ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[finneh]

Talking about the past isn't actually that relevant to be perfectly honest. Before the Glazers took over there wasn't a club in the Premier League that particularly spent big (apart from us), as the Abramovich's/Mansour's weren't around. You could argue that Al Fayad/Walker did but that was pennies in comparison to what we have nowadays.

The point is that prior to the last 6 years, United have never had a team that could compete with us in the transfer market in this country. Therefore there is a trail of thought that says we haven't had to spend big to compete, we've just had to spend slightly more than our rivals to stay on top (which we did). Now we have two teams that are spending a lot more, changing the situation completely and making the past irrelevant.

 

[ciderman9000000]

One team, fin. Chelsea don't spend much anymore. Unlike at City, someone's actually told Chelsea about the impending FFP regs.

 

[ralphie88]

Sometimes, for a clue about the future, you need to look at the past.

When did we EVER compete for the "top names"? Where did Brazilian Ronaldo go? Where did Zidane go? Where did Figo go? I could go on and on with this list but the fact is that of all the players in the world who were recognised as "Top Players" (i.e. Player of the Year Awards and the like) the only ones we ever had was the ones we brought in with potential and developed (Ronaldo, Rooney, Beckham, for example).

We used to break transfer records with regularity. I'm old enough to remember Birtles, Robson, Pallister, Cole, Stam, Rio etc. Oh, and Rooney cost us £28m.

We used to do that because we were the richest club in the country. Now we're the club with the biggest debt.

And some of you think what has happened is a coincidence.

 

[ralphie88]

United have always done that, though.

Going back yonks.

How so?

United always kept ticket prices relatively low and also limited the numbers of STs so that holders could get Cup Final tickets. They could have easily increased prices vastly beyond what they charged and could have increased ST numbers.

 

[Spoony]

We used to break transfer records with regularity. I'm old enough to remember Birtles, Robson, Pallister, Cole, Stam, Rio etc. Oh, and Rooney cost us £28m.

We used to do that because we were the richest club in the country. Now we're the club with the biggest debt.

And some of you think what has happened is a coincidence.

Yeah, seems to be some major revisionism going on here recently. We've always broken the bank when we've needed to.

 

[ralphie88]

Well, it's better than...

Fergie: "Can I have some money Mr PLC Board?"

PLC Board: "Give us a week, we'll need to discuss it..."

One week later...

PLC Board: No. feck off.

You see? Much better!

Do you not remember our transfer coups under the PLC? I can still remember baffled Leeds fans as Cantona left (deal done over the phone by Sir Alex after he was called up by Wilkinson enquiring about Irwin) and bemused Newcastle fans after Cole left (record British transfer deal done within days of Keegan ringing up asking about Gillespie wasn't it?).

Don't try and re-write history.

 

[ralphie88]

There's £164million in the bank and at least £60million that appears to have no purpose other than to be spent on players so if it hasn't been spent, what conclusions can be drawn?

The Glazers are going to spend £95m on paying off their own debts.

Incidentally I've just notice you've clocked up over 3k posts since June. That's some dedicated pro-Glazer posting going on there.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

We used to break transfer records with regularity. I'm old enough to remember Birtles, Robson, Pallister, Cole, Stam, Rio etc. Oh, and Rooney cost us £28m.

We used to do that because we were the richest club in the country. Now we're the club with the biggest debt.

And some of you think what has happened is a coincidence.

OK. Let's ignore the fact that the whole scene has been changed in this country by Abramovich and Mansour and not the Glazers.

If you were honest then you would pay heed to the fact that Abramovich spent in the region of £250m (net) on players between 2003 and 2006 - a sum that we could never have competed with at any point in our history.

What has Mansour spent in the last two years? £350million?

 

[ralphie88]

If you were honest then you would pay heed to the fact that Abramovich spent in the region of £250m (net) on players between 2003 and 2006 - a sum that we could never have competed with at any point in our history.

And yet we did complete. We strengthened our squad, we bought Ronaldo and Rooney in (£28m then for a 17 year old!! "Value in the market"?) and within a few years we'd won the League.

