posted Apr 20, 2007

If United have spent 300 million in ten years, by mathmatical equation that means that we have averaged 30 million per year which is just wrong!

10 years ago our record transfer was 6 million plus keith gillespie for Andy Cole.

Rooney was 20 million, not 30. Just as Carrick was 14 million and not the 18 that everyone recorded.

At least try to be factually correct even if your opinions are poor.

United did have 3/4 years where we spent a lot of money and it actually produced less success.

In the last three years we have only (i say only, sorry to every one else) spent 33 million, which is sixth on the spending charts behind Chelsea, Tottenham, Newcastle, Liverpool and Arsenal.

Roman Abramovich has apparently spent 500 million since he has arrived. Good luck to him, I say.

Money has distorted the league, though, but I don't believe that other clubs are being smart enough to keep pace, relatively.

There has always been huge misconceptions about how much United has spent.

The price of a player is not necessarily an indicator of a players quality, anyway.Shevchenko is not 20 million pounds better than Henry, etc, etc.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 20, 2007

Players reflect the housing market - people will pay over the top to get the "in house" small corrections now and then but the trend is always up - and exceeding the rate of inflation. (to be in the propert game you have to buy some first.....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 20, 2007

sycostill - You are just not being factually correct. Even if you were, how can you compare what United have spent on players that have long gone, over a ten year period, to what Chelsea have spent in 3 or 4?

Please, we are better than this.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 20, 2007

it's simple since vialli ranieiri, mourinho over 10 years, chelsea have won 10 trophies and have spent 409 million in total, not 500m under abramovich at all, of which 16m was a write off because of Mutu.

utd have spent 300m in the same span of time and won 11 trophies.

liverpool have spent £260m + mascherano's fee?! £10, perhaps?
and won 10 trophies.

(liverpool in the last ten years have:

Transfers in = £91,630,000 Rafa B
Transfers in = £127,270,000 Gerard H
Transfers in = £3,500,000 Gerard H/Roy E
Transfers in = £40,300,000 Roy E

total spend £262,700,000)

that is a times series analysis and based on published figures. --> im a data analyst by profession, it's what i do.

"In the last three years we have only (i say only, sorry to every one else) spent 33 million, which is sixth on the spending charts behind Chelsea, Tottenham, Newcastle, Liverpool and Arsenal."

ferdinand, vidic, evra, saha, ronaldo 12, rooney 20(or 30), how is that 33m in 3 seasons!

----

"sycostill - You are just not being factually correct. Even if you were, how can you compare what United have spent on players that have long gone, over a ten year period, to what Chelsea have spent in 3 or 4"

yes chelsea have spent lots in the last 3 or 4 years, but utd started with more money, bigger ground, more fans, more revenue etc etc. for chelsea to compete effectively they needed to match spending and exceed utd's to become apart of the 'top 4' which used to be just a top 2 of utd and arsenal.

by spending big and investing in players who will be at the club for several years yet. cheslea have closed the bridge to utd and have matched them for trophy success and may surpass them by the end of the season.

utd's spend over the ten years was:

the last ten years:

Jun Teddy Sheringham (F) Tottenham Hotspur 3.5
Jul Erik Nevland (F) Viking Stavanger 1.5
Aug Henning Berg (D) Blackburn Rovers 5
Mar Jonathan Greening (F) York City 1
Jul Jaap Stam (D) PSV Eindhoven 11
Aug Jesper Blomqvist (F) AC Parma 5
Aug Dwight Yorke (F) Aston Villa 13
Aug Quentin Fortune (U) Atletico Madrid 1.5
Aug Massimo Taibi (G) Venezia 4.5
Sep Mickael Silvestre (D) Internazionale 4
May Fabien Barthez (G) Monaco 8
Jun Ruud Van Nistelrooy (F) PSV Eindhoven 19
Jul Juan Sebastian Veron (M) Lazio 30
Jul Roy Carroll (G) Wigan Athletic 2.5
Jan Diego Forlan (F) Independiente 8
Jul Rio Ferdinand (D) Leeds United 30
Aug Ricardo Lopez (G) Real Valladolid 1.5
Jun David Bellion (F) Sunderland 2
Jul Eric Djemba-Djemba (M) Nantes 4.2
Jul Tim Howard (G) NJ/NY Metro Stars 2.5
Aug Cristiano Ronaldo (F) Sporting Lisbon 13
Aug Jose Pereira Kleberson (M) Athletico Paranaense 6
Jan Louis Saha (F) Fulham 12
May Alan Smith (F) Leeds 7
Jun Gabriel Heinze (D) Paris St. Germain 7
Aug 2004 Wayne Rooney Everton 30
July 2006 Michael Carrick Tottenham 19
Edwin van der Sar - Fulham to Manchester United (undisclosed) 4
Park Ji-Sung - PSV Eindhoven to Manchester United 4
John Obi Mikel - Lyn to Manchester United (undisclosed) 5
Nemanja Vidic - Spartak Moscow to Manchester United 7
Patrice Evra - Monaco to Manchester United (5.5 mil) 5.5

but do they ever get slanted with buying success???

