Deepest Blue said:
The expression "it can't be done" and "the numbers don't add up" seem to be cropping up regularly when United's transfer policy is concerned.
It seems to have scuppered the Vidal deal and now Di Maria.
Is the knock on effect regarding other players' wages (guarantees to be top earner in that position) the problem?
It's an interesting question that raises a wider point.
For years united had a pretty prodigious control of the British footballing market place.
Around the turn of the last century they had one seasoned challenger to their supremacy in the league, namely Arsenal, who were financially stymied by their 38,000 capacity ground. Liverpool were a minor nuisance, but a tolerable one, given the revenue and profile that their rivalry with united provided to the rags. Chelsea were seen as upstarts from the capital who would never have the financial clout to compete with united for the big names in their prime, having to settle instead for fading once-great names, looking to see their careers out in one of the world's great cities. Talking of Cities, the football club situated a few miles away from the rags was nothing but a source of amused contempt to all associated with united. The notion that our club would be operating in the same circles as united was so fanciful as to be farcical, to all concerned, sane City fans included.
Against this backdrop united wielded a form of dominance over the marketplace which bordered on the monopolistic. Any player based in England came available and they'd have him if they wanted him. It really was as simple as that, once they'd flexed their financial muscles. If a leading player based abroad wanted to come to England, as long as they weren't overly-fixated on living in London, they'd usually be able to get the deal over the line.
The same was true about player's wages at united for a considerable time. I remember around the time they won the treble the club having a strict wage ceiling of £20k pw, which they had to eventually deviate from, as the likes of Beckham started to realise their commercial worth to the club, and the club decided to embark on the recruitment of the likes of Veron.
This is the "better, fairer" world that united fans comically hark back to before Chelsea and City 'distorted the market', "forcing" united to pay £300k per week to the granny-shagger. A world where they stood above the rest of English football, calling the shots, lording it over the rest, pillaging the other club's best players, often by coercion as they were the only decent ticket in town. A world where they had a dominant market position which made them untouchable. A world they had, more than any other club, forged through the prism of commercial exploitation. A world of plenty, for them at least.
And then people like Roman Abramovich, Gillete & Hicks and more latterly Sheikh Mansour said "I want a piece of that" for reasons of commercial opportunity, global exposure or vanity. Or maybe all three.
And maybe, just maybe, what we are witnessing now is what happens in other industries when bigger, better resourced organisations enter the fray. The previous leading incumbent in that marketplace with their outmoded systems, vainglorious assumptions about enduring hegemony and a prevailing culture of a sense of entitlement (aka "the united way") get outwitted by the new kids on the block, less bloated by the smug sense of self-satisfaction that often goes hand-in-hand with being at the top for a little too long.
Does it mean they'll disappear from view? Certainly not, but the assumptions contained within their business model about perpetual growth were based around a time when they had a much greater degree of control of the world in which they operate.
The rules of the game have changed and if they want to keep up, they've got some seriously tough strategic decisions to make in the next couple of years that will involve a significant departure from an MO that has hitherto served them so well.
The fucking small-time c**ts.