Same when Jack Walker was buying up the League for Blackburn. We didn't sit back, we competed despite the fact we couldn't match their transfer fees or their wages. And pocketted Keano for another record transfer fee. And we ground them down.

We don't need to out-spend City, Chelsea or Real because of the squad the Glazers inherited. But we do need to compete.

 

[dev1l]

We used to break transfer records with regularity. I'm old enough to remember Birtles, Robson, Pallister, Cole, Stam, Rio etc. Oh, and Rooney cost us £28m.

We used to do that because we were the richest club in the country. Now we're the club with the biggest debt.

And some of you think what has happened is a coincidence.

True but at the time, there were not many abramovic's around.

the first big benefactor was Jack Walker at Blackburn, whose was worth around 300 million if I m not wrong, and still he cannot be compared with the Sheik Mansours and Abramovics of this world.

Moreover in the 80's united and british clubs in general could still not compete with the italians who were signing the best players at the time - Platini, Zico, Maradona, Careca.

Then came the PL where the English clubs saw a lot of money. As the biggest British club united had a lot of money to spend - however they still found it difficult to compete with the likes of Real Madrid.

 

[Hitchcocker]

Even if the Glazers weren't here, it'd be naive to think we would be able to outbid City and set transfer records the way Madrid and City intend to do.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Do you not remember our transfer coups under the PLC? I can still remember baffled Leeds fans as Cantona left (deal done over the phone by Sir Alex after he was called up by Wilkinson enquiring about Irwin) and bemused Newcastle fans after Cole left (record British transfer deal done within days of Keegan ringing up asking about Gillespie wasn't it?).

Don't try and re-write history.

I am well aware of the stories behind those particular transfers. Just as I am aware of the story behind the Ronaldinho fiasco.

I know the PLC did well for us, I was merely saying that Fergie himself says that the process these days is far more efficient and decisions can be made far more quickly.

 

[ralphie88]

True but at the time, there were not many abramovic's around.

the first big benefactor was Jack Walker at Blackburn, whose was worth around 300 million if I m not wrong, and still he cannot be compared with the Sheik Mansours and Abramovics of this world.

Moreover in the 80's united and british clubs in general could still not compete with the italians who were signing the best players at the time - Platini, Zico, Maradona, Careca.

Then came the PL where the English clubs saw a lot of money. As the biggest British club united had a lot of money to spend - however they still found it difficult to compete with the likes of Real Madrid.

There's not many Abramovich's around now. We've got 3 clubs spending silly money, no more. In the 80s the Italians were all spending silly money. And in the 90s Walker was breaking the bank going after every player - he might not have been as rich, but the effect was the same. But we always competed - because we had huge gates and were extremely popular, even with Liverpool just down the road winning everything.

Now we pay £1.9m a season or whatever it is on transfers whilst we piss £40-60-80m up the wall paying off the interest on a debt that doesn't come down.

But for the debt we could compete with these sugar daddies, because we always did.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

The Glazers are going to spend £95m on paying off their own debts.

You know, I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before...

Incidentally I've just notice you've clocked up over 3k posts since June. That's some dedicated pro-Glazer posting going on there.

I know. Uncle Avram tells me the cheque's in the post. I hope it doesn't bounce this time.

 

[Livvie]

What have the Romans, sorry, Glazers, ever done for us?

 

[dev1l]

There's not many Abramovich's around now. We've got 3 clubs spending silly money, no more. In the 80s the Italians were all spending silly money. And in the 90s Walker was breaking the bank going after every player - he might not have been as rich, but the effect was the same. But we always competed - because we had huge gates and were extremely popular, even with Liverpool just down the road winning everything.

Now we pay £1.9m a season or whatever it is on transfers whilst we piss £40-60-80m up the wall paying off the interest on a debt that doesn't come down.

But for the debt we could compete with these sugar daddies, because we always did.

