Agree, this won't stop now, this needed to be dealt with over 10 years ago, when everybody put there heads in the Arab sand. Other people are getting filthy rich so why do anything about anything. When they do CAS says we'll they did break the rules but it was a few years ago so never mind we fine them again because they can pay that. We all know its corrupt run football club .. nothing will be done until someone can't be bought. Long time
City’s ‘sponsors’
- Thread starter Offsideagain
- Start date
People will still be rolling out the boosts competition bullshit when City win the next 4/5 titles taking their haul to 8/10. The hypocrisy stinks: Manchester United are not allowed to sell their own broadcasting deals where we would make a fecking fortune because it wouid give us an unfair advantage and impact PL clubs thus competition so instead it’s done collectively - on the other hand it’s perfectly fine for a state to pump in billions dwarfing every other club by fraudulently inflating sponsorship deals resulting in a 2.2bn spend on transfers/wages in recent times and them having a near monopoly on winning the title over the last 5 years.
I don’t think they are comparable, certainly. But I’d argue that it is absolutely not tongue in cheek from a majority of those posting it.
Get a grip of yourself. So because United fans might say Liverpool we’re lucky with that decision or didn’t deserve to with that game….it is fine to make up fake sponsorships and financially dope another football club? Have you heard yourself? Go get a bigger picture of what is happening at City if you want to engage in discussion. Coming on a United forum throwing about I like it because it stops United winning everything and you don’t like it because….Fans like you make me want United to rip up TV agreements and feck everyone else, because that’s actually what you are supporting
What a weird take.
Perhaps we, as supporters, are really good at finding excuses for our team losing and obviously the success of our main rival, Liverpool, is causing some bitterness. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the likes of PSG and City are bypassing every FFP-rule there is and is getting away with it. That's not an excuse, it's a fact (yeah, I know I might sound like Benitez here...)
Ah ok, doesn’t he? The bit that says ‘supports Arsenal’ threw me thenI love the fact that so many people think that @adexkola supports Arsenal.
This will go nowhere as usual. This is how the world works.
The rich and powerful have the resources, connection and know-how to exploit any system in the world.
Most rich and powerful people including people in the government are generally crooks.
They would do anything for money, fame and power.
The majority of people like us have to play by the rules and shut the feck up on any unfairness. Money runs the world.
The rich and powerful have the resources, connection and know-how to exploit any system in the world.
Most rich and powerful people including people in the government are generally crooks.
They would do anything for money, fame and power.
The majority of people like us have to play by the rules and shut the feck up on any unfairness. Money runs the world.
Any progress on finding out when this period when United couldn't be matched financially was mate?
Genuinely interested because I may be mistaken and apologies if I am but I seem to remember you've said similar in the past. This post below shows quite nicely that United were rarely the biggest spenders and never by huge margins.
Here's another very helpful thread which goes into more detail if you're interested.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-official-transfer-comparison-thread.311572/
Not as weird as one which is basically I will support any form of sports washing, human rights atrocities and financial doping if it, in my opinion, prevents United winning.
Not as weird as someone coming on a United forum,having numerous goes at us, being surprised we when criticise our rivals at every opportunity and then seems upset when people rip into him,you don't have to come on here.
Ipswich fan,my arse
Yep, you can create a point of view that no one has taken in this thread, that is theoretically worse than your own.
Seems upset? Have you just made that up to make your point make sense?
It's OK,I wouldn't expect you to get it,Ipswich fan
Erm, right.
Nice. Never seen that thread before - absolute goldmine.
You aren’t going to get an answer to the question above unless that poster is comfortable holding their hands up and admitting they were completely wrong.
Yeah it's a brilliant thread with a lot of work put into it by @decorativeed .
No I suspect not but it's good to check people's bullshit when they peddle the United outspent everyone myth.
Thanks. And the funny thing is, I didn't even put the likes of Blackburn and Newcastle in there. When I looked at it years later, I couldn't believe how much Newcastle had spent - all to win precisely feck all, too!
I should probably have kept on top of more recent transfers in that thread. Admittedly, doing that isn't going to make us look any better than any of our 90s rivals over the last decade.
It's a very impressive thread. I read an article on this topic a few years ago. Both your thread and that article kinda flies in the face of a lot of the claims about United outspending the rest of the league for 20 years.
You're welcome mate. Yeah their spending in the mid to late 90's was nuts.
Yeah I think our spending post Fergie is probably best forgotten.
