FFP from a pro-English perspective. Look at the French League. They had a very level open playing field, Lille, Montpellier, Marseille, Lyon, Monaco, PSG, all competing, all winning titles. Now PSG have had their investment and it's just a one horse race. It's like the SPL almost. So as much as you can say big investment is good and should be encouraged, well should it really? Most European leagues are more evenly fought out than the Premier League, like all the Eastern European leagues for example. Look at Ukraine as another example, Shakhtar have had investment, now its basically a one horse race, when before it was a lot more even, Dynamo Kiev dominated, but most of that was to do with their player production, Shevchenko and that era. Same as Norway, you've had Rosenborg, Molde, Stromsgodset, the past few years. Any of them gets a big investor, its a one horse race. The rule actually does make sense as they're are probably more even leagues in Europe than uneven. Spain, England, Scotland, Germany, Italy and now France and Ukraine because of the investment. They're probably the most uneven. A lot of the others have a different champion every year near enough. So it only needs one big investor at one club in Sweden, Norway, Poland, Bulgaria, and its a one horse race, and that compeltely eliminates the competition surely?

 

[CityFan94]

That Mangala/Rojo comparison is hilarious.

Because they were both defenders in the Portuguese team of the year means they're at the exact same level and should go for the same price?

Hazard and Lallana were both in the Premiership team of the season last year at a similar age. Would they both go for the same price?

Cahill and Kompany were both in it too at a similar age. Same price for them too?

 

[CityFan94]

A lot of nonsense spouted by that United fan.

Firstly, FFP was introduced to stop another Chelsea, another Manchester City. Clubs like Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool hated the fact a team with a rich owner could go above them and they closed the shop. Even if the richest man in the world took over a Premiership club now, his hands would be tied. The shop is closed.

The United fan said FFP was introducted to stop clubs having big debts, the fact that we were punished for having absolutely NO DEBT is proof that statement is wrong.

I'm not in favour of FFP. I don't actually think it'll affect us much anymore, our income is growing and growing. We have a higher income than Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool. But for clubs like Tottenham, Newcastle and Villa, the dream is over. Every fan dreams of winning the league and that's impossible for those clubs now. I don't think there's any chance of a club other than the two Manchester clubs, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool of finishing in the top four anymore. How's that good for the league? That's simply the likes of United and Arsenal protecting their own interests. Without FFP, Southampton may have kept onto all those players last summer and built something special.

Liverpool dominated in the 80s because they had the most money, United dominated in the 90s because they had the most money. Now us and Chelsea have the most money. Anyone else seeing a pattern here...?

I think ourselves and Chelsea have actually made the Premiership more interesting, the two horse race between United/Arsenal wasn't exciting and people would be bored of it by 2015. Those two teams won the Premiership for a decade before Chelsea came along with their money. No team was coming close to challenging United/Arsenal until Chelsea and then ourselves. People would have been bored of a two team league in 2015.

I'd ideally want MORE investment into the Premiership, not less. I think it would be good for the league if big clubs like Newcastle and Southampton got taken over and could start to compete. It was United, Arsenal and Liverpool who wanted to close the shop, not us. We voted against FFP. Big investment into good football clubs should be encouraged, not denied.

I see your point, and we've mentioned this earlier in the post. Everyone looks at FFP from a pro-English perspective. Look at the French League. They had a very level open playing field, Lille, Montpellier, Marseille, Lyon, Monaco, PSG, all competing, all winning titles. Now PSG have had their investment and it's just a one horse race. It's like the SPL almost. So as much as you can say big investment is good and should be encouraged, well should it really? Most European leagues are more evenly fought out than the Premier League, like all the Eastern European leagues for example. Look at Ukraine as another example, Shakhtar have had investment, now its basically a one horse race, when before it was a lot more even, Dynamo Kiev dominated, but most of that was to do with their player production, Shevchenko and that era. Same as Norway, you've had Rosenborg, Molde, Stromsgodset, the past few years. Any of them gets a big investor, its a one horse race. The rule actually does make sense as they're are probably more even leagues in Europe than uneven. Spain, England, Scotland, Germany, Italy and now France and Ukraine because of the investment. They're probably the most uneven. A lot of the others have a different champion every year near enough. So it only needs one big investor at one club in Sweden, Norway, Poland, Bulgaria, and its a one horse race, and that compeltely eliminates the competition surely?

I agree with a lot of that, but I doubt the Swedish and Norwegian leagues were in Platini's thoughts when he started FFP.

It was ourselves and PSG who were punished the most by FFP, neither of us had any debt. FFP became a farce then IMO.

If the point of FFP was genuinely to keep clubs afloat and encourage them to spend wisely, you wouldn't fine the clubs £50 million.

 

[redmanc34]

That Mangala/Rojo comparison is hilarious.

Because they were both defenders in the Portuguese team of the year means they're at the exact same level and should go for the same price?

Hazard and Lallana were both in the Premiership team of the season last year at a similar age. Would they both go for the same price?

