United Thread 2014/15

[mancitymick]

Sky said this last year:

Look at some of his signings from when he first took over

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/sir-alex-fergusons-99-signings-4002742" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... gs-4002742</a>

One example is Irwin, what would he cost in todays market. Point is they have spent more than anyone by far in this Country. They also awarded the biggest contracts. As some one said they were paying Keane 90k per week whilst we were paying Pollock 1k per week!

 

[Juan King]

Sky said this last year:

Look at some of his signings from when he first took over

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/sir-alex-fergusons-99-signings-4002742" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... gs-4002742</a>

One example is Irwin, what would he cost in todays market. Point is they have spent more than anyone by far in this Country. They also awarded the biggest contracts. As some one said they were paying Keane 90k per week whilst we were paying Pollock 1k per week!

That's about £900 more than he was worth!

 

[Bluewonder]

Ferguson spent £17.3m (plus 2 undisclosed signings) before winning his first title. If anybody has an adjuster that calculates transfer inflation it would certainly be interesting to see what this figure would represent now.

 

[Stoned Rose]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-united-insist-priority-remains-4165837

Propaganda machine kicking in now.

A 35 man squad?

Is that another rule that only applies to them?

 

[Stoned Rose]

Sky said this last year:

Again its PR
The average armchair fan will say that he did not spend a lot of net spend but remember when he started 500k-3.5 million was a lot of money then and he repeatedly broke British transfer records. A 500k player back then is now a 10 million player now so figures don't show inflation so of course looks better. Helped also by his ex players turned managers paying a huge premium for Utd rejects

Nailed.

 

[SkyBlueTX]

So Uniteds starting 11 for this season is:

Genius!

LOL!!

 

[waspish]

Ferguson spent £17.3m (plus 2 undisclosed signings) before winning his first title. If anybody has an adjuster that calculates transfer inflation it would certainly be interesting to see what this figure would represent now.

Well looking at Shaw going for 30m someone like Keane now would go for around 50m pallister and Bruce would be a combined fee of 50m at the least that team he bought was at least 300m in today's money

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

When we thumped them 5-1 in 1989, wasn't that the most expensive team ever assembled in this country? How much did it cost, £10 million? That'd be well over £200 million these days.

 

[Tbilisi]

When we thumped them 5-1 in 1989, wasn't that the most expensive team ever assembled in this country? How much did it cost, £10 million? That'd be well over £200 million these days.

I seem to recall it was 17m,may be wrong and I used that to take the piss out of the useless twats

 

[billy no mates]

Would be interesting to see an inflation adjusted figure for all the high spending clubs from the inception of the EPL to put it into a realistic perspective rather than agenda slanted versions such as "last five transfer windows" or "since X Y or Z's takeover of club X Y or Z" other bollox.

My guess is United would top that list and that CFC and MCFC have come very close to catching that up in an astonishingly short period of time... pure speculation of course ... which is why a definitive breakdown would be useful.

Regardless, I think there was already a spending problem before CFC (then MCFC) came and exacerbated it. The likes of Leeds especially demonstrate this. However I do not believe free spending billionaire's were the answer, in fact they pushed the bar even further out of reach for most clubs despite breaking into the elite themselves... not everyone has a billionaire handy.

Does this mean I think FFP is fair ? No. It's a reactionary swing back in favour of the "old money" clubs, yes it probably slows down inflated prices a bit but it seems like protectionism where I think it is as much just poor implementation of an idealistic ethos. I can certainly see why people see conspiracy where I see incompetence. FFP is a step in the right direction but clubs that generate high revenue such as United should also feel the pinch is FFP really wants to claim to level the playing field. I do not think that money earned through footballing success should be completely castrated, but being a top ten club now should not mean that you can dwarf everyone else's spending from now on in perpetuity. Sadly I think EU law will make this very difficult to achieve since salary caps and transfer number limitations will be near impossible. However I do think that some ideas could work such as more egalitarian distribution of TV money or perhaps even a % of transfer fees levied to redistribute downwards (though these again would probably incur EU law issues :/)

The loan system needs revamping, CFC's hoarding of young talent severely inhibits one of the last remaining avenues available to smaller clubs ability to use hard work and nous to overcome the financial gap, it also potentially damages the careers of players. A club should not be able to buy a player just to bench and prevent a rival from signing them.

In short I think FFP was inevitable, spending was getting (*STILL IS) unacceptably out of hand. But it needs to come the last step and make changes that allow the spurs and evertons a chance at breaking into the top 4 and the swanseas and southamptons a shot at taking their place, competing for Europe and possibly even CL places. While we all love to see our own team dominate, I think deep down a lot of us would appreciate the value of a league where almost anyone in the top ten could win it and almost anyone in the bottom ten could grow into a top ten side. Unfortunately this feels a long way off.