EPL - Wolves vs Arsenal - Wed 11/04, 19:45

[DJ_Markstar]

All bought for less than £30m other than Aguero, who cost £38m.

ManUre have Rio, who was bought in 2001. Eleven years ago, they were spending £30m on players - and a DEFENDER at that! As well as Rooney and Berbatov. Also, who can forget Veron?

City have bought Robinho, who has now left, and Aguero for £30m+ Dzeko was around £27m, Tevez around £25m after ManUre had had him for free for 2 years anyway.

Having said all that, the exact figures are irrelevant. I put it in that way to highlight the fact that they are comparable when talking about spending huge sums of money on individuals. The hate Man City receives is certainly justified, but they weren't the first to do it, so let's not pretend they are. ManUre have invested, reaped the success from it and then carried on the cycle. No team gets success without spending big money, so anyone saying that ManUre did are simply wrong - and so the argument that their money came from their success is flawed as the money always comes first.

 

[Beksl]

The difference is, they assembled their squad over a longer period of time, they bought Rio eleven years, Rooney 8 years ago etc. They bought players because the generated enough money to do it, they never spend 100m+ in one transfer window.

AS for the numbers, City have more player between 20-30m bracket than Utd so the 30+ argument is not relevant because in the grand scheme of things however you look it City has bigger, more expensive squad that was build from NOTHING in a very short space of time.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

The difference is, they assembled their squad over a longer period of time, they bought Rio eleven years, Rooney 8 years ago etc. They bought players because the generated enough money to do it, they never spend 100m+ in one transfer window.

Who cares how long it took? It isn't relevant. The other side of the coin is that ManUre have been outspending everyone else for years - City are merely trying to catch up in a shorter timespan. If City buy the players that generate them money, as they will do, then the argument is void - they are effectively doing the same thing. Will it be OK then? Of course not.

AS for the numbers, City have more player between 20-30m bracket than Utd so the 30+ argument is not relevant because in the grand scheme of things however you look it City has bigger, more expensive squad that was build from NOTHING in a very short space of time.

It is entirely relevant, it shows that ManUre spend a lot of money - certainly more than the rest of the league and comparable to City/Chelsea in terms of the squad they've assembled..The likes of Anderson (£19m) and Valencia (£16m) cost similar amounts to Nasri (£22m) and Milner(£24mlol). Berbatov cost only a few million less than Aguero. Rio was more expensive than any City defender. How many times have Arsenal spent more than £20m on a player? Surely due to their winning trophies, the success would buy them a squad full of £20m players? What about Newcastle, Sp**s?

ManUre, just like City and Chelsea, have a squad full of incredibly expensive players, assembled over a time in order to assert dominance over the league through outspending them.

The only actual, logical difference is that ManUre are the devil you know (pun intended). They're just as abhorrent as each other in terms of their money ruining it for everyone else.

In addition, if ManUre really did earn their money through success, why do they have such a large amount of debt?

Hmm...

 

[fabo]

Isn't that Glazer debt saddled on the club + interest?

Haven't looked too deeply into it mind you.

 

[Beksl]

Who cares how long it took? It isn't relevant. The other side of the coin is that ManUre have been outspending everyone else for years - City are merely trying to catch up in a shorter timespan. If City buy the players that generate them money, as they will do, then the argument is void - they are effectively doing the same thing. Will it be OK then? Of course not.

It's relevant to me and my perception who I would rather not see lifting the PL trophy.

Man Utd are the case of a club outspending their rivals, I agree, but they did it methodically and bought what they needed, strengthening the required position with the best quality available.

They could do this not only because of the on the field success bot also because they have the biggest stadium in the country (75,811) in comparison to other big clubs in England, Pool (45,276), Arsenal (38,419) have or had 30k + less attendance, that's almost like another stadium.

Commercial revenues are another aspect where they were and are way ahead of other teams in England.

It is entirely relevant, it shows that ManUre spend a lot of money - certainly more than the rest of the league and comparable to City/Chelsea in terms of the squad they've assembled..The likes of Anderson (£19m) and Valencia (£16m) cost similar amounts to Nasri (£22m) and Milner(£24mlol). Berbatov cost only a few million less than Aguero. Rio was more expensive than any City defender. How many times have Arsenal spent more than £20m on a player? Surely due to their winning trophies, the success would buy them a squad full of £20m players? What about Newcastle, Sp**s?

Don't know if those figures are accurate and even so, there's still 11m difference between the transfers, not exactly a figure we should disregard so blatantly.

As for the bolded part, see my answer under the first quote, it's not only about the on the field success.

ManUre, just like City and Chelsea, have a squad full of incredibly expensive players, assembled over a time in order to assert dominance over the league through outspending them.

They outspent but the reality was they were the only club doing it, and they didn't have a sugar daddy behind them. The effect was minimum because their financial output was to small to have a serious effect on the balance of football economy.

The problem started when rich owners came to English football and thus enabling midtable clubs to spend over their means. You have the likes of Villa, Sunderland, Newcastle, Stoke, Wigan who all have rich owners and are able to spend more than they used to and then you have the likes of City and Chelsea with the backing of mega rich individuals.

The only actual, logical difference is that ManUre are the devil you know(pun intended). They're just as abhorrent as each other in terms of their money ruining it for everyone else.

How exactly did Man Utd spending at the end of millennium and in the early 2000s (or until the introduction of rich owners in the Pl) ruined it for everyone else?

Back then we could easily identify our targets and try to sign them without worrying about inflated prices or a bidding war from one of our rivals (only Utd was outspending and they weren't throwing money at players just because they were regarded as quality and were on the radar of other teams.)

In addition, if ManUre really did earn their money through success, why do they have such a large amount of debt?

Hmm...

