So, the Glazers. Are they parasites? Blame game topic.

[NoWinNoFee]

Yeah and how about the net spend of about 20m per year we had for every season before that? The current squad is a mess because of years of underinvestment because of them. We're supposed to compete with the likes of Barca/Madrid/Chelsea/City then you need to spend at least 50% of what they do and over the past 7 years we've spent a fraction to pay of debt so we could have the privilege of their ownership.

£20m a season where do you get that from?

One window they signed Anderson/Nani/Hargreaves and Tevez - I honestly do believe if a manager wants a player they will open their wallets no questions asked, if this was not the case Moyes could easy come out and say that right now, he does not because there was no cap by the Glazers.

They've been great, not only getting commercial deals but how they've invested too, people forget when we was a plc our budget was £20-30m per season (not per window), as said they've spent £130m in the last 12 months alone and will probably spend more in the next 2 weeks, that's comparable with any big team in Europe.

 

[KeninDC]

Just to frame the discussion-here are net transfer figures between 99/00 and 13/14 fiscal years from United's recent investor presentation. The figures come from audited financial statements-and are more reliable than secondary sources.

 

[Rory 7]

Just to frame the discussion-here are net transfer figures between 99/00 and 13/14 fiscal years from United's recent investor presentation. The figures come from audited financial statements-and are more reliable than secondary sources.

Key figures on this chart for me are the -44 when we sold Ronaldo with no reinvestment of that windfall.
And the +78 where we panic bought Fellaini and Mata.

 

[bosnian_red]

I think it bears repeating that prior to 2012, our net spend for the preceding 7 seasons was :

2005 : £1 million.
2006 : £4.1 million.
2007 : £26.5 million.
2008 : £ 33.75 million.
2009 : -£64.5 million
2010 : £13.5 million.
2011 : £38 million.

Adds upto : £52.4 million.

No-one expects Madrid/ Chelsea/ PSG/ City level but £52.4 million over 7 seasons ? Wanna guess what Sunderland's net spend for that duration was ? £86 million. Aston Villa ? £108 million. That's how far United were from the upper echelons of spending. Forget the European elite we were outspent by mid-table Premier League clubs.

I'm not saying over the first 6 years or so that they didn't, they were absolute leeches then. Since that time though you can't criticize them too much. We've spent around £60m every year and spent big on a few players. Just they've been signings we didn't need. It is how it is, we can't always blame them and even so, we can't change anything. We should have spent better then we did. Pretty much our 2 biggest signings of the last couple of years, rvp and mata, I would both trade for 2 midfield signings which were absolute necessities at the time both players were signed.

 

[goin4glory]

£20m a season where do you get that from?

One window they signed Anderson/Nani/Hargreaves and Tevez - I honestly do believe if a manager wants a player they will open their wallets no questions asked, if this was not the case Moyes could easy come out and say that right now, he does not because there was no cap by the Glazers.

They've been great, not only getting commercial deals but how they've invested too, people forget when we was a plc our budget was £30m per season (not per window), as said they've spent £130m in the last 12 months alone and will probably spend more in the next 2 weeks, that's comparable with any big team in Europe.

Our net spend since their arrival is a little over 200m o 20m a year and Tevez was on loan not a signing. How much have our rivals spent in the same timeframe?

Our PLC budget was related to the clubs revenue and saw us regularly break national records and sign world class players, even though revenues have grown massively over the last 10 years and this goes for all sides not just United our net spending under the Glazers is actually less than the PLC despite the price for players going up.

Why do you bring up only the last 12 months and forget about the past 8 years? The reason heavy investment is needed is because of the severe lack of funds over that time.

 

[Rory 7]

I'm not saying over the first 6 years or so that they didn't, they were absolute leeches then. Since that time though you can't criticize them too much. We've spent around £60m every year and spent big on a few players. Just they've been signings we didn't need.

No we haven't. Look at the official club report above. Please.

 

[bosnian_red]

No we haven't. Look at the official club report above. Please.