It's true that the italians were spending silly money in the 80's but they were not very eager in english talent. There were british players who went there like jordan, hateley, wilkins and later gazza and platt but not many because british players always found it more difficult than others to settle over there.
So united and other british clubs could still compete for the best british talent as the italians were not always interested

Today it's different as two clubs in england are owned by 2 mega rich personalities and whenever there is an upcoming english player, his price shoots up to ridiculous levels - like Milner at 28m.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

There's not many Abramovich's around now. We've got 3 clubs spending silly money, no more. In the 80s the Italians were all spending silly money. And in the 90s Walker was breaking the bank going after every player - he might not have been as rich, but the effect was the same. But we always competed - because we had huge gates and were extremely popular, even with Liverpool just down the road winning everything.

Now we pay £1.9m a season or whatever it is on transfers whilst we piss £40-60-80m up the wall paying off the interest on a debt that doesn't come down.

But for the debt we could compete with these sugar daddies, because we always did.

ralphie, hate to break it to you mate but we ARE competing. Have you been asleep for the last four years?

Look at the players we have purchased over the last five years - one of them was a club record.

I see I am getting accused of revisionism here but you're not exactly being completely honest about the situation either.

I saw that £1.9m figure on SSN today and that is some net spend figure which takes the Ronaldo sale into account. An £80m sale would put a dent in any net spend figure.

The thing I take most exception to is your last comment:-

But for the debt we could compete with these sugar daddies, because we always did.

For a couple of years before the Glazers took over, we were getting left behind. We had to sit and watch Arsenal's "invincibles" piss the title (we were 15 points behind) and then we had to sit and watch Mourinho's Chelsea piss the title (we were 18 points behind).

The Glazers took over and in that first season, Chelsea pissed the title again (we were 8 points behind).

Drastic measures had to be taken and, to be fair, the PLC board recognised this and sanctioned (I believe) an 8% increase in ticket prices. The Glazers took over in the interim and have taken the blame for this increase ever since.

It didn't stop there, obviously and the Glazers increased it for the next few years too. This has obviously incurred the wrath of the fans but it was necessary if we were to really compete with Chelsea.

You might choose to believe that the nice PLC would never have done this but at some point ralphie, you have to let reality come into the discussion.

If the PLC were still in charge and they didn't introduce the ticket hikes and the ACS then we might be looking at £20m off the matchday income.

Then factor in corporation tax and shareholder dividends.

The difference between what the Glazers are costing us and what would have been the situation financially under the PLC is not as great as you believe.

You cannot have it both ways ralphie. You cannot slate the Glazers for increasing ticket prices AND lack of spending because under the PLC it would have definitely been a case of either/or at the very best.

 

[Rood]

Do you not remember our transfer coups under the PLC? I can still remember baffled Leeds fans as Cantona left (deal done over the phone by Sir Alex after he was called up by Wilkinson enquiring about Irwin) and bemused Newcastle fans after Cole left (record British transfer deal done within days of Keegan ringing up asking about Gillespie wasn't it?).

Don't try and re-write history.

It seems to be you who is trying to rewrite history!
We have never competed with the biggest spenders in World football - we have in the past been the biggest spenders in England but in those days the biggest cash came from Italy and then Spain. Deal that were big for us at the time (Keane, Cole etc) might have been big deals in England but they were nowhere near what was being spent in Serie A and La Liga.
The arrival of big money from Russia and now the Gulf has meant that we also stopped being the top UK spenders but that doesnt mean we dont still compete for big names every now and again. We did of course break the British transfer record just 2 years ago.

Anyway would you actually want us to be splashing around obscene amounts of cash like we see at City or Real?
I wouldn't - I much prefer the type of organic success built on moulding great teams rather than individuals that Fergie is reknowned for.

 

[stubie]

Would fans accept a Murdoch takeover ?

After he's failed attempt to buy United back in 1998 would anyone approve if he was to mount a bid to buy the club. I fully understood the reason the fans were against the idea 12 years ago but given our current financial state would you be for the idea for a Rupert Murdoch bid given he's current wealth along with assets that he owns or would you see it as another disaster.

