Bluemoon goes into Meltdown

Yes, but - the point you seem now to be deliberately missing - is that those players (along with Rooney and Berbatov) represent our four most expensive acquisitions.

Veron - Signed for £28.1m in 2001/02. Our net spend that season was £28.9m. We also spent £19m on Van Nistelrooy but sold players such as Stam and Cole for large fees to offset our spending.

Ferdinand - Signed in 2002 for £29.1m. Our net spend was around £27m, Rio being the only major signing.

Rooney - Signed in 2004 for £27m. Our net spend was £34m due to also spending around £6m each on Smith and Heinze and selling Butt, Forlan and Djemba Djemba for modest fees. The previous year's net spend was just £3m.

Berbatov - Signed in 2008. United hadn't come close to matching Rooney's fee for the previous four years. We have not looked like coming close to matching it in the following four, either.

So, we've four big-money signings in 11 years. These have been offset somewhat by sales and low cost punts. Of course we have spent not inconsiderable sums on players such as Nani, Carrick, Hargreaves, Anderson, Jones etc - however, they have been bought for sums that other clubs such as Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs etc would have been able to afford also.

How is this comparable to spending £25m each on five players in a single season as City did in 2010/11? This being after they had spent £240m on transfers in the previous two seasons?

So its ok to make signings for huge sums if you only do it now and again - but any more than that "kills football"? I'm not sure how you find the line then - because United were spending those sums ten years ago - and as I said, set the bar higher for transfer fees - being one of the reasons why fees are now so high in the PL.

You seem to be missing the point I was making - whether or not its comparable to me is irrelevant. United didn't spend more money because they already had a very good squad, they could therefore afford to go out and buy one or two players for enormous sums. City weren't in that position, so they had to go and spend more money on better players in order to achieve their aims.

Speaking hypothetically - had Van Der Sar, Scholes, Giggs and Neville all retired at the same time, and Fergie had £150 million plus available do you think he'd have made do with youth team players and reserves? I think not - he's previously shown he's happy to spend the money if available and on the right players.

Or perhaps you think he'd sit back and think - I'd better not spend all that cash at once, its not fair on our rivals... the game will be ruined... nobody will be able to compete..."?

In my view, and its an argument for another thread, He's only not spent large sums in the past because its clearly not now as freely available as it was. He cares about one ting only, keeping United at the top - as will any owner and manager of any club in the same position.
 
Well I disagree. They simply bought a player because he was available in my opinion. Something they've been making a habit of.

The point I'm making with these players is what other club in history has been able to simply write off players in the fashion City have? This is something you're simply ignoring when you compare them to how Utd conducted their business. A club should not be able to do what City have done.

Again, I don't see the relevance - that smacks of jealousy - "its not fair, they can buy a player and write it off if he's rubbish and we can't" - well that's just the way it is.

You can just as easily say that about United in comparison to the vast majority of other clubs in the PL and around the world. In football there are have's and have not's, as in life.

I ask you then, what do you want? Do you want a true level playing field where all clubs are equal, or thereabouts and where United's spending power is curbed along with the rest of the rich boys?

Or do you just want the rich, sugar daddy clubs to be prevented from spending their money? Of course that benefits United greatly, a return to the days where United can pick of their rivals better players without competition.

I'm interested to know your opinions.
 
So its ok to make signings for huge sums if you only do it now and again - but any more than that "kills football"? I'm not sure how you find the line then - because United were spending those sums ten years ago - and as I said, set the bar higher for transfer fees - being one of the reasons why fees are now so high in the PL.

You seem to be missing the point I was making - whether or not its comparable to me is irrelevant. United didn't spend more money because they already had a very good squad, they could therefore afford to go out and buy one or two players for enormous sums. City weren't in that position, so they had to go and spend more money on better players in order to achieve their aims.

Speaking hypothetically - had Van Der Sar, Scholes, Giggs and Neville all retired at the same time, and Fergie had £150 million plus available do you think he'd have made do with youth team players and reserves? I think not - he's previously shown he's happy to spend the money if available and on the right players.

