Surely that's not the case, especially post Vidic and Ferdinand leaving.
- Status
Surely that's not the case, especially post Vidic and Ferdinand leaving.
But how will we get that improvement if the talent won't come until we have improved?
After those two (and Giggs leaving) it might have change but last season we had a higher wage than Chelsea (on the other side a few Chelsea players leaving compensates for that). While we don't exactly know the player's wages, on the other side clubs report their total wage.
Last edited:
I was talking about THE talent. Do not read all talent but rather the one the is suitable for the biggest clubs. Players with potential that are not world beaters would still come just because the improvement for them is huge. I am talking about the competition between united and the other big clubs. Even though Chelsea are very unstable when it comes to their managers, players know that for the time being the owner will keep investing in the club.
For us to improve, it will take 2 things.
1. The coach need to recognize what the best tactic is considering the players we have and/if the newly signed ones.
2. Motivate and take the most out of the players already at the club.
Fair enough, the squad is far from perfect but with proper motivation and exploiting the team's strengths I dont see a problem for us to be in the top 3-4.
They have Eto'o, Cole, Luiz, and Lampard's wages off their books. Probably Torres' too. They were all on enormous wages.
Our two highest earners in RvP and Rooney make far more than any Chelsea player, though apparently Hazard is due a pay raise to 200k a week according to some of the papers.
Choose Giroud lolz
They're not going for the manager's job tho. A Manchester United player is not more prestigious than a Chelsea player. Looking at our squad, it's much harder to get into the Chelsea team than ours.
As players, they only care about the here and now and right now, Chelsea has gallons of money, a proven winning manager and the lure of London.
If we go for the same players, we'll lose more often than win, and when we win, we have to pay an insane amount for the pleasure
How many BS stories from Balague before people realise that he is talking shite? He said Torres signed for United, and last year he said that Falcao has signed for us too IIRC.
He never said this. He said we made inquiries and put forward a certain refundable deposit, not once did he say we Falcao has signed for United.
How would the ridiculous number of loan players Chelsea have affect their wage bill? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be paying all those players full wage.
You have to remember things change. I remember hearing that united were very close to signing torres at one stage and were then put off signing him. Balague is a good journalist imo and is right more times than not.
If your mate knows as much as you think he does why would he only bet £20?
I beg to differ with the above line. Just because players prioritise money over playing for Manchester united does not disguise the obvious fact that on every single footballing level Manchester United is the most known English club around the world. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a history lesson in all things English Football. On a very basic level you would be following in the worlds best footballing footsteps joining manchester United (Best, Ronaldo) etc....or Chelsea and their best ever player (Zola?)...Its almost laughable really.
Apologies if anyone else has posted this:
http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2014...s-cesc-update-chelsea-face-threat-from-manch/
Still believe he is Chelsea bound but we won't know until someone official releases a statement stating "We are pleased to announce the transfer of Cesc Fabregas from FC Barcelona to....."
http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2014...s-cesc-update-chelsea-face-threat-from-manch/
Still believe he is Chelsea bound but we won't know until someone official releases a statement stating "We are pleased to announce the transfer of Cesc Fabregas from FC Barcelona to....."
No.
FFP?
It was something like that anyway, and considering Fergie said he won't work with third party ownerships(see Tevez), and that those are actually banned in premiership it was obviously bullshit story.
Amar_ said:
Well, let me enlighten you, then.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/united-wages-higher-than-chelsea.387970/
Perhaps he only has £20 left because all he ever does is place daft bets?
I was maybe too harsh, not every of his story is bullshit, but he has lot of those without a doubt.
I'm not pro or anti Mr Balague, but it was commonly known we almost signed Torres and he always gets loads of stick for this. I think Fergie even referenced that Torres kept changing his mind and the BBC published this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/worldcup/2006/06/is_torres_man_uniteds_main_man.html
I imagine that deals change all the time, we will hijack the move for Cesc? I'm not so sure.
That's a fan's view.
I think Manchester United's the best club (it's why I'm here) and it'll be a very very long time before Chelsea matches our history.
HOWEVER, most player are not fans of their clubs before they join (they might become "fans" while playing).
I expect even less care about the past players that played for their new club.
Being a Manchester United player is far more prestigious than a Newscastle player (unless if you're Shearer), an Everton player (unless if you're Fellaini), a West Brom player, a Norwich player.
But not many will view being a Manchester United player more prestigious than a Chelsea player.
We are equal.
We are both in the top tier of the game.
This season, not having CL won't help.
So then players will look at the money, the manager, chances of winning trophies, the location
Money we might be competitive (depends how much Roman wants the player!)
Manager we might be competitive (unknown yet)
Chances of winning a trophy is currently tilting in Chelsea's favour.
Location we're most likely not competitive.
Since Roman, we have not won many (if any) transfer battles against Chelsea.
That's a fan's view.
I think Manchester United's the best club (it's why I'm here) and it'll be a very very long time before Chelsea matches our history.