 

[finneh]

One team, fin. Chelsea don't spend much anymore. Unlike at City, someone's actually told Chelsea about the impending FFP regs.

I agree that Chelsea are trying to redress their wage structure, but I am firm in the belief that for every Drogba that leaves, a similar wage/price/talent player will be brought in. Lets be fair, man for man they have a top squad and only really need to replace players that leave/retire now, not keep stacking them up kamikaze style.

It seems to be you who is trying to rewrite history!
We have never competed with the biggest spenders in World football - we have in the past been the biggest spenders in England but in those days the biggest cash came from Italy and then Spain. Deal that were big for us at the time (Keane, Cole etc) might have been big deals in England but they were nowhere near what was being spent in Serie A and La Liga.
The arrival of big money from Russia and now the Gulf has meant that we also stopped being the top UK spenders but that doesnt mean we dont still compete for big names every now and again. We did of course break the British transfer record just 2 years ago.

Not the best example to give, since at that time Italian/Spanish teams were winning the European Cup more than any other Nations. Surely that proves spending generally produces results on the field.

I do agree that City's policy is a joke, but lets not kid ourselves that we've built our success on a modest budget buying "potential" and turning them into top players, you only have to look at Arsenal as to what that has achieved in the last 6 years. When we spent the most (in England) we won the most (smashing records with Robson, Pallister, Keane, Cole, Ferdinand, Veron...), although having the best manager ever certainly didn't do us any harm .

My main point isn't that we need to go out and spend £150m, my point is that we have to replace established quality with established quality. I love Fergie's rhetoric the last few days, but I also look at our team and think: when was the last time a really good attacking player came through our youth system?

 

[datura]

Well, I can only say that if I was about to invest such a huge chunk of money into something, I would want to know that I wouldn't be met with resistance from my own "customers" from the off and forever more, that's all I am saying.

To ignore it as a factor is laughable really but I will concede that perhaps it isn't the MAIN factor which is what I originally said.

We'd have to ask people who may have been thinking of buying United for their reasons to get to the bottom of it, wouldn't we?

I didn't ignore it, I just said that it was laughable to say it would be the main barrier, which you have now agreed. Nice attempt at a cover, but your 'point' was bollocks and you are trying to make out I said something I didn't again! Same old, same old.

Well yes, of course, and this is Hippy Hoppy Happy Dreamland isn't it?

I'll buy the club for £1bn and I won't seek to take any money out for myself, I'll just forget about my £1bn and every penny the club makes will be ploughed back into it.

Of course, if the fans want to own 5% and it will make them happy, I'll give them the opportunity to raise £50million (like that's going to happen!) and they can have it. It will make no difference whatsoever to the way the club is run though because I am the main investor and I am going to run the club how I want it to be run I'm afraid because it is my £950m on the line at the end of the day.

If you have a problem with this then we all have a problem with it again, don't we?

"We want cheaper tickets and we want to buy all the best players and, as 5% stakeholders, we should be listened to!"

I apologise if my tone here is heavily sarcastic but I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would put buy Manchester United and not take any money for themselves when they could buy any other business for £1bn and make themselves a fortune - even if they ARE Manchester United supporters themselves.

You have made up your mind that the Glazer's are the best option and to reinforce this just try and ridicule any possible alternatives. There are various ways to appease fans that could realistically be done without any significant financial impacts, but keep on your soapbox if you wish.

 

[datura]

Would fans accept a Murdoch takeover ?

After he's failed attempt to buy United back in 1998 would anyone approve if he was to mount a bid to buy the club. I fully understood the reason the fans were against the idea 12 years ago but given our current financial state would you be for the idea for a Rupert Murdoch bid given he's current wealth along with assets that he owns or would you see it as another disaster.

He can't as it would be blocked by the regulator so it's a pointless discussion.

 

[datura]

I agree that Chelsea are trying to redress their wage structure, but I am firm in the belief that for every Drogba that leaves, a similar wage/price/talent player will be brought in. Lets be fair, man for man they have a top squad and only really need to replace players that leave/retire now, not keep stacking them up kamikaze style.