Or perhaps you think he'd sit back and think - I'd better not spend all that cash at once, its not fair on our rivals... the game will be ruined... nobody will be able to compete..."?

In my view, and its an argument for another thread, He's only not spent large sums in the past because its clearly not now as freely available as it was. He cares about one ting only, keeping United at the top - as will any owner and manager of any club in the same position.

You've finally got it. Hooray.

Kind of, anyway. I didn't say it was "killing football", just that their level of spending is completely incomparable to that of United.
 
You've finally got it. Hooray.

Kind of, anyway. I didn't say it was "killing football", just that their level of spending is completely incomparable to that of United.

Perhaps. I don't deny they've spent huge sums - I just don't see that it's right to get morally outraged by it. Football has been on a slippery slope for years - as soon as clubs started paying £20 plus million for players and wages spiralled, and you can't lay the blame at City or Cheslea's door anymore than you can at United's and a host of other top clubs.

I recall a thread after United beat City in the FA Cup, where a comment by (I think) Micah Richards about city being "moral victors" was rightly derided and laughed at.

Yet a lot of people on here playing the "city bought the title" card seem to be doing the same - "they may have won it but they cheated" - as if it makes it all alright. I don't get that at all.

I assume that if United spend massive money this summer or next, or if a rich owner buys the club and furnishes the manager with £100 plus million each year a lot of people on here will show their disgust and vote with their feet, retiring quietly to cry into their beer at the "state of the game".
 
Again, I don't see the relevance - that smacks of jealousy - "its not fair, they can buy a player and write it off if he's rubbish and we can't" - well that's just the way it is.

You can just as easily say that about United in comparison to the vast majority of other clubs in the PL and around the world. In football there are have's and have not's, as in life.

I ask you then, what do you want? Do you want a true level playing field where all clubs are equal, or thereabouts and where United's spending power is curbed along with the rest of the rich boys?

Or do you just want the rich, sugar daddy clubs to be prevented from spending their money? Of course that benefits United greatly, a return to the days where United can pick of their rivals better players without competition.

I'm interested to know your opinions.

The relevance is it proves your comparison to be completely off the mark. How many times do you have to be told this?

I want clubs to earn their success. It's very simple.

How much did you think we sold Veron for? You seem to still be ignoring this.

When did Utd pick off their rivals better players without competition? Even when we signed Rooney, Newcastle matched the offer. Give me an example of Utd signing a player from Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea or even City.
 
I'm still interested in your opinion as to why Spurs and Everton couldn't sustain regular top four finishs and why a club handed the fourth biggest stadium in the country for free couldn't build in a similar fashion to Spurs?

You're good at asking questions and making ridiculous assumptions from the answers. No so good at responding to them.
 
The relevance is it proves your comparison to be completely off the mark. How many times do you have to be told this?

I want clubs to earn their success. It's very simple.

How much did you think we sold Veron for? You seem to still be ignoring this.

When did Utd pick off their rivals better players without competition? Even when we signed Rooney, Newcastle matched the offer. Give me an example of Utd signing a player from Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea or even City.

You seem to be deliberately missing my point, maybe my figures were a bit off - so what - my point remains, and is (it appears to me at any rate) a very simple one, being:

We paid big sums for the two players I referred to, ten years ago, and that those sums are still big in comparison to transfers today. If I was a few million out with a figure how does that change the argument - it was still a massive transfer.

Apparently, according to Wikipedia Veron was sold for £15 million, after we paid £28.1 million. Made some back, but still spent a fortune on a top player who was quickly moved on.

In terms of "earning" success it seems you equate that with off the field activity. United played the business game better, made money, bettered the facilities and eventually became so dominant they could splurge up to £30 million on one player.

I suppose once City start making money (from CL income/prize money/endorsements etc) you'll no longer have any issue with it.