Starting with the 11/12 season, we spent £50.42m, £67.28m, £69.41, and now £64.68m with apparently a lot more to spend. We've signed some excellent players during that time, but we could have spent the money better then we did. Like signing van Persie when we had very good forwards and a shit midfield. Or mata when we had a shit midfield. Or just fellaini. We've spent a decent amount the last 4 seasons, it's our fault we've wasted it.

 

[Mister Ed]

They are shrewd business men and their wallet interests them more than our club that is for sure. Yet that doesn't mean they run the club on tight budgets, I personally have never felt like the money wasn't available, it is more a question on what we want to spend it on and obviously wrong choices have been made on that in the last couple of years. I think if United wants to they can close any deal financially speaking, I don't think there is ever a real shortage of money like you have with alot of Italian teams for example, it is just a matter of us not being big spenders and if anything that has to do with the managers we employ rather than the Glazers.

SAF has always been a manager that rather buys players he can form himself than the finished article, he'll only ever spend alot on the finished article if he himself is very impressed with the player and desperatley wants to work with him and he'll never spends amounts on individual players that he thinks are silly. He was a man ruled by principles more than anything, he never felt the pressure of I don't have a good enough squad and I need to add quality no matter the cost, he has often gone for the wrong players and he has often blown off good potential deals over a couple of million because he found the agent fees and money for a young inexperienced player silly. Moyes on the other didn't want to spend before he had done a full scale examination of the team and had an idea about what he needed, he took way too much time on doing that examination and was very undecisive about what players to bring in during last summer. Another thing he did was because he worked under such tight budget contraints at Everton, he wanted to make sure that whatever deal he closed for United was one that was good financially, he didn't want to spend silly amounts or even normal amounts for that matter and that cost us alot of targets and in the end resultated in panic buying Fellaini because else he wouldn't have gotten anybody at all. I'am quite certain Moyes was about to spend big and all the talks about having a big summer were under the assumption that Moyes would still be in charge and we would excute his plans, but ofcourse non of that ever came to pass as he was fired before the start of the summer. LVG also isn't a manager that spends alot, I really think he wasn't involved in transfers at all before the end of the world cup and he just signed off on Shaw and Herrera who were on Moyes list and were presented to him by Woodward. After the world cup he didn't want to deals because he first wanted to examine the squad and give every player a fair chance to show himself for LVG. He is also a manager that is reluctant to do big deals, he almost never did big deals at previous club and like SAF he prefers to work with youth and sign young players he can mold himself, in fact I even think he is more fanatic about that than SAF. So for all we know, the money might be there and Woodward just waiting on LVG permission to do this or that deal and I think he has said to Woodward he really wants a left footed centreback, but Vermaelen didn't happen because Arsenal didn't want to sell to us and Barcelona were even more into him than us. Rojo is clearly going on but the fute between Sporting and Doyen is making it very difficult and obviously Blind has been the cards but more as a backup plan. For the rest of the deals I just think it isn't Woodward who is failing or the Glazers not coughing up the money, it is LVG who just doesn't want us to spend big on this or that player just now.

If we had signed a manager like Mourinho for example who is always looking at new proven players to strenghten his team, I think we'd have spend fortunes already in the transfermarket. Obviously we can't go all out every year like Real does, as that would be unwise, but I don't believe for a second we are blocked by financial constrains from the Glazers. It is been the managers we have had more than anything.

 

[Rory 7]

Starting with the 11/12 season, we spent £50.42m, £67.28m, £69.41, and now £64.68m with apparently a lot more to spend. We've signed some excellent players during that time, but we could have spent the money better then we did. Like signing van Persie when we had very good forwards and a shit midfield. Or mata when we had a shit midfield. Or just fellaini. We've spent a decent amount the last 4 seasons, it's our fault we've wasted it.

Why start with the 11/12 season? All the top clubs spent similar amounts during that period. I agree that what was spent was wasted but this thread is about whether the Glazers are parasites, not just our transfer dealings. The story of our transfer dealings shows a very mixed behaviour by them, panic over the last twelve months and complete PR spinning since Feb of this year about our '200m' war chest. Beyond the spending on players when you look at the money the Glazers have taken out of the club they have been nothing but drain on our resources. There is a concept in economics call 'opportunity cost', effectively the cost of NOT doing something. I wonder what the cost has been to this club of the Glazers using it as a cash cow?