Chelsea had a plan to become self sufficient and develop their own players long before the FFP regs came in. They have invested a hell of a lot in their Academy and are starting to realise the fruits of that, but how many turn into top players is difficult to judge.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

I agree that Chelsea are trying to redress their wage structure, but I am firm in the belief that for every Drogba that leaves, a similar wage/price/talent player will be brought in. Lets be fair, man for man they have a top squad and only really need to replace players that leave/retire now, not keep stacking them up kamikaze style.

Let's wait and see eh? Chelsea need to sort their books out before the FFP regs kick in.

Not the best example to give, since at that time Italian/Spanish teams were winning the European Cup more than any other Nations. Surely that proves spending generally produces results on the field.

I suppose it depends on which period you are talking about specifically but English clubs were actually banned from Europe for a spell there and when we got back in, we found it a little difficult to get to grips with it at first.

As a general principle, if all other things are equal then obviously the team with the most money will do better. You would back a Premier League team to beat a Second Division team every time because the PL team has the better players because it can afford to pay them whereas the Div2 team doesn't and can't.

But we have NEVER spent more than Spanish/Italian teams etc. Just look at the world record transfers - I doubt Berbatov even makes the top 30.

I do agree that City's policy is a joke, but lets not kid ourselves that we've built our success on a modest budget buying "potential" and turning them into top players, you only have to look at Arsenal as to what that has achieved in the last 6 years. When we spent the most (in England) we won the most (smashing records with Robson, Pallister, Keane, Cole, Ferdinand, Veron...), although having the best manager ever certainly didn't do us any harm .

The last five years of supposed austerity has arguably been the most successful period in our history.

Oh yeah, I forgot, we're still playing with the squad that the Glazers inherited from the PLC, aren't we?

My main point isn't that we need to go out and spend £150m, my point is that we have to replace established quality with established quality. I love Fergie's rhetoric the last few days, but I also look at our team and think: when was the last time a really good attacking player came through our youth system?

Fair enough but who have we had to replace this season? Who left? Shouldn't we be waiting until people have actually gone before we ask who has replaced them and whether or not it was good enough?

I'm not sure what your point is about the youth system. The idea is obviously to bring first team players through but if they do come through then that will mean less spending! If they don't come through then it must be because what we have has been bought in and is better than what is coming through the ranks.

 

[Rood]

Not the best example to give, since at that time Italian/Spanish teams were winning the European Cup more than any other Nations. Surely that proves spending generally produces results on the field.

I do agree that City's policy is a joke, but lets not kid ourselves that we've built our success on a modest budget buying "potential" and turning them into top players, you only have to look at Arsenal as to what that has achieved in the last 6 years. When we spent the most (in England) we won the most (smashing records with Robson, Pallister, Keane, Cole, Ferdinand, Veron...), although having the best manager ever certainly didn't do us any harm .

My main point isn't that we need to go out and spend £150m, my point is that we have to replace established quality with established quality. I love Fergie's rhetoric the last few days, but I also look at our team and think: when was the last time a really good attacking player came through our youth system?

The example was to disagree with the myth that we used to compete with the top spenders and that we dont anymore under the Glazers. I was not making any comment about whether spending money bring success or not as that is whole different discussion.

I do not deny that we have spent money but it is important to recognise that all that money was self generated and did not come from a sugar daddy like Roman or Mansour - there is a big difference in my eyes.

We have spent plenty of money since 2005 and I am sure Fergie will spend again when the time is right - our financial statements prove that money is there for players.

 

[VoetbalWizard]

But we have NEVER spent more than Spanish/Italian teams etc. Just look at the world record transfers - I doubt Berbatov even makes the top 30.

berbatov is in the top 15 of most expensive transfers of all time and rio is still the most expensive defender all time.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

I didn't ignore it, I just said that it was laughable to say it would be the main barrier, which you have now agreed. Nice attempt at a cover, but your 'point' was bollocks and you are trying to make out I said something I didn't again! Same old, same old.