As for picking the best players off other PL clubs there's been a few:

Roy Keane, Henning Berg, Gary Pallister, David May, Andy Cole, Dwight Yorke, Rio Ferdinand, Michael Carrick, Carlos Tevez. Plenty of various British records in there as well.

Rooney highlights the point - Newcastle supposedly were in for him, but couldn't compete with the money United offered. We blew them out of the water, as we were prone to doing at that time.
 
I'm still interested in your opinion as to why Spurs and Everton couldn't sustain regular top four finishs and why a club handed the fourth biggest stadium in the country for free couldn't build in a similar fashion to Spurs?

You're good at asking questions and making ridiculous assumptions from the answers. No so good at responding to them.

Put simply they don't have the money to compete with the top sides - if they do well their players (or even their managers) get tapped up by the more established clubs - for Spurs probably Modric and Van Der Vaart this year. The answer to your question is quite clearly given in posts above.

I'm confused - how does a team "build" in the same way as Everton or Spurs? Either you have money, or you don't - if you do then you buy the best players you can, if you dont then you make do and try to bring in players who you can develop - the latter being significantly harder - every club (including Spurs and Everton) would buy as good a players as they could if they had the money to do so - surely that much is obvious?

Nobody is going to buy a club and think - we can get to the top and make ourselves a real challenger in three years, or we can graft away and maybe make the Cl every now and again and deliberately choose the latter.
 
If their is one thing man city fans love to claim its that Fergie spent huge money to get United to win the PL in 92/93. I remember a newbie told me the money Fergie spent was unprecidented. Well if this was true he failed to point out that the group of city managers at the same time pretty much matched it.

Here is the spending from when Fergie took over till the PL was won.



Man city
86/87 £325,000
87/88 £990,000
88/89 £947,500
89/90 £6,765,000
90/91: £200,000
91/92 £4,400,000
92/93 £2,500,000

total: £16.127m

Man utd
86/87 £1,160,000
87/88 £3,570,000
88/89 £2,250,000
89/90 £5,415,000
90/91 £650,000
91/92 £2,550,000
92/93-£2,300,000

Total £17.895m

So Fergie spent around 1.75mil more than the gorup of man city managers from his instalment to the day he won the league.

However the eagle eyed among you will quickly spot that MarK hughes cost United 1.8m. You can clearly argue that money spent on Hughes was simply repaying 1.8m of 2.3m United got from Barca for him.

This business that City were a poor club with nothing to spend is complete rubbish.


http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=1724&comp_id=1&teamTabs=transfers

Also have a look at the players City bought and United bought. If that doesnt show you how brilliant Fergie is and how lucky united are to have him nothing will. I dont think one of the city players they signed has ever really proved to be a really top class player.
 
Put simply they don't have the money to compete with the top sides - if they do well their players (or even their managers) get tapped up by the more established clubs - for Spurs probably Modric and Van Der Vaart this year. The answer to your question is quite clearly given in posts above.

I'm confused - how does a team "build" in the same way as Everton or Spurs? Either you have money, or you don't - if you do then you buy the best players you can, if you dont then you make do and try to bring in players who you can develop - the latter being significantly harder - every club (including Spurs and Everton) would buy as good a players as they could if they had the money to do so - surely that much is obvious?

Nobody is going to buy a club and think - we can get to the top and make ourselves a real challenger in three years, or we can graft away and maybe make the Cl every now and again and deliberately choose the latter.

I'd say you don't understand a lot in fairness.

I've never suggested Mansour shouldn't spend the money as he sees fit. You asked the question, how do they challenge without financial doping and I answered by building in the same way everybody else apart from City did. Even to an extent Chelsea had already done it per Abramovich.

They don't have the money to compete because of financial doping. Without it they would.

Again, you're ignoring a simple question. When did Utd buy their rivals best players?
 