 

[WyoManU]

How much money you spend each year isn't the only metric. IF we bought 4 more #10's we would still be average. We need someone with a deep knowledge of the team, our youth prospects and the game to decide who and how many to bring in. We have LVG. Hopefully he is as good as advertised. I do agree with his philosophy of taking your time and making the right buys, not panic purchases for short stop gap fixes. We need a long term strategy and vision.

 

[Speak]

I think it bears repeating that prior to 2012, our net spend for the preceding 7 seasons was :

2005 : £1 million.
2006 : £4.1 million.
2007 : £26.5 million.
2008 : £ 33.75 million.
2009 : -£64.5 million
2010 : £13.5 million.
2011 : £38 million.

Adds upto : £52.4 million.

No-one expects Madrid/ Chelsea/ PSG/ City level but £52.4 million over 7 seasons ? Wanna guess what Sunderland's net spend for that duration was ? £86 million. Aston Villa ? £108 million. That's how far United were from the upper echelons of spending. Forget the European elite we were outspent by mid-table Premier League clubs.

Those are the facts. The response to selling Ronaldo, in particular, was beyond pathetic.

 

[bosnian_red]

Why start with the 11/12 season? All the top clubs spent similar amounts during that period. I agree that what was spent was wasted but this thread is about whether the Glazers are parasites, not just our transfer dealings. The story of our transfer dealings shows a very mixed behaviour by them, as whole of panic over the last twelve months and complete PR spinning since Feb of this year about our '200m' war chest. Beyond the spending on players when you look at the money the Glazers have taken out of the club they have been nothing but drain on our resources. There is a concept in economics call 'opportunity cost', effectively the cost of NOT doing something. I wonder what the cost has been to this club of the Glazers using it as a cash cow?

I'm not saying they weren't terrible owners for the first 6 years, they absolutely just took money out and put nothing in. I'm starting at 11/12 though because they started to put money back in finally. 4 years in a row now where they have given us money to spend and we've still apparently got loads to spend. Will we is another matter, but you can't really say they haven't backed us in the transfer market in the last few years.

 

[Rory 7]

I'm not saying they weren't terrible owners for the first 6 years, they absolutely just took money out and put nothing in. I'm starting at 11/12 though because they started to put money back in finally. 4 years in a row now where they have given us money to spend and we've still apparently got loads to spend. Will we is another matter, but you can't really say they haven't backed us in the transfer market in the last few years.

I never said they didn't back us in the transfer market. The point I'm making is they have taken so much out of the club that they limited the amount to which they can back us. If you want to turn this thread into a transfer thread why not make a list of top players we missed out on over recent years. The so called 'biggest club in the world' TM can't compete for players like Hazard, Rodriguez, Bale etc. The facts are during the PLC years we were the power house in English football, consistently breaking transfer records to bring in players like Keane, Stam, Ruud etc. We've fallen very very far from that perch under the Glazers. That is the real fact worth remembering.

 

[Invictus]

I'm not saying over the first 6 years or so that they didn't, they were absolute leeches then. Since that time though you can't criticize them too much. We've spent around £60m every year and spent big on a few players. Just they've been signings we didn't need. It is how it is, we can't always blame them and even so, we can't change anything. We should have spent better then we did. Pretty much our 2 biggest signings of the last couple of years, rvp and mata, I would both trade for 2 midfield signings which were absolute necessities at the time both players were signed.

Hmm TBF can't disagree with the notion that we've spent money acquiring the wrong kind of players in recent seasons. Not that they've necessarily subpar players per se individually but at the same time not exactly what we needed. Mata like you pointed out, Fellaini, one of Kagawa or RVP were luxuries we could've done without. That's around 80-90 million on essentially #10s when that could've been better used to strengthen the midfield or the rearguard. Not to mention 12 million for Zaha and the few random punts on youngsters that haven't exactly panned out - Bebe, Tosic, Manucho, Powell and Henriquez (so far). A pity when Toure, Modric (to Spurs), Vidal and the like went for reasonable money. Reckon we could really do with a bit of a scouting overhaul and a DOF.

