Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Can't actually work out if I want Franchise FC to beat the Evil Empire or not.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* English Football Season 2014-15
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
Ikki
Well-known member
United have spent about £200m net since Ferguson. That's only 3 transfer windows. I read on RedCafe they now have a squad which has cost them 500m euros, which, in the whole world, is only less than Real Madrid. If they spend another 30-40m euros...they've got a squad which cost the same as Real Madrid's. 
Last edited:
Tom Halsey
Well-known member
I think the bolded is tenuous in the extreme. Realistically, no-one bases their choice of football club on whether or not they are a PLC.
Re: wages, my point stands. We didn't spend much in a world sense, at all. I think though, as I said, that it is irrelevant. The criticisms of the Glazers are valid/invalid irrespective of United being a PLC, or indeed having spent or not spent much money in the 90s.
Last edited:
That would be because, relatively speaking, you did. You set the British record by signing Roy Keane for £3.75m in 1993 and again in 1995 when you signed Andy Cole for £7m; your squad was already full of £2m players at that point. It wasn't much compared to Serie A but that's why all the world's top players played there in the 1990s.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Last edited:
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
Not that only, of course. But some people who didn't dream of picking MUFC as their favourite club did it partly because they were distorting the competition and they were a symbol of the Sky-BPL-PLC-boom. Other people were totally okay with jumping on that bandwagon and now are complaining because the Glazers are using it as they could with any other plc.
flibbertyjibber
Well-known member
Please hang on.
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
Anyway Celtic are getting knocked out. Again.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Maribor, please make sure all your players are eligible.
Tom Halsey
Well-known member
Depends on your definition of British transfer record, really. Most include transfer fees paid or received, and using that definition we broke it once in the 90s, out of nine times it was broken it total (four of those were by a British club doing the actual buying).
Wiki doesn't have a page for just the spending transfer record, but as I said our total transfer spend wasn't the highest of English clubs in any year except 1998 (Yorke, Stam, Blomqvist). That is not spending lots of money in relative terms, even to English clubs.
cover drive man
Well-known member
Yes, it's a daily mail link. That's google searches for you.
Ikki
Well-known member
You guys spent a lot of money, I'm not sure you really appreciate the figures in hindsight. For example, Stam cost 17m in 1998; it was the highest fee ever paid for a Dutch player, and was also the Dutch transfer record at the time IIRC.
United did balance out a lot of their spending with the Fergie Fledglings, but you've spent a lot of money for a long time, even when you were winning everything.
Right now, 3-0. I thought without the distractions of European football United were going to do the treble?
Edit: 4-0
flibbertyjibber
Well-known member
Get in. Well done Salop.
Well done Dongs. Never fails to be funny seeing United struggle whoever beats them.
Well done Dongs. Never fails to be funny seeing United struggle whoever beats them.
Tom Halsey
Well-known member
I'm not claiming that we didn't spend money. Obviously we did, and were usually one of the higher spenders. However other than 1998, we were never the highest. You cannot possibly argue with that, as it is there in black and white. Stam wasn't £17m, also. We've spent far more money (even inflation adjusted) in the 2000s than we did in the 1990s.
Our net spend from 1992-98 was negative. Admittedly those are cherry-picked years as we bought three major players in 1991 (albeit all were cheap really relative to what they offered - Schmeichel, Kanchelskis and Parker), and we obviously spent a lot in 1998. But it illustrates the point further.
Last edited:
cpr
Well-known member
I suppose one could argue we reaped back what we spent - Cole's transfer was followed 6 months later by Ince and Kancheskis going for over £10m between them.
But you are right, we've always had money, and spent it when needs, even before we became a PLC we were still 'Moneybags Utd'. But thats because we were a well run business both before and after flotation, and nigh on always topped the attendance charts so had the money coming in over the gate. The big hatred of the Glazers is the fact they destroyed that model instantly and saddled the 'richest club in the world' with huge debts.
The reality of it all, which most fans refuse to see, is its made very little difference from a football point of view - We still sign the players the manager wants, folowing the same philosophy to negotiations (we have to be tough in that people will want more from Man Utd because quite simply they can get away with it - the player wants the move, the club know they are a talent and are not in any hurry to sell, and we've got the resources to pay - so clubs will hold out for more).
The stadium continues to be developed, as does the amenities around the site. People get held up over the clubs debt but on the whole, its not had an impact on the club.
But you are right, we've always had money, and spent it when needs, even before we became a PLC we were still 'Moneybags Utd'. But thats because we were a well run business both before and after flotation, and nigh on always topped the attendance charts so had the money coming in over the gate. The big hatred of the Glazers is the fact they destroyed that model instantly and saddled the 'richest club in the world' with huge debts.
The reality of it all, which most fans refuse to see, is its made very little difference from a football point of view - We still sign the players the manager wants, folowing the same philosophy to negotiations (we have to be tough in that people will want more from Man Utd because quite simply they can get away with it - the player wants the move, the club know they are a talent and are not in any hurry to sell, and we've got the resources to pay - so clubs will hold out for more).
The stadium continues to be developed, as does the amenities around the site. People get held up over the clubs debt but on the whole, its not had an impact on the club.
