United Thread 2014/15

[hertsblue]

They broke British record after record after record after Ferguson took over. 500k for Irwin was British record for a full back, 3.5 million for Keane a record, 28 million Ferdinand etc.
For years they simply outspent everyone and they certainly did not have the sponsorship then.
What it did do was buy them titles, make them more attractive to sponsers.
So when they say its their own money, ask them how it all started. Nothing different to what we have done

 

[Gary James]

Seriously, the best signing United could make this summer is a director of football type to work in tandem with the manager and the board. Anyone with half a brain cell can see it from a mile off but the useless fuckers continue to peddle a haphazard approach in the transfer market. Looking back, I thought we were a little too careless in the early days of the ADUG takeover but I honestly think United have taken it to another level.

Good point. With the early days of the City takeover though the difference was that we needed to quickly be perceived as a threat and meaning business, so the club had to pay over the odds to persuade some players to gamble their career by coming to a club that hadn't been successful for over 30 years; with Utd it should be that their name attracts the stars, so that means their issues are even greater. If Utd cannot sign players of the calibre they need with everything in their favour (Euro history etc.) then there really is an issue behind the scenes, adding to your director of football idea. Surely Fergie should be helping here? It looks like he's not.

With City in 2008-11 the bids for Robinho, Tevez and Kaka were more statement making than part of a long term move and they all worked in establishing the name. Tevez is the only one who can be seen as seriously helping the club to success but Robinho contributed and the Kaka bid was genius in the way it stunned the rest of football's elite (I've seen the paperwork - Garry Cook was right about 'bottling it' and the deal would have been much more profitable to City than Utd's recent signings as the financial predictions showed). Transfers like Adebayor helped the club quickly re-establish itself but this was all part of a short term strategy and not City's long term aim. WIth Utd it feels like they really are throwing money at it and, from a football historian's viewpoint, this totally disrupts their perceived philosophy and brand. It will be interesting to see how this pans out, because it will damage perceptions of what Utd stand for (whether those perceptions are accurate or not).

 

[Marvin]

They broke British record after record after record after Ferguson took over. 500k for Irwin was British record for a full back, 3.5 million for Keane a record, 28 million Ferdinand etc.
For years they simply outspent everyone and they certainly did not have the sponsorship then.
What it did do was buy them titles, make them more attractive to sponsers.
So when they say its their own money, ask them how it all started. Nothing different to what we have done

They did not make annual losses of £200m or £100m as we did though.

On the other hand the transfer mkt was totally different. As you say wen they repeatedly broke the transfer record back then the fees were a fraction of what they are today.

 

[BlueRockape]

Nice piece by Skoles

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/paul-scholes-manchester-city-were-so-good-against-liverpool-i-felt-like-turning-the-television-off-9695607.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 95607.html</a>

 

[M18CTID]

Seriously, the best signing United could make this summer is a director of football type to work in tandem with the manager and the board. Anyone with half a brain cell can see it from a mile off but the useless fuckers continue to peddle a haphazard approach in the transfer market. Looking back, I thought we were a little too careless in the early days of the ADUG takeover but I honestly think United have taken it to another level.

Good point. With the early days of the City takeover though the difference was that we needed to quickly be perceived as a threat and meaning business, so the club had to pay over the odds to persuade some players to gamble their career by coming to a club that hadn't been successful for over 30 years; with Utd it should be that their name attracts the stars, so that means their issues are even greater. If Utd cannot sign players of the calibre they need with everything in their favour (Euro history etc.) then there really is an issue behind the scenes, adding to your director of football idea. Surely Fergie should be helping here? It looks like he's not.

With City in 2008-11 the bids for Robinho, Tevez and Kaka were more statement making than part of a long term move and they all worked in establishing the name. Tevez is the only one who can be seen as seriously helping the club to success but Robinho contributed and the Kaka bid was genius in the way it stunned the rest of football's elite (I've seen the paperwork - Garry Cook was right about 'bottling it' and the deal would have been much more profitable to City than Utd's recent signings as the financial predictions showed). Transfers like Adebayor helped the club quickly re-establish itself but this was all part of a short term strategy and not City's long term aim. WIth Utd it feels like they really are throwing money at it and, from a football historian's viewpoint, this totally disrupts their perceived philosophy and brand. It will be interesting to see how this pans out, because it will damage perceptions of what Utd stand for (whether those perceptions are accurate or not).