Because the Glazers bought the club by taking the debt and then put that debt on the club as soon as they owned it. Tycoon takeover at it's finest.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

The problem with your argument that jumps out at me instantly is the mindset.

You're actually finding reasons to defend ManUre's spending because you're used to them being the most successful team in England - it is part of your psychology.

I personally don't believe anyone's position should be unreachable, but even within the minds of the opposition, some find ways to keep them at the top.

Phrases like "midtable clubs shouldn't spend beyond their means". What exactly is a midtable club?

Seeing as there is a definite correlation between a club's wage bill and their final league position, we can come only to one conclusion.

A midtable club is one that hasn't been able to spend quite as much money.

we can't simply say they ManUre had success first, and the money followed. Modern football just doesn't work that way. You need to pay top dollar for everyone to keep yourself there.

You said yourself, they pack out a 75,000+ seater stadium. How did they even build the thing without significant investment? The FA Cup doesn't buy a 75k seater stadium, and 10 League Trophies isn't much closer...

How did ManUre get to the top? Spending. Spending way beyond their means for years on players, stadium expansions, wages etc.

How about Chelsea? Spending.

City (nearly)? Spending.

Err...

So anyway, as far as I am concerned, there is no natural pecking order. The idea that teams should spend within their means is only ever going to favour those with more money - those same teams who have used the far more open rules of the past to carve themselves out amongst the elite over the past 100 years, now seek to cement their place there by limiting other team's ability to do the same. It simply isn't fair on the "midtable clubs".

There should just be a blanket limit for everyone to stop City and Chelsea from outspending everyone, but it should also apply to ManUre. If you say a club should spend within its means, you are actually saying you are fine with the current status quo. I'm not.

On a related note, this was an interesting read: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2010/01/fergies_bond_is_a_bind_for_eve.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2 ... r_eve.html</a>" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@Fabo, pretty sure they had a lot of debt pre-Glazers, although I seem unable to find anything about it on the internet...

In other news, did you know that The Glazers have set it up now that they can take 50% of ManUre's profit every year?

**** me, that's an easy living.

(Sorry for the wall of text lads )

 

[eye4goal]

I wouldnt compare United to City or Chelsea. United's wage bill to turn over ratio is about 46% or so(one of the lowest in the PL), City's ratio is 114%(Chelsea territory)

 

[DJ_Markstar]

Yeah, the whole ratio-to-turnover thing...it's just another way of saying what Beksl has already said about spending within your means.

 

[Rain Dance]

Can't we just hate them both? that's what I do... or this is about the lesser of the two evils ****,

 

[trunks206]

Mark spot on. I had the same argument on another forum after City beat United 6-1. The butthurt United fans were calling City fans "gloryhunters" and saying that "United need to realize that buying titles are what's hot these days and that they should get on that movement" The nerve of them.

Yes they generate alot of money now but United have been outspending clubs for YEARS and I cant believe that people are trying to make it seem like what City is doing is bad.

United show that to be a title winning powerhouse you need to spend to win, United got a head start and Chelsea and City are trying to play catch up. They are all one in the same, how people try and differentiate them is crazy to me.

 

[Mastadon]

Right so there is no difference between a profitable club which generates its own money with the best financial model in EPL history and 2 clubs which post huge losses every year and are entirely dependent on their owners goodwill to carry on? You are right trying to differentiate them is crazy.

 

[fabo]

 

[DJ_Markstar]

Right so there is no difference between a profitable club which generates its own money with the best financial model in EPL history and 2 clubs which post huge losses every year and are entirely dependent on their owners goodwill to carry on? You are right trying to differentiate them is crazy.

The only difference is timescale. ManUre have been allowed to do it for years, but back then it was called "investment", yet everyone else is at fault for trying to catch up? No sense in that at all.

As if ManUre spend within their means anyway!

"Best financial model in EPL history" I remember reading that the year they sold Ronaldo for £80m, they only made £30m profit. Losing £50m a year is not a good financial model! I've also read that this has since improved, but the company is not the best financial model in EPL history - that's just an outright lie.

 

[Jasard]

I'm sure I clicked on a match thread!

 

[DJ_Markstar]

fine, I'll make a thread for it.

 

[lee1001]

I'm sure I clicked on a match thread!

Two thoughts.

1. Bar the first 11 minutes of the game it was perhaps one of the most tediously boring games of recent times.
2. When we're winning, there is nothing to complain about.

 

[Mastadon]

Right so there is no difference between a profitable club which generates its own money with the best financial model in EPL history and 2 clubs which post huge losses every year and are entirely dependent on their owners goodwill to carry on? You are right trying to differentiate them is crazy.

The only difference is timescale. ManUre have been allowed to do it for years, but back then it was called "investment", yet everyone else is at fault for trying to catch up? No sense in that at all.

As if ManUre spend within their means anyway!

"Best financial model in EPL history" I remember reading that the year they sold Ronaldo for £80m, they only made £30m profit. Losing £50m a year is not a good financial model! I've also read that this has since improved, but the company is not the best financial model in EPL history - that's just an outright lie.

Do you have any idea at all where that debt came from? It has nothing to do with how the club is run it was acquisition debt from a leveraged buyout. You dont seem to understand the background of what happened at United under the Glazers at all so how are you arguing this point? It could just as easily have happened to us or any other club and does not in any way mean the financial model is impaired. In fact it just shows how robust it is to be able to take on an additional 500m? odd in debt from nowhere and still generate enough money to dominate.

The have the best financial model which has made them the most valuable club in the world I thought it was a commonly known fact. Their ability to generate commercial revenue is something we would do well to emulate.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

Commercial revenue is only part of a greater whole. We're talking about profits, not revenue.

Anyway, there is now a dedicated thread for this, take it there.