You seem to be deliberately missing my point, maybe my figures were a bit off - so what - my point remains, and is (it appears to me at any rate) a very simple one, being:

We paid big sums for the two players I referred to, ten years ago, and that those sums are still big in comparison to transfers today. If I was a few million out with a figure how does that change the argument - it was still a massive transfer.

Apparently, according to Wikipedia Veron was sold for £15 million, after we paid £28.1 million. Made some back, but still spent a fortune on a top player who was quickly moved on.

In terms of "earning" success it seems you equate that with off the field activity. United played the business game better, made money, bettered the facilities and eventually became so dominant they could splurge up to £30 million on one player.

I suppose once City start making money (from CL income/prize money/endorsements etc) you'll no longer have any issue with it.

As for picking the best players off other PL clubs there's been a few:

Roy Keane, Henning Berg, Gary Pallister, David May, Andy Cole, Dwight Yorke, Rio Ferdinand, Michael Carrick, Carlos Tevez. Plenty of various British records in there as well.

Rooney highlights the point - Newcastle supposedly were in for him, but couldn't compete with the money United offered. We blew them out of the water, as we were prone to doing at that time.

You compared Utd's spending to City's. It's not comparable. You used figures you hadn't a clue about and still expected to be taken seriously.

I didn't say PL clubs and neither did you. You said rivals.Not one of those players was signed from our rivals. You could make a small case for Cole and May though. Do all clubs not sign players from other PL clubs? You were making out as if Utd were unique in this.

How many players have Utd signed from Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea or City? Were we nicking their best players? You suggested we would dominate for centuries but for sugar daddies yet conveniently ignore Arsenal winning two of the three league titles before Mourinho came in. Your argument has more holes than Arsenal's defence.

How did we blow them out of the water with money? How much did Newcastle offer Rooney? Maybe, just maybe, Rooney wanted to play for the better team.

Oh and Utd weren't just good at off pitch business. They were outstanding at the in field stuff too. That is why we had so much success despite clubs like City having spent similar amounts. That is what is meant by earning it.
 
I'd say you don't understand a lot in fairness.

I've never suggested Mansour shouldn't spend the money as he sees fit. You asked the question, how do they challenge without financial doping and I answered by building in the same way everybody else apart from City did. Even to an extent Chelsea had already done it per Abramovich.
They don't have the money to compete because of financial doping. Without it they would.

Again, you're ignoring a simple question. When did Utd buy their rivals best players?

And my response is that you can't build a squad to break into and stay in the top four year on year without spending a lot of money - especially if you're City and have few players of sufficient quaility to start with.

You keep bleating on about Everton, who got in once, then drifted away. Spurs have been in twice - and well done to them, but last year, in my view it was down the fact that Chelsea had such upheaval.

I don't expect Spurs to finish top 4 this year - unless they spend a large amount of money to improve the aquad they have drastically. Neither of those sides have or (in my opinion) will be one of the established top 4 year on year. Are either of those sides "top 4" by the common understanding?

Clearly being a side "expected" to quality and a side "wanting" to qualify are two completely different things - and thats the difference. To change from the latter to the former (or to come from even further away) takes heavy investment - the further away you are the more money it takes.

As for the players - look at the list. Better players (and sometimes the best) players bought from other clubs, and often at the time from close rivals (Blackburn, Leeds, Newcastle particularly).

This is getting tiresome so let's just agree to disagree.
 
And my response is that you can't build a squad to break into and stay in the top four year on year without spending a lot of money - especially if you're City and have few players of sufficient quaility to start with.

You keep bleating on about Everton, who got in once, then drifted away. Spurs have been in twice - and well done to them, but last year, in my view it was down the fact that Chelsea had such upheaval.

I don't expect Spurs to finish top 4 this year - unless they spend a large amount of money to improve the aquad they have drastically. Neither of those sides have or (in my opinion) will be one of the established top 4 year on year. Are either of those sides "top 4" by the common understanding?

Clearly being a side "expected" to quality and a side "wanting" to qualify are two completely different things - and thats the difference. To change from the latter to the former (or to come from even further away) takes heavy investment - the further away you are the more money it takes.

