I’m saying Utd were the club with the biggest turnover for likely every year from 1993-2003. It becomes difficult to judge after Abramovic and so I wouldn’t like to guess. But over that decade it stands to reason that they spent the money coming in, no? And even if you could point to different clubs for short periods out spending them (say, Blackburn, 94-96) the overall outlook one be one of Man Utd being by far the highest spenders.
City’s ‘sponsors’
- Thread starter Offsideagain
- Start date
I’m saying Utd were the club with the biggest turnover for likely every year from 1993-2003. It becomes difficult to judge after Abramovic and so I wouldn’t like to guess. But over that decade it stands to reason that they spent the money coming in, no? And even if you could point to different clubs for short periods out spending them (say, Blackburn, 94-96) the overall outlook one be one of Man Utd being by far the highest spenders.
I had to chime in here, but what the feck are you talking about? You've been given ample sources saying United were NOT the highest spenders during their peak, but because United had the highest revenues, we must have spent the most even though you've been told multiple times that wasn't the case?
Those sources are based simply on transfer spend. Wages are not included but are a huge part of club expenditure. It is improbable to think we earned the most money by far and yet we were consistently outspent (in total, not just transfer expenditures) pre-Abramovich.
So, two things.
1) as far as I can tell there isn’t a combination of both wages and transfer spend. Without one there isn’t enough information.
2) as a very general rule, unless someone is siphoning money out of Man Utd then turnover really will be a factor in overall spending. Otherwise, what happened to the money?
So the data that we do have on transfer spend, the point originally brought up to be pro state funded clubs is no longer relevant because its doesn't support that theory? No we have to look at wages dating back 30 years? Yeah now the goalposts are just being moved.
Also, Italians were Kings back then, it was well known Juve were seriously keen on Giggs, our wage structure was strict and the idea that our transfer spend was in the same region of other clubs but we just happened to pay way more than anyone else is just stupid and the theory now being spouted because no one can 100% confirm wages back then.
What do you think funded 6 stadium expansions and a state of the art training ground in just over a decade?
Here's a clue it wasn't an oil rich gulf state.
On your first point United had a very strict wage structure until 2001. So while the club would have had one of the highest wage bills in the country many other clubs were paying players much more than they could earn at United.
Eh?
More than one point can be made.
It cannot be said with confidence that United were outspent (in total, including wages) in the PL until oil/gangster money came along
How on earth have you come to that conclusion?
Don't bother, a couple of posters here would rather talk out of their arse and refuse to believe the data we do have instead focus on data that would be difficult to get a hold of.
Apparently saying United were the biggest spenders because we can't prove the wage bill across the league 30 years ago is proof that we were the biggest spenders.
What would turnover have to do with it? United were a PLC paying out dividends and very much run as a business. Very different to what Jack Walker and John Hall were doing with Blackburn and Newcastle. That’s before we get to Abramovich. Even before Abramovich, Matthew Harding was pumping money in to Chelsea.
United were a product of sporting success that was achieved through having the best players and best manager, many of which were produced in house. When we won the double in 96 United were the lowest spenders on transfers in the entire league.
What City did was come in and begin routinely stripping prized assets from the clubs who would’ve been their challengers. Particularity Arsenal at that time. United were never able to flex their muscles and bully Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea into selling us their players.
You literally did it with van Persie!
Also, even if we were top of wages bill (I'd think we were for periods but Pool also had seasons of massive wages from memory) - you'd then have to add that to player purchases/sales and we were actually very rarely even top three there most season. It's such an odd viewpoint as well when you factor in SAF built a winning machine so naturally the revenue is going to snowball the further into the 90s and 00s you goDon't bother, a couple of posters here would rather talk out of their arse and refuse to believe the data we do have instead focus on data that would be difficult to get a hold of.
Apparently saying United were the biggest spenders because we can't prove the wage bill across the league 30 years ago is proof that we were the biggest spenders.
Well not quite Wenger was against the move and blocked it at first. United didn't bully Arsenal into selling him.
Clubs generally have a correlation to the level of ther spending and wages. So the top clubs spend the most on transfers and wages compared ro middle or bottom clubs.