HOWEVER, most player are not fans of their clubs before they join (they might become "fans" while playing).
I expect even less care about the past players that played for their new club.
Being a Manchester United player is far more prestigious than a Newscastle player (unless if you're Shearer), an Everton player (unless if you're Fellaini), a West Brom player, a Norwich player.
But not many will view being a Manchester United player more prestigious than a Chelsea player.
We are equal.
We are both in the top tier of the game.
This season, not having CL won't help.
So then players will look at the money, the manager, chances of winning trophies, the location
Money we might be competitive (depends how much Roman wants the player!)
Manager we might be competitive (unknown yet)
Chances of winning a trophy is currently tilting in Chelsea's favour.
Location we're most likely not competitive.
Since Roman, we have not won many (if any) transfer battles against Chelsea.
Both Equal? We have dominated English Football for 20 years! We have won 20 odd league titles. How are Chelsea our equal. If thats the case, Man City are our Equals, Arsenal are our Equals...
Your logic is insane. Chelsea are a club who devoid of Romans millions would sit outside the top 4 struggling to make anything of themselves. We on the other hand pay 40-50m per year in interest payments every year since 2005 and have still managed to win more.
Well it could be reported because it all started from him? I think he pretty much confirmed that Torres joined United, it wasn't just a speculation that we are just interested in him.
You're still talking about history. He's talking about now.
Which side currently has more pull? Which side is currently more attractive to a young, world class player?
And without Abramovic another mega billionaire would instantly swoop in and buy them. People need to get over this "when he leaves they'll fall back into obscurity." They're not going anywhere.
Spent a good few minutes reading the comments on that article. Too many good ones to even post here
Why does player choose Manchester United instead of liverpool around 2000?
At this rate going to Chelsea instead of united is by no means a shitier destination however you put it. History only last u that much.
What is the point in talking about what Chelsea would be without Roman? They have Roman, so the question is completely pointless.
Why is Chelsea more attractive to a young, world class player than Manchester United? Apart from maybe being in London I don't quite understand what is it that they can offer that we cannot if we assume we match the wages they are offering. Yes, one year out of the CL is a fact but if you only look at THIS year then that could be a difference. However, I am sure most players will look beyond just the next season.
To be fair the United wage bill you quote includes bonuses for winning the League. When neither team won the League the year before United's wage bill was £161m vs Chelsea £176m. It is highly unlikely that United's wage bill rose £21m (420k a week) with the signings of RVP, Kagawa, Zaha, Buttner and a few new contracts. I'd suggest both clubs operate at a very similar level and can offer very similar wages.
Not to mention that several £m of this is supposedly attributed to the fleet of London commercial employee's.
ok so by your logic we could win nothing for 20 years and chelsea win everything but if on the 21st year we suddenly become wealthier we then become the attractive proposition? You need to get over the fact his money has bought how many titles in over a decade? They can stay operating on the same success curve for me I'd be more than happy with that. We have one bad season in 20 years and suddenly we have less pull than Chelsea...Jesus.
Let's just say hypothetically a player like Hazard was a free agent. If Chelsea and ourselves make an offer to him that pays him the same wages which would he likely choose? The club with the current best manager in the world who has a side only a couple of pieces away from challenging for every major honor, plays in London, and has CL football or a United side who has a new manager, just finished 7th, has no CL football this coming season with no guarantee at all that we'll make it the following season, and needs a massive overhaul?
I don't think Miscemayl meant equal as a club. More as equal with a chance of winning major trophies now and yes I'd agree with him saying Chelsea actually have a better chance than us right now.
Romans millions are there and not going anywhere soon so they will continue to spend a lot and gazump us with regards to wages etc. Also London is a pull for a foreigner which we have never really competed with.
I'd say SAF in charge at United was more important than Romans wealth to Chelsea but we have lost that they haven't lost Ambramovich and also have a serial champion in Mourinho as manager.
Devoid of millions I would agree with you, us devoid of SAF we finish 7th. Chelsea are easily a big a pull as us for a modern day footballer.
Chelsea have won;
Europa 12-13
CL 11-12
Premiership 4-5,5-6,9-10
Fa Cup 6-7,8-9,9-10,11-12
League cup 5-6,6-7
Impressive and undeniable.
What we have done is also brilliant in that time bar last season, will it continue, I hope so.
We have had lesser pull then Chelsea for ten years. Top that.
Like others have said, you're talking about history.
And even on history, if you look at the past 10 years, Chelsea has won 3 titles and was runners up 3 times.
We won it 5 times, and runners up 3 times.
City won the other 2.
And we both won a Champions League
It's not really THAT massive a gap.
I certainly don't mind them going broke, I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
Why is this even a sudden revelation for you?
We've often lost in transfer battles with them - even with SAF and Gill.
Chelsea are garbage, always have been, always will be...top that
Purely for financial reasons! nothing else.
- Status