We've signed far more good players than 'sub standard' players in the last few years.
Apart
David Gill Transfer warchest v2012
- Thread starter wr8_utd
- Start date
We've signed far more good players than 'sub standard' players in the last few years.
Apart
Gill: We look at salary ranges in our squad to make sure people can look each other in the eye.
But we are talking about a player who has no connection to these clubs. If it were you or me we would pick United every time, but to someone with no connections they are probably thinking.
United : Loyalty, Good wages, Sir Alex (for now), hunt for trophies and history
City : Less loyalty, Better wages, hunt for trophies
What we offer in excess to City is immeasurable in terms of value, it can't equate to monetary units. On the other hand City can offer an extra 50k a year. You can see why a player, with a short career may be swayed by the extra cash. Similarly you can see why a player would want to join our club and go down in history.
Probably a little more than that
More like 50k a week
An extra 50k a week.
What does that even mean?
Presumably that if someone is on extortionate wages compared to another player despite not really being much better than them, or better at all.
That they think it's fair across the team.
Which is the only way you can keep squad moral, and wages spiralling out of control.
Has anyone got a times subscription and if so could you paste ducker's interview with gill?
That explains Rooney's wages then
Doesn't seem to be a problem at city.
Because even the tea lady is on 200k a week there.
But the difference between Rooney in 2010 and a new player(s) coming to United is huge and you should know that difference.
Tbf though Gambit, Italy and Spain are more attractive places to live than Manchester. Yes it's not all about that, but i am sure if it was me, and my job encompassed only about 2/3 days of every week, then where and how i would be spending the rest of the time would surely have some bearing.
I may be wrong but i always feel English clubs seem to have to do a little bit more when buying continental players, due to the fact the weather and way of life is so different than many of them are used to.
I think England is a much better place to play football, than it is to live for many top foreign players.
He's our star player. I really don't see why people complain over his wages. it's still less than a lot of the worlds other big players. The merchandising he brings to the club alone is huge. It's the manner in which he got them that's the problem.
If Ronaldo was still here he'd be on over 200k at this stage.
I just found that quote by David Gill quite strange
Why? Overall our wage structure is pretty even across the board. The policy here is to bring youth on pretty average wages and if they prove themselves they'll be offered higher wages, that'd what happened with Hernandez and Smalling at the end of the first season as I recall.
Nani is getting a new contract reported to be around 130k, which makes sense seeing as he's probably our best attacker after Rooney.
I fully agree with you.
I'd agree with Spain but northern Italy isn't that great of a place to live, it has winters almost equivalent to ours and the likes of Rome/Milan have more rain than Manchester.
Rome is a beautiful place to live in. There were times when I used to travel there quite regularly. The beauty of Italy lie in the details. Great food and culture, fantastic places to go and have fun (opera, restaurants, casinos etc) and everything is close (Firenze, Venezia, Monaco, Switzerland etc). If it wasn't for the hefty taxes and beuorcracy, Italy would be a rich man's wet dream.
I doubt anyone can compare Manchester to this.
Do we have to post the net spend table again...
Try and extra 50k a week...and they'll go down in history at City.
we'd be idiots to try and compete aggressively with city in the transfer market - we have to spend within our means
I'm not worried - the young players we have will have the hunger and experience of playing together, we'll have key players fit as well as a few nice quality additions
I remember the summer after Chelsea had won the league for the second time by 8 points - they went out and bought Shevchenko (arguably the best striker in the world at the time) and Ballack who was a class act
we, on the other hand had just lost Ruud
it looked like chelsea might dominate for the next ten years but the 2006-2007 season was one of my favourites as we played fantastic football to win the league by 6 points
we've beaten better than city in the past - remember that
I'm not worried - the young players we have will have the hunger and experience of playing together, we'll have key players fit as well as a few nice quality additions
I remember the summer after Chelsea had won the league for the second time by 8 points - they went out and bought Shevchenko (arguably the best striker in the world at the time) and Ballack who was a class act
we, on the other hand had just lost Ruud
it looked like chelsea might dominate for the next ten years but the 2006-2007 season was one of my favourites as we played fantastic football to win the league by 6 points
we've beaten better than city in the past - remember that
I don't disagree with any of that.
We do, as you say, need to add real quality to the side.
What are his wages?
Utter bollocks - ridiculous self entitled attitude.
disagree, thats always been our pulling power
its just more highlighted now because we are not the top payers anymore, City and Chelsea have changed that with their Billionaire owners. However, thats not sustainable. United's model is.
I'm not sure the level of debt we have and money disappearing out of our club is a great business model either.
im no fan of the glazers, but the debt is coming down, and the money has been there for transfers when we identified targets.
i also think that its a seperate conversation because even when we were a PLC we still used the pull of the club when signing players. Lets face it, Fergie is never going to sign a player who doesn't want to play for United. We saw that with Tevez. And he's right too.
Agree for the most part, but remember, we beat better than City, with much better at our disposal than what we have currently.
This is the main issue of any such debate, we are not as good as we should or could be at this point. A couple of good signings this summer may change that significantly, but as it stands we are all moaning and worried because we have weak areas that simply have to be addressed before we can reasonably expect to move forward.
London is seen throughout the world as one of most attractive places to live on the planet. Being a millionaire there is as good as it gets.
Unfortunately, Manchester does not have such attraction even though it is a good place to live imo.
Unfortunately, Manchester does not have such attraction even though it is a good place to live imo.
Spot on.
I suspect nobody here is suggesting we go and compete with City for players per se - the issue is Fergie being able to go out and get a player he wants and has identified if and when the need arises, and bringing in quality sufficient to keep us at the top.
What we've heard from Gill is dissapointing for me - the club getting its excuses in early.
Players won't join a club for "history" alone - that may be a part of it if that club looks like it will continue to achieve and remain at (or near) the top.
Currently, any player will look at United and wonder whether they can continue to compete at this level with the sqaud they have, and/or whether any issues are likely to be addressed.
Manchester has opera, restaurants and casinos.
When you are rich you can live well and have fun wherever you live.
Tell us more about your first-hand expetiences of Manchester, Devilish?
I've noticed a pathern which I think will happen with City in the next few years.
When Blackburn & Chelsea got took over and had the millions pumped into the club to ensure short term success, it never looked as though it would be long term. In Blackburn's case the money dried up and with it relegation came in 1999. With Chelsea they had a few years of success(and spending big) but apart from Torres & Luiz they have not spent big like they did under Mourinho.
I think the owners at City will have there fun for a few years, win some trophies and then decide to cut spending.
When Blackburn & Chelsea got took over and had the millions pumped into the club to ensure short term success, it never looked as though it would be long term. In Blackburn's case the money dried up and with it relegation came in 1999. With Chelsea they had a few years of success(and spending big) but apart from Torres & Luiz they have not spent big like they did under Mourinho.
I think the owners at City will have there fun for a few years, win some trophies and then decide to cut spending.
Surely when/if United are trying to sign a player, that in itself should suggest to said player that the club is trying to improve?
You make it sound like the squad and current players are rubbish, with your last lne!