So seeing as we have some pretty detailed data that shows United were very rarely the biggest spenders in any one season between 1993 and 2013. And certainly not even in the top 3 spenders. Don't you think it stands to reason that we can assume that they weren't spending vastly more on their wage bill than their rivals, especially post Roman after 2003?
The club had a well publicised strict wage structure until 2001 and the Glazers weren't exactly known as big spenders while SAF was still at the club.
Some more data. Highest paid player by year (p/w salary)until SAF retirement.
| 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| Liverpool | Liverpool | United | Arsenal | Middlesbrough | Newcastle | Newcastle | United | United | United | United | Chelsea | Chelsea | Liverpool | Chelsea | Chelsea | City | City | City | City | City |
| John Barnes (£10k) | John Barnes (£10k) | Cantona (18k) | Bergkamp (£25k) | Ravenelli (£42k) | Shearer (£34k) | Shearer (£34k) | Keane (£52k) | Keane (£52k) | Keane (£90k) | Keane (£90k) | Crespo (£94k) | Lampard (£98k) | Gerrard (£100k) | Shevchenko (£118k) | Terry (£135k) | Robinho (£160k) | Tevez (£250k) | Tevez (£250k) | Tevez (£250k) | Tevez (£250k) |
There's a big reason for that. The Class of 92. We didn't have to pay transfer fees for integral parts of our team. Which is all well and good, good on Fergie and the academy. But you're not telling me we underpaid the best team in England for years collectively relative to the opposition. It doesn't make sense, so I can't extrapolate lower transfer spending to the rest of expenditure.
Good data. If only we had salary by squad.
Yup, like its unfathomable that one of the best clubs in the league were paying their players proportionally to their success, fact is we were spending our own money that was generated from our success and even then we were pretty much level or less than those around us - it's literally chalk and cheese comparing United 1992-2013 to City's state funded club.
Its like saying " I wonder how many clubs Manchester United purchased to be a part of their "United Group" - oh, there's no data to back up purchases? Then they must have bought loads..."
I thought we were talking about the 90s a minute ago! We signed RVP in 2012 in case you'd forgotten.
Well given that the subject seemed to have moved on to City and Chelsea bullying Arsenal for their players I think it’s safe to say we’d stopped talking about the 90s
I genuinely think you're just on a wum now, the poster clearly compared two different periods.
City's plan was to spend big and get into the CL places, they kept spending until it worked knowing they were in breach of FFP (how else do you pay Tevez a quarter of a million a week along with all the other big signing and transfers yet have a half empty stadium and near to zero large foreign fanbases). They specifically targeted Arsenal, which is the poster's point and something United could not do when we were building through the 90s: Adebayor, Nasri, Toure, Clichy all arriving at City between 09-11 but then even after winning the title and getting CL revenue they had to create the most ridiculous sponsorship package where they essentially paid themselves (which is kind of the point of this thread not your disproven views on United's spending). I don't have anything against them targeting Arsenal if they were complying with FFP, I dislike Arsenal more than City in fact, but the issue is the fact they are operating under a different set of rules. Case in point below, they honestly don't even try and hide it.
That's not what I said at all though mate. This is from the post you just quoted:
Yes the academy being so successful is part of the reason United weren't among the biggest spenders in the 90's. And despite the strict wage structure (£25k per week max) I've no doubt United still had one of the biggest wage bills in England.
Do you think United's wage bill back then would have been significantly higher than Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal or Newcastle's?
You’ve literally given one example in over 20 years.
That video was great ! Amazing production.
Misunderstanding amongst my part. To your question, significantly more/less, no. (pre Roman takeover)? Impossible to say. If I was forced to pick I'd say yes, but not by much (a credit to Fergie and academy and Gill)
Haha I guess they know no one will click it!
I’ve noticed. No idea why anybody could be bothered with that. An Ipswich fan at that.
And you’ve given..? None?
I didn’t think I needed to given they’ve already been posted in a post replying to you. Do you need them again? In 09 alone they took Tevez, Toure and Adebayor. Tevez may not have technically been a United player but the effect was the same. We were weakened and they were strengthened.
In 2011 they went back to Arsenal and helped themselves to Nasri and Clichy. Mission accomplished. Arsenal were suitably weakened and have yet to recover.
In 16/17 Spurs finished above City. So City went and helped themselves to Kyle Walker.