We're like the Newcastle of the 90's.
*Without the great footballYou're welcome mate. Yeah their spending in the mid to late 90's was nuts.
Yeah I think our spending post Fergie is probably best forgotten.
We're like the Newcastle of the 90's.
Did that Ipswich fan reply to this or acknowledged his mistake?
Yeah as expected, hw will post same thing after few weeks.
Obvious trollish behaviour from so-called neutral fans.
"Ipswich fan" who probably never posted anything about Ipswich.
Nah they won't respond so they can pretend they don't know and as you say spout the same shite in a few weeks. 99% sure I've seen them post the same nonsense in the past.
Sad but true.
Where do you get your info? I’m trying to find something which shows clubs turnover by year from that kind of time (start of the Prem) onwards. As I think that would be a good way to demonstrate just how much more money Utd have had to spend, whether that’s on one big purchase, multiple smaller ones, or on wages etc.
But the difference is United had to earn that, they didnt just win the lottery and have a billionaire funding them.
I think half of these random club fan accounts are either bots or the same person. It's always the same stupid argument about how fair the league is now City have spent billions and win it every other year.
It’s a big difference but there are people on this thread saying that even before Abramovic etc there were richer EPL clubs than Utd.
Yup. The numbers we'd make if our club could sell its own broadcasting rights are presumably absolutely staggering - even if half the purported 75million Man Utd fans worldwide paid £2 a month to watch our games, that would mean a billion in revenue every year. It's in pretty much every other clubs interest UK wide to stop this -ever- being a possibility though, so if it were to ever come to a vote it simply wouldn't happen.
...But it's quite alright for Saudi and Emirati money to bankroll Newcastle and Man City (oh and formerly Russian KGB funding for that West London club, but lets not talk about that now)
I provided two different sources in the post you've just replied to mate.
The post from @tomaldinho1 uses Transfermarkt, not 100% reliable as they tend to mess up exchange rates on some transfers. But gives you a pretty good idea on the levels of spending in the 90's and 00's.
The thread by @decorativeed has a link to his blog that details every source he's used to compile his numbers.
Being the richest club and being the club that spends the most on transfers are not necessarily the same thing as was the case with United between 1993-2013.
Not richer, but I guess bigger spenders. I know Chelsea were the biggest spenders in the league in 2000 for example. So from year to year the biggest spenders differed. It was United sometimes, but not always. It was Blackburn a couple of years, Newcastle and Liverpool in other years.
Not sure in terms of wages though, and I'm not sure if United were constant top 2/3 in all of those years, which would put them as the top spenders across the period in general, but I don't know and I guess not bothered enough to actually check that.
Yeah, supports some random clubs, "neutral", all they talk is CIty, and Liverpool.
Wages from back then would be a harder one to get numbers on I reckon. I do know though that until 2001 when Keane signed his new deal United had a strict wage policy (no player made more than £25k per week). Before then the biggest earners in the league ranged from the likes of Desailly on £40k at Chelsea to Ravenelli on £45k at Middlesbrough. You see once United's wage structure was broken we went big in the transfer market between 2001-2002 on RVN, Veron and Ferdinand, in that period (probably the only period) no club could have competed with United on wages until Roman bought Chelsea in 2003.
So the info you’d need is over a long period and combining wage bill and transfer spending. I mean, Fulham are at the top on one of the seasons but I can’t imagine anyone with a straight face saying their expenditure matched Utd’s that year.
If you’d bothered to actually read the table, you’d see Fulham were top for Net spend and United were actually, for the first time under SAF, top for total expenditure.
I don't know, but we spent less than other clubs on transfers before Roman. United just used to be a really well run club (who of course spent money they earnt).
When you say total expenditure are we talking everything they spend their money on? So net transfer spend plus wages etc. Just trying to get an idea of what you’re saying.
It’s were an exceptionally well run club. Just look at the expansion of old Trafford, which seemed to happen every few years in the first 10-15 years of the premiership. Liverpool are doing their best to do that now, and Arsenal and Spurs built new stadia but at the time you were the only ones I can remember making such frequent increases.
That's purely player sales. I guess if you want to find full figures for the club they should be on Companies house but I don't think you'd be able to break it down into wages, gate receipts etc. I also don't really get what your point is, it seems like something you've said offhand but have zero proof for when asked to explain.
Are you saying United as a club had the most money even if they didn't use it whilst ignoring the individual wealth of each owners (for example Jack Walker)?