Hmm. I fear we may be on the verge of you going drama queen here so I will try to tread carefully. You said that you wouldn't acknowledge something that was "nonsense".

I don't believe it IS nonsense and I gave my best attempt at explaining why I think this. You continue to ignore it, however and all you have said so far is that it was "bollocks" and "nonsense".

You have made up your mind that the Glazer's are the best option and to reinforce this just try and ridicule any possible alternatives. There are various ways to appease fans that could realistically be done without any significant financial impacts, but keep on your soapbox if you wish.

I keep asking you to clarify but you don't! You'll be accusing me of putting words in your mouth next. You have given me no examples whatsoever of any alternatives that would be better.

I have not made up my mind that the Glazers are the best option but I have reconciled in my mind that they ARE the owners and, unless one of these "better options" really does come along and shows the money and shows me why they are better then what else can I do?

Whinge and moan about how crap it all is? Nod sagely at every word Duncan Drasdo utters? Go on a march through town?

Won't make a jot of difference, I'm afraid.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

berbatov is in the top 15 of most expensive transfers of all time and rio is still the most expensive defender all time.

OK, thanks. I stand corrected.

EDIT: I found this article which is quite funny now. It is an article from 1997.

Notice United appear nowhere on it (in fact only a couple of English teams do) it is dominated by Spanish and Italian teams.

 

[datura]

Hmm. I fear we may be on the verge of you going drama queen here so I will try to tread carefully. You said that you wouldn't acknowledge something that was "nonsense".

I don't believe it IS nonsense and I gave my best attempt at explaining why I think this. You continue to ignore it, however and all you have said so far is that it was "bollocks" and "nonsense".

Hmm, interesting that you are accusing me of being a drama queen given your meltdown the other night.

You said it was the main reason, I said that was nonsense and you even agreed! I didn't ignore it at all, I actually said that they could be appeased, but don't let that distort your newly written history.

I keep asking you to clarify but you don't! You'll be accusing me of putting words in your mouth next. You have given me no examples whatsoever of any alternatives that would be better.

I have not made up my mind that the Glazers are the best option but I have reconciled in my mind that they ARE the owners and, unless one of these "better options" really does come along and shows the money and shows me why they are better then what else can I do?

Whinge and moan about how crap it all is? Nod sagely at every word Duncan Drasdo utters? Go on a march through town?

Won't make a jot of difference, I'm afraid.

Where have you asked me to clarify and I haven't responded? I accuse you of putting words into my mouth as you continually for some unknown reason and just make yourself look stupid. If you were honest and upfront I'd have a little more respect for you.

If you don't like reading the 'whinging and moaning' why don't you just ignore it and actually post about football rather than spamming these threads? You are full of contradictions and inconsistencies but are so arrogant that you fail to see it.

So it's made no difference. That Bloomberg article was a load of bollocks and the ticket prices weren't frozen because of the protests and boycotts?

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

You said it was the main reason, I said that was nonsense and you even agreed! I didn't ignore it at all, I actually said that they could be appeased, but don't let that distort your newly written history.

Now who is putting words in people's mouths!?

You said that the idea that people could be put off buying because of what MUST have done to the two people who have bought or attempted to buy United in the past was nonsense.

In an attempt to meet you halfway, I said that it was unprovable (as we cannot possibly know who may have put in a bid for United and if the anti-anyone-who-doesn't-give-MUST-a-say sentiment had any bearing on their decision) and I conceded that it might not the MAIN reason behind why people have not put in a bid for United.

The point stands though. It is not a nonsense/bollocks point. I believe it is a very valid point.

I think I asked you to expand on how they could be appeased and you said that they could let the fans have 5% ownership and I responded to that. You didn't really take me up on what I said.

If you don't like reading the 'whinging and moaning' why don't you just ignore it and actually post about football rather than spamming these threads?

Umm... I am spamming the Glazer thread with discussion about the Glazers? How does that work, exactly?