As for the players - look at the list. Better players (and sometimes the best) players bought from other clubs, and often at the time from close rivals (Blackburn, Leeds, Newcastle particularly).

This is getting tiresome so let's just agree to disagree.

There's a reason they struggle to stay in it. You're ignoring it because it undermines your stance. Spurs have finished top four more in the last few seasons than Liverpool, a traditional top four club. Why couldn't City do likewise without financial doping?

All clubs buy players from other PL clubs. Utd were no different to anyone else despite your claims otherwise. City are different though.
 
There's a reason they struggle to stay in it. You're ignoring it because it undermines your stance. Spurs have finished top four more in the last few seasons than Liverpool, a traditional top four club. Why couldn't City do likewise without financial doping?

All clubs buy players from other PL clubs. Utd were no different to anyone else despite your claims otherwise. City are different though.

Again - we clearly don't agree so I'll leave it at this.

That reason is that they can't compete financially. They risk losing their better players every time they do well because they don't pay the wages that top clubs pay - nor can they offer regular success. Hence why Modric may be joining United this summer. I don't see how that undermines my stance at all.

Again, Liverpool fell away when they could no longer buy top players, and lost others to other clubs. They missed the CL, the revenue issues struck and they couldn't spend the neccessary money to try and get back in quickly. They have spent money now, but arguably on the wrong players - again showing just how hard it is to break in even if you do spend a fortune.

Again, you don't have to agree, but when United spent the money they did on certain players, no other clubs spent £25 million amounts on a single player with any regularity, if at all - until Chelsea and City came along. And that's where I don't agree that United did what "all other clubs were doing".

Fact is, I had no problem with that and I still don't to me you make use of any advantages you have. Hence why I don't have a problem with City doing the same.
 
The reasons those clubs can't compete financially is because of financial doping. You don't want to acknowledge that. Without the millions of Chelsea and City those other teams could easily compete with good management. That is the whole point you're deliberately missing.
 
No point arguing with or listening to RedRover.

Same guy who went on last summer about how great Kenny Dalglish's signings were.

Seems he's going to spend this summer trying to argue that being financially doped is the same as spending within the means of your club.
 
Again - we clearly don't agree so I'll leave it at this.

That reason is that they can't compete financially. They risk losing their better players every time they do well because they don't pay the wages that top clubs pay - nor can they offer regular success. Hence why Modric may be joining United this summer. I don't see how that undermines my stance at all.

Again, Liverpool fell away when they could no longer buy top players, and lost others to other clubs. They missed the CL, the revenue issues struck and they couldn't spend the neccessary money to try and get back in quickly. They have spent money now, but arguably on the wrong players - again showing just how hard it is to break in even if you do spend a fortune.

Again, you don't have to agree, but when United spent the money they did on certain players, no other clubs spent £25 million amounts on a single player with any regularity, if at all - until Chelsea and City came along. And that's where I don't agree that United did what "all other clubs were doing".

Fact is, I had no problem with that and I still don't to me you make use of any advantages you have. Hence why I don't have a problem with City doing the same.

Arsenal spent up to £17m on Reyes in 2004 and Ferdinand cost £18m when Leeds bought him, so it's not like other clubs couldn't afford to spend serious money on a single player. Obviously we were more capable of it than the others but that was due to the fact that we were earning more in revenue thanks to being one of Europe's top clubs and a consistent PL winning club as well - no one else could boast of something like that.

Besides, had Chelsea and City only done that i.e. spent serious money on a few players and buy some cheaper players, no one would have begrudged them. Fulham once bought Steve Marlet for £11m and it didn't bother anyone. It's the amount of £20m+ players on £100k+ a week that they have bought over a short period of time that bothers people.
 
Looks like the Plastics have had a good start to pre-season. Tevez has decided to take the piss out of them for another year as well.