There’s 6 in 8 years. Versus your one in over 20.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...ION-wages-transfers-Premier-League-began.html
This is not perfect, but suggests that the biggest PL era spenders were Chelsea, then Utd.
Can think of a few, though i expect you will find a reason to deny some of them, and might well be correct.
Cantona
Andy Cole
David May
Henning Berg (both of these 2 I’ve put because Blackburn seemed like rivals at the time because they bookend their title win)
Ferdinand
Carrick
Berbatov
Van Persie
Mata
Matic
Sanchez
Your bitterness blinds youCan think of a few, though i expect you will find a reason to deny some of them, and might well be correct.
Cantona * Leeds wanted to sell
Andy Cole * Newcastle wanted to sell
David May *If Blackburn were relying on him to win a league, they never would have. He was signed merely as a squadie and a good character
Henning Berg (both of these 2 I’ve put because Blackburn seemed like rivals at the time because they bookend their title win) *See May
Ferdinand *Leeds were heading for meltdown
Carrick *No idea what the point of this is
Berbatov *See above
Van Persie *We saved Arsenal losing yet another player to city
Mata *Chelsea wanted to sell
Matic *Chelsea wanted to sell
Sanchez *Arsenal were so desperate to sell him they did a swap for Mikhi
It was 27 years ago. I think it's time to let it go.
Cantona - incorrect. Wilkinson hated him, we actually paid less than the quoted fee as well they supposedly wanted to keep face with fans.
Cole - dubious. He was class at Newcastle but they wanted to sell him after Keegan and him had a fight. Plus it was actually a swap with Gillespie and cash so hardly like we raided them for a player they wanted to keep.
May - dubious. He’s a local guy and United, was a dependable but squad player and Blackburn (deliberately or stupidly) hadn’t offered him a new contract. Basically equivalent of if City bought Oxlade-Chamberlain.
Berg - correct. Well done!
Ferdinand - incorrect. Not competing for the league and also Leeds were broke which forced the sale.
Carrick - incorrect. Not rival.
Berbatov - incorrect. Not rival.
RVP - correct.
Mata -
. Mou couldn’t wait to get rid of him. Chelsea lapped that one up.Matic - again what? We overpaid for an old player, we didn’t force Chelsea to sell him.
Sanchez - surely you know this was a free transfer + Mkhi. The only club we flexed on financially for this was actually City to get him to sign for us and not them but he was leaving Arsenal regardless.
Context is important.
With the exception of Cantona we didn’t sign a single player from a team that had finished above us the year previous. Are you really going to try and count a Leeds team destined for relegation as us taking players off a rival? If so, you might as well throw in Alan Smith too. Same goes for Carrick and Berbatov. Pointless mentioning the bottom three given we were not dominating then and that’s the whole point behind your opinion. If you’re going to those extremes though we can throw Grealish and the like in for City. And Raheem Sterling certainly applies.
It’s frankly bizarre to say that a team dominating due to sporting excellence, developing their own players, who watched Chelsea come in and change the footballing landscape and rebuild to come out on top again is more boring than a state backed football club using a nations wealth to dominate, but you do you.
Every other team stood in line for tickets to the show. City borrowed their dads credit card and bunked to the top of the queue. In doing so they’ve made it virtually impossible to compete without spending fortunes beyond any team run as a business can afford.
To add a footnote, we signed Henning Berg in 97. Blackburn had just finished 13th and Shearer was long gone. That one is a stretch.
Last edited:
No worries mate.
Ok cool, if someone had the actual numbers and told me United had the biggest wage bill in England circa 1999 because of a relatively big squad I wouldn't be surprised. And you're right we don't really know for sure but it's reasonable to assume United's wage bill wasn't significantly more or less than the other top sides. In which case with the data we do have on United's spending on fees i think we can then make the reasonable assumption that United weren't the biggest spenders in terms of Transfer Fees & wages during the SAF PL era.
Indeed and Leeds finished 17th in 92-93 so they weren't even a rival when we signed Cantona.
Getting this thread back on track. This is from last year and I believe the investigation is still running.
Last question really hammers home the scale of the cheating:
Just a little update from swiss ramble to feed the debate :
EDIT : Sorry, it's big, i don't know how to fix it.
EDIT : Sorry, it's big, i don't know how to fix it.