If you don't like what I say, why don't you ignore it (you said you were going to put me on ignore the other day, after all)?

I don't mind talking about football every now and again but I prefer to watch it to be honest. The football forums won't miss another armchair manager.

You are full of contradictions and inconsistencies but are so arrogant that you fail to see it.

Enlighten me then. Don't just say these things without backing them up. Anyone can say stuff without justification.

So it's made no difference. That Bloomberg article was a load of bollocks and the ticket prices weren't frozen because of the protests and boycotts?

I don't know. The ticket prices are subject to the laws of supply and demand which takes into account all manner of factors. The protests and boycotts would have been one (especially the boycotts, obviously).

As the Glazers are still here though and can still take exactly as much money from the club as they would have been able to even with ticket price increases, have they really made a difference to the ownership situation or have they just deprived Manchester United of money?

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

Are the apologists still talking rubbish about Ronaldo's sale making a dent in the net spend?

Of course it made a dent. Every sale makes a dent in net spend while every purchase increases it. Fantastic move by Rooney and Fergie to use the new contract discussions to highlight the lack of spending power isn't it?

Oh and trivia moment - the last British club to break the world transfer fee record? Newcastle United in 1996, 92 years after they smashed the record with a £700 fee for a Sunderland player.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Are the apologists still talking rubbish about Ronaldo's sale making a dent in the net spend?

Of course it made a dent. Every sale makes a dent in net spend while every purchase increases it. Fantastic move by Rooney and Fergie to use the new contract discussions to highlight the lack of spending power isn't it?

Oh and trivia moment - the last British club to break the world transfer fee record? Newcastle United in 1996, 92 years after they smashed the record with a £700 fee for a Sunderland player.

I won't take the bait URR.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

What bait? Purchases - sales = net spend. Apparently Sir Alex has had a lot more available to him than he's spent. Aren't the Glazers lucky people?

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

What bait? Purchases - sales = net spend. Apparently Sir Alex has had a lot more available to him than he's spent. Aren't the Glazers lucky people?

Look at the record, URR. That tells you whether or not you spent enough to be competitive. It's not a willy-waving contest.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

Yep. This season's performances and the summer's spending speaks volumes.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Yep. This season's performances and the summer's spending speaks volumes.

Shall we come back to this in May? I'm off to bed. G'night.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

Shall we come back to this in May? I'm off to bed. G'night.

Usual. Duck the point because you can't defend it.

 

[DFreshKing]

Strange how the £80 million is not relevant to net spend but it is relevant to the £160 million in the bank.

Why don't remove all exceptional items from the accounts and get a 'true' picture.

Always bizarre hearing how we should ignore one off items. (this is not directed at anything recent in this thread just a summary of something that has been bothering me).

 

[finneh]

The example was to disagree with the myth that we used to compete with the top spenders and that we dont anymore under the Glazers. I was not making any comment about whether spending money bring success or not as that is whole different discussion.

I do not deny that we have spent money but it is important to recognise that all that money was self generated and did not come from a sugar daddy like Roman or Mansour - there is a big difference in my eyes.

We have spent plenty of money since 2005 and I am sure Fergie will spend again when the time is right - our financial statements prove that money is there for players.

Unfortunately every club doesn't turn over hundreds of million every year (and irrespective of good management never has the potential to) to do be able to compete with us for players. It'd be a terrible League if no clubs had ever spent more than they could technically afford and every team just stagnated spending 75% operating profit on players/facilities and distributing 25% (for one we'd have won the League 6 times in a row :P). I see a difference, just not a relevant or distinctive one.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

Strange how the £80 million is not relevant to net spend but it is relevant to the £160 million in the bank.

Why don't remove all exceptional items from the accounts and get a 'true' picture.

Always bizarre hearing how we should ignore one off items. (this is not directed at anything recent in this thread just a summary of something that has been bothering me).

Ignore Berbatov's signing, that was a one off too?

What's the total transfer value of players acquired since Ronaldo left?