Cahill and Kompany were both in it too at a similar age. Same price for them too?

Na, i'm not saying that. If you look at it what they've done over the past 12 months though, as in Rojo got to the World Cup final with Argentina, and was the only player from that Argentina side to make it into the World Cup best XI then that should fluctuate his price massively. It would enhance his reputation wouldn't it, which would mean he should command a higher fee than £16m. I'm not saying he's better than Mangala, but he was in the second meanest defence at Sporting and finished second in the Portuguese League and is only a year older than Mangala. So you could agree over the past 12 months he's impressed more on the world stage than Mangala, yet Mangala commands a higher fee. Why? And your point about Lallana and Hazard pretty much proves my point. Hazard went for what £30m, Lallana £25m was it? There's no way there's £5m between them two, but because as I mentioned football doesn't follow any economic trend, which was my original point there, so thanks for backing me up.

 

[redmanc34]

A lot of nonsense spouted by that United fan.

Firstly, FFP was introduced to stop another Chelsea, another Manchester City. Clubs like Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool hated the fact a team with a rich owner could go above them and they closed the shop. Even if the richest man in the world took over a Premiership club now, his hands would be tied. The shop is closed.

The United fan said FFP was introducted to stop clubs having big debts, the fact that we were punished for having absolutely NO DEBT is proof that statement is wrong.

I'm not in favour of FFP. I don't actually think it'll affect us much anymore, our income is growing and growing. We have a higher income than Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool. But for clubs like Tottenham, Newcastle and Villa, the dream is over. Every fan dreams of winning the league and that's impossible for those clubs now. I don't think there's any chance of a club other than the two Manchester clubs, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool of finishing in the top four anymore. How's that good for the league? That's simply the likes of United and Arsenal protecting their own interests. Without FFP, Southampton may have kept onto all those players last summer and built something special.

Liverpool dominated in the 80s because they had the most money, United dominated in the 90s because they had the most money. Now us and Chelsea have the most money. Anyone else seeing a pattern here...?

I think ourselves and Chelsea have actually made the Premiership more interesting, the two horse race between United/Arsenal wasn't exciting and people would be bored of it by 2015. Those two teams won the Premiership for a decade before Chelsea came along with their money. No team was coming close to challenging United/Arsenal until Chelsea and then ourselves. People would have been bored of a two team league in 2015.

I'd ideally want MORE investment into the Premiership, not less. I think it would be good for the league if big clubs like Newcastle and Southampton got taken over and could start to compete. It was United, Arsenal and Liverpool who wanted to close the shop, not us. We voted against FFP. Big investment into good football clubs should be encouraged, not denied.

I see your point, and we've mentioned this earlier in the post. Everyone looks at FFP from a pro-English perspective. Look at the French League. They had a very level open playing field, Lille, Montpellier, Marseille, Lyon, Monaco, PSG, all competing, all winning titles. Now PSG have had their investment and it's just a one horse race. It's like the SPL almost. So as much as you can say big investment is good and should be encouraged, well should it really? Most European leagues are more evenly fought out than the Premier League, like all the Eastern European leagues for example. Look at Ukraine as another example, Shakhtar have had investment, now its basically a one horse race, when before it was a lot more even, Dynamo Kiev dominated, but most of that was to do with their player production, Shevchenko and that era. Same as Norway, you've had Rosenborg, Molde, Stromsgodset, the past few years. Any of them gets a big investor, its a one horse race. The rule actually does make sense as they're are probably more even leagues in Europe than uneven. Spain, England, Scotland, Germany, Italy and now France and Ukraine because of the investment. They're probably the most uneven. A lot of the others have a different champion every year near enough. So it only needs one big investor at one club in Sweden, Norway, Poland, Bulgaria, and its a one horse race, and that compeltely eliminates the competition surely?

I agree with a lot of that, but I doubt the Swedish and Norwegian leagues were in Platini's thoughts when he started FFP.

It was ourselves and PSG who were punished the most by FFP, neither of us had any debt. FFP became a farce then IMO.

If the point of FFP was genuinely to keep clubs afloat and encourage them to spend wisely, you wouldn't fine the clubs £50 million.

I think Malaga have been punished the most by this, they got a European ban, and also got a fine, and also had all planning permission rejected for their own version of the 'Etihad Campus' because the plans have to go through the Andalucian government which is based in Sevilla and they hate Malaga. Which sort of shows that a lot of the time money is irrelevent to a clubs potential, it's actual demographics and politics that will play more of a part.

I do agree, handing out a fine is a bit ridiculous. The punsihment should be a points deduction or a continental ban for the sides near the top as that would make a lot more sense. I understand why people get pissed off that United pass FFP when we have so much debt, but the ruling came in after the Glazers took over, if it was there before hand then i doubt it would have been allowed. But at the same time, if United are making the payments on the loans which has created the debt in the first place and then still fulfilling the criteria it shouldn't be that much of an issue, whereas if we were missing loan payments yet signing players I would be asking questions. We are in debt, but we're not in debt through buying players or paying wages which is different, we're in debt because our owners needed to take out a loan to purchase the club, but even I admit i'm biased in that respect.