To be honest Gary, I think you've explained it far better than I did - basically that a club of United's current or recent stature/standing should really have managed things (from Ferguson's retirement and the succession planning, to their general transfer policy in the few years before he retired and afterwards) far better than they have in the last few years. I feel that they have less excuse than us for haemorrhaging money the way they have of late because like you say we didn't have the same stature as them back in 2008-09.

I agree with most of what you say about our transfer policy in the early years of the ADUG takeover and it wasn't quite the scattergun policy that some critics claimed but I just feel that we could've negotiated better with some of the selling clubs on some of the signings - not so much Tevez or Robinho because they were indeed statement signings but moreso the likes of Lescott and Bridge.

 

[unexpected item]

This is a rag comment on MUEN. Reality bites, and all that..

I'm a united fan before dummies are spat out ! Great piece in the telegraph this morning on united's woes and I've been saying it since 07/08 , united lack of spending by the owners has now hit home Fergie and Gill put great spin on it, lack of value in The market , city's stupid spending we won't be drawn in, we give youth a chance great if you got world class players all over the show , when we signing jones Smalling young Valencia Hernendez etc - excuse me while I spit they were getting Toure sliva Augero, Nasri etc now they have 2 world class players for every position , so think putting blame on Woodenhead is way of the mark it started when Ronaldo left and new players that have come in up to this season apart from the keeper and RVP have all been sub standard cheap opinions now we are doing what Fergie said we would not do spending like a woman in a clothes shop , if fingers want to be pointed point at the owners Fergie and Gill they sat back kept quite for there own interests and watch it all unfold and good god it must have hurt Fergie having to buy the likes of Valencia and young bring through Rafael Cleverley etc while other clubs hovered up the best players but alas he sat there tight lipped and he can only explain that :-(

 

[The Colonel]

Seriously, the best signing United could make this summer is a director of football type to work in tandem with the manager and the board. Anyone with half a brain cell can see it from a mile off but the useless fuckers continue to peddle a haphazard approach in the transfer market. Looking back, I thought we were a little too careless in the early days of the ADUG takeover but I honestly think United have taken it to another level.

Good point. With the early days of the City takeover though the difference was that we needed to quickly be perceived as a threat and meaning business, so the club had to pay over the odds to persuade some players to gamble their career by coming to a club that hadn't been successful for over 30 years; with Utd it should be that their name attracts the stars, so that means their issues are even greater. If Utd cannot sign players of the calibre they need with everything in their favour (Euro history etc.) then there really is an issue behind the scenes, adding to your director of football idea. Surely Fergie should be helping here? It looks like he's not.

With City in 2008-11 the bids for Robinho, Tevez and Kaka were more statement making than part of a long term move and they all worked in establishing the name. Tevez is the only one who can be seen as seriously helping the club to success but Robinho contributed and the Kaka bid was genius in the way it stunned the rest of football's elite (I've seen the paperwork - Garry Cook was right about 'bottling it' and the deal would have been much more profitable to City than Utd's recent signings as the financial predictions showed). Transfers like Adebayor helped the club quickly re-establish itself but this was all part of a short term strategy and not City's long term aim. WIth Utd it feels like they really are throwing money at it and, from a football historian's viewpoint, this totally disrupts their perceived philosophy and brand. It will be interesting to see how this pans out, because it will damage perceptions of what Utd stand for (whether those perceptions are accurate or not).

Were they not largely funded by the stock market flotation though in the early 90s? Many a true rag even doesn't know though that at least twice before in their history they have been heavily funded by benefactors. The first time they were actually bankrupt and then became known as 'moneybags' united and their first successes followed.

 

[whicko]

Brilliant MK Dons have had a mobile advertising lorry outside the Swamp with the message 'you've been Don' on the side, arranged by kit company Sondico, Ha,Ha.
The reverse side shows a photo of Moyes with the message 'Bring back the Messiah' Brilliant by the Dons.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Brilliant MK Dons have had a mobile advertising lorry outside the Swamp with the message 'you've been Don' on the side, arranged by kit company Sondico, Ha,Ha.
The reverse side shows a photo of Moyes with the message 'Bring back the Messiah' Brilliant by the Dons.

Apparently this will ''infuriate'' fans!
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mk-dons-taunt-manchester-united-7682672" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ed-7682672</a>

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

But but but, they spent their own money so, it's all fine and dandy!

It certainly itheir own money - the US taxpayer has seen to that

These tax-dodging scumbags are the biggest parasites in football. Hiding their funds in off-shore tax-havens and sponsorship deals paid for by the US tax-payer, ( as you say). Small-time club; big-time hypocrites.