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 20, 2007

your anticipated response will be revenue from selling most of them, yes fair enough.

chelsea have sold players for £115m in the same time period.

which puts total loss on players to 296 million.

yes that's too much but that is how football is.
Chelsea are after trophy success, continued champions league progression, sponsorship etc are almost producing profit.

arsenal are what 300m in debt, due to new ground, utd are 400m in debt because of glazers.

and liverpool will surely follow with the takeover and new ground...


whose in the better financial situation !?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 20, 2007

sycostill

Just to be clear, I am talking about the two and a half year (not three, sorry) period up to this summer (from Xmas 2004). I may have mis-lead you but I only remembered figures shown on Sky.

"ferdinand, vidic, evra, saha, ronaldo 12, rooney 20(or 30), how is that 33m in 3 seasons!"

Rio Ferdinand - Aug 2002

Louis Saha - Jan 2004

Cristiano Ronaldo - July 2003

Wayne Rooney - Summer 2004

Since the Christmas of 2004 we have bought in:
(Can't use my pound sign so I am sorry for the untidy nature of the prices)

Park - 4

Carrick - 14, rising to 18 (based on success)

Vidic - 7

Evra - 6

Van Der Saar - 2

Kuszczak - Loan (possible 1.5)

Total = 33 million pounds

I think that I mis lead you. I wasn't taking it as seriously as I am now. I too was factually incorrect. Sorry!

Sky reported that in that same period Chelsea have spent 120 million.

To be fair we can massage figures how ever we like. My main concern is the actual prices that you have quoted. If they are official figures then they must contain the fee paid to the agents, but only for United. Each one is between 0.5 and 1 million pound out.

Chelsea are hardly likely to disclose agents fee's. I am suspicious as to who has commissioned this report because it seems unbalanced. Source?

I quote Chelsea spending a total of 500 million from the Scotsman (there are amny other sources) :

"Figures in full
(Financial year ending 30 June 2006)

LOSS FOR YEAR

£80.2 million (down 42.9 per cent from previous figure of £140.4m)

TURNOVER

£150 million (up 2.3 per cent from £146.5m)

MERCHANDISING

£11.1 million (up 44 per cent from £7.7m)

FOOTBALL ACTIVITIES

£130.4 million (up 6.3 per cent from £122.7)

It is estimated that Roman Abramovich's total investment in Chelsea since 2003 is now in the region of £500 million"

If your figures for United's transfer activity was correct it only comes to 272 million (only!How much have we wasted?).

We didn't but John Obi Mikel in the end, you did and paid us 12 mil for him - Cheers! Cracking player, though.


I am not sure what point we are actually arguing here but I will give you my take on the situation.


We cannot compare Apples and Oranges. We have bought 31 players since 1997 but only 12 of those players remain. That means 19 players have left or been sold in that period including:

Jaap Stam - 16

Veron - 15

David Beckham - 25

Van Nistelrooy - 10.3

to name but a few. The fee's from these players have bought in 66 million pounds.

It is a totally pointless comparison unless it is taken over the same period of time which is what I tried to do.

If we did compare it as you have, then United have won 5 titles, 2 FA Cups, League Cup, Champions League and Inter-continental cup in that time, including the Treble.

Even if we minus just the 66 mil (it's much more) from 272 mil that comes to a total of 212 million pounds spent over 10 years.

Remember that I have used your figures for transfer fee's and I could probably take another 10-15 million off of that.

As we make a profit of 50 million, it put's our spending in to perspective.

Chelsea's record doesn't really compare.

Chelsea are unique in that you are losing tens of millions each year at the moment and have had a massive injection of funds.

Every penny that United have spent has come from the fans at some point in the business cycle.

Personally, I don't see that you can make a comparison between the two clubs, except for one over the same period of time. As I said earlier, in the last 2.5 years you have spent four times that of United which only makes our season look more remarkable.

I am happy for the challenge of Chelsea and I wouldn't have it any other way.


By the way, number of trophies is not a measurement of success. Get them out and show me their quality! 11 Carling Cups is no match even for 11 FA Cups.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 20, 2007

Just to clarify, we are probably taking about somewhere in the region of 180 million pounds spent on transfers overall (minus players sold) in exchange for:

5 League titles, 2 FA cups, League cup, Champions League and Inter-continental Cup. (Includes treble)

That's over the last 10 years. If you considered our success over the whole Premiership era and the prices we paid in the first 6/7 years of the 90's it would be far more impressive.

We have arguably been less successful the more money that we have thrown at it. This season proves that, to a degree.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 20, 2007

It's Christmas 2005. Damn you, small box.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 20, 2007

We have arguably been less successful the more money that we have thrown at it. This season proves that, to a degree.

-----------------------------
the 26 years between 68-93 proves that

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 27, 2007

TheTruthabtFooty,

Before you go on about ignorant dimwits. Im talking about years ago when these managers put their faith in these players.

SAF has done that so many times, letting players like Kanchelkis, Lee Sharpe and other players go to bring in those youngsters before they were Fergie's Fledglings.

Henry was brought to Arsenal by Arsene Wenger from Inter or AC (who cares which one) where he used to spend his time on the bench.

Anyways my point is lets see Mourinho do that as often as these others have done.

add comment | complain about this comment