Manchester City lose to Al Hilal in pre-season friendly in Austria
• Shaker Nawaf al-Abed scores the only goal of the game
• Carlos Tevez says that he is now settled at the club

Manchester City suffered a shock 1-0 defeat to Saudi Arabia side Al Hilal in their first pre-season outing in Austria on Friday evening. Shaker Nawaf al-Abed scored the only goal midway through the second half, although the manager Roberto Mancini will not be too worried at such an early stage of preparations for the defence of the Premier League title.

The Manchester City captain, Vincent Kompany, was among a number of senior players who started but it was his fellow defender Aleksandar Kolarov who came closest to an early goal. Indeed, the Serbian was a useful attacking outlet for the Blues in a drab opening period, which failed to see the best of either Yaya Touré or Carlos Tevez.

The striker Mario Jelavic, currently on trial at City, was introduced at the break as was Kolo Touré, who has been the subject of interest from Bursaspor. And it was the former Arsenal defender who had City's best chance to equalise, only to head a Vladimir Weiss cross over the bar.

Earlier on Friday, Tevez claimed he is settled at the club and is focused on retaining their Premier League title. The 28-year-old Argentina international spent much of last season in his homeland after a fall-out with Mancini but later apologised and went on to play a part in the club's first top-flight title since 1968. He is still being linked with clubs, Milan being reportedly interested again, but he said he is comfortable at City.

"I have a lot of different targets," said Tevez in a question and answer session set up by the club with fans on Twitter. "I think that now I feel settled at the club and feel good in myself and am working hard. The main aim of every one of the players is to have as good a league campaign as possible and try to be champions again and also get as far as we can in the Champions League. This is what all the players want and so does the club."
 
No point arguing with or listening to RedRover.

Same guy who went on last summer about how great Kenny Dalglish's signings were.

Seems he's going to spend this summer trying to argue that being financially doped is the same as spending within the means of your club.

I wish there was a spasticity rating for each poster, it's hard to keep them straight. I'm glad someone is here to remind us!

Wasn't sure if I was confusing him with RedRichio.
 
Seeing as how our good fortune seems to originated from oil, then I can see the similarity.

Hooray for plastic clubs then as new City is miles better than old City.

:lol:

To be fair, Chelsea were the original Plastic club

You're like the Plastic Plastics or something
 
I was talking about their riches to a City friend of mine, and he had to admit that he would rather they'd won the league fairly, with a team of Mike Doyle, Summerbee etc than all their foreign imports.

And I would rather City won the league with a team made up with young players from Newton Heath, Ancoats and Miles Platting. I am sure United fans would say exactly the same.
But the reality is that in today's age, that is never going to happen.
We have a decent English contingent who although to not have the flair of Silva, did contribute a lot last season. Without Hart, Lescott and Barry putting in consistent performances last season, we would not have won the league.
 
Perhaps. I don't deny they've spent huge sums - I just don't see that it's right to get morally outraged by it. Football has been on a slippery slope for years - as soon as clubs started paying £20 plus million for players and wages spiralled, and you can't lay the blame at City or Cheslea's door anymore than you can at United's and a host of other top clubs.

I recall a thread after United beat City in the FA Cup, where a comment by (I think) Micah Richards about city being "moral victors" was rightly derided and laughed at.

Yet a lot of people on here playing the "city bought the title" card seem to be doing the same - "they may have won it but they cheated" - as if it makes it all alright. I don't get that at all.

I assume that if United spend massive money this summer or next, or if a rich owner buys the club and furnishes the manager with £100 plus million each year a lot of people on here will show their disgust and vote with their feet, retiring quietly to cry into their beer at the "state of the game".

I don't think City bought the title necessarily. It was in our hands to make sure they did not and we blew it. They'd not have been in contention without the £500m spending spree though, obviously.

If someone was to do the same with United as City's owners have it'd have the effect on me of a complete loss of interest in the game in general. It'd be like cheering on someone playing a computer game with all the cheats on.