 

[CityFan94]

That Mangala/Rojo comparison is hilarious.

Because they were both defenders in the Portuguese team of the year means they're at the exact same level and should go for the same price?

Hazard and Lallana were both in the Premiership team of the season last year at a similar age. Would they both go for the same price?

Cahill and Kompany were both in it too at a similar age. Same price for them too?

Na, i'm not saying that. If you look at it what they've done over the past 12 months though, as in Rojo got to the World Cup final with Argentina, and was the only player from that Argentina side to make it into the World Cup best XI then that should fluctuate his price massively. It would enhance his reputation wouldn't it, which would mean he should command a higher fee than £16m. I'm not saying he's better than Mangala, but he was in the meanest defence in Portugal, also won the Portuguese League with Benfica last season, and is only a year older than Mangala. So you could agree over the past 12 months he's impressed more on the world stage than Mangala, yet Mangala commands a higher fee. Why? And your point about Lallana and Hazard pretty much proves my point. Hazard went for what £30m, Lallana £25m was it? There's no way there's £5m between them two, but because as I mentioned football doesn't follow any economic trend, which was my original point there, so thanks for backing me up.

Rojo came from Sporting Lisbon, not Benfica. So he didn't win the league and wasn't in the best defence.

Rojo's a decent player, but Mangala is a better player and has a far higher ceiling, so Mangala was a lot more expensive.

Hazard was only 21, whilst Lallana was 26 and in his prime for those transfers.

If they both left this summer, Hazard would go for triple what Lallana would, so I don't really see your point.

 

[redmanc34]

That Mangala/Rojo comparison is hilarious.

Because they were both defenders in the Portuguese team of the year means they're at the exact same level and should go for the same price?

Hazard and Lallana were both in the Premiership team of the season last year at a similar age. Would they both go for the same price?

Cahill and Kompany were both in it too at a similar age. Same price for them too?

Na, i'm not saying that. If you look at it what they've done over the past 12 months though, as in Rojo got to the World Cup final with Argentina, and was the only player from that Argentina side to make it into the World Cup best XI then that should fluctuate his price massively. It would enhance his reputation wouldn't it, which would mean he should command a higher fee than £16m. I'm not saying he's better than Mangala, but he was in the meanest defence in Portugal, also won the Portuguese League with Benfica last season, and is only a year older than Mangala. So you could agree over the past 12 months he's impressed more on the world stage than Mangala, yet Mangala commands a higher fee. Why? And your point about Lallana and Hazard pretty much proves my point. Hazard went for what £30m, Lallana £25m was it? There's no way there's £5m between them two, but because as I mentioned football doesn't follow any economic trend, which was my original point there, so thanks for backing me up.

Rojo came from Sporting Lisbon, not Benfica. So he didn't win the league and wasn't in the best defence.

Rojo's a decent player, but Mangala is a better player and has a far higher ceiling, so Mangala was a lot more expensive.

Hazard was only 21, whilst Lallana was 26 and in his prime for those transfers.

If they both left this summer, Hazard would go for triple what Lallana would, so I don't really see your point.

Yet i went back and edited that. I was thinking of Garay who left and went to Zenit.

The original point was that inflation in football doesn't follow inflation patterns around the world in a normal economic sense. It's a lot more random. Like Hulk moving for €60m or around £50m to Zenit aged 25, a year after Aguero moved to you for £12m less. Or the fact Zidane moved for £46m in 2001, and it's taken United 14 years to spend more than that on one player, even though our revenue is similar to that of Real Madrid. I just think it's impossible to use the inflation argument with regards to football

 

[Barcon]

I don't think people bothered because he's proved himself to be a delusional fuckwit, who picks and chooses what he wants to believe.
His opening post proved beyond any doubt that he is a liar and not to be trusted. So I just haven't bothered.

Yeah I know. I just wanted to call him a clown when he gave us his valuation of Stevie Ireland.

Managala fee was confirmed here <a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/11338738/Manchester-City-finances-under-scrutiny-from-Uefa.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... -Uefa.html</a>

£32m went directly to Porto I believe, £10m to his agent, as he had a stake in him, which is legal in Portugal, but not in England, so you had to pay £10m extra to get the controlling stake from his agent in order to make him eligbible in the Premier League.
Same happened with Marcos Rojo who we signed
If you want the source of the transfer fees then its
transferleague.co.uk

Everything is on there, but you're gonna tell me it's lying now aren't you because it doesn't equate to what you have been told.
As I said the squad prices calculated are that of the current 25 men squads for both clubs. United did indeed have the most expensive squad in PL history until you signed Bony.

You are wrong on the Mangala point as somebody else already pointed out. My original question though was regarding the Milner valuation. Where did you come up with that?