But still the thing is, the club wouldn't have been in a spot of bother now if we had built upon a position of strength (specifically the 2006-2010 teams). Instead we spent pennies and let the squad deteriorate without experienced replacements for aging legends.

 

[bosnian_red]

I never said they didn't back us in the transfer market. The point I'm making is they have taken so much out of the club that they limited the amount to which they can back us. If you want to turn this thread into a transfer thread why not make a list of top players we missed out on over recent years. The so called 'biggest club in the world' TM can't compete for players like Hazard, Rodriguez, Bale etc. The facts are during the PLC years we were the power house in English football, consistently breaking transfer records to bring in players like Keane, Stam, Ruud etc. We've fallen very very far from that perch under the Glazers. That is the real fact worth remembering.

Well with hazard, fergie wasn't willing to give in to the agent fee, nothing to do with the owners I think. And we apparently did match madrids offer for bale. I agree though, they have used us as a cash cow but the point I'm making is the last few years it has been getting better and we apparently still have loads to spend if we want to. We'd all love for them to leave because of what they did at first, but would the amount we have to spend really change from what it is now? We've almost spent £100m in 2014 alone, I think the thing holding us back is our "tradition" of bring through youngsters and not spending loads to fix the problems. We don't want our image to seem like we're just turning into city, Chelsea or Madrid when fergie criticized them so often, and because of Woodward just being a failure at the moment.

 

[Roboc7]

They are here to line their pockets, nothing more, all the sponsorship and increased revenue is used to pay off debt aNd increase the value of the club so they can maximise their gains when they sell of shares. When they walk away they will have made an absolute fortune without having to use much of their own money.

They are prepared to make funds available but there are clearly restrictions and limitations regarding what they are prepared to pay for players and their aim is to be in the top four spending as little as possible, talk of unlimited funds, a 200m budget is all talk nothing more. In recent seasons I think they have made more money available because of the reduction in the debt repayments but we have invested poorly and that combined with years of under investment is why we are in a bit of a mess.

The money we spent on mata, fellaini, shaw and Herrera was way too much and you have to question how much more money is available to LVG, for a club that preaches about no value we make same terrible decisions and don't seem to get good value in the market at all. Herrera, fellaini and mata is as expensive a midfield 3 as you can find in world football but they Are inferior to alternatives at other clubs, there needs to be a lot more focus on long term planning, scouting and signing the right players. We need to spend whatever funds are available better than we have been, 60-70m spent well is better than blowing 200m on players who cant be accommodated.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

No one to blame yet because we have 2 weeks left, this thread is way too premature, the players will come.

If they don't then consequences would be huge.

 

[Rory 7]

Well with hazard, fergie wasn't willing to give in to the agent fee, nothing to do with the owners I think. And we apparently did match madrids offer for bale. I agree though, they have used us as a cash cow but the point I'm making is the last few years it has been getting better and we apparently still have loads to spend if we want to. We'd all love for them to leave because of what they did at first, but would the amount we have to spend really change from what it is now? We've almost spent £100m in 2014 alone, I think the thing holding us back is our "tradition" of bring through youngsters and not spending loads to fix the problems. We don't want our image to seem like we're just turning into city, Chelsea or Madrid when fergie criticized them so often, and because of Woodward just being a failure at the moment.

Bottom line is we SOLD Ronaldo and weren't even at the races when it comes to buying players like Hazard, Bale, Rodriguez et al.

That's where the club is at in terms of spending power under the Glazers whereas as a PLC Fergie was never shy of breaking spending limits.

And as I said earlier, the "Parasites" debate isn't just about transfer spending.

 

[Oneunited26]

They are here to line their pockets, nothing more, all the sponsorship and increased revenue is used to pay off debt aNd increase the value of the club so they can maximise their gains when they sell of shares. When they walk away they will have made an absolute fortune without having to use much of their own money.

They are prepared to make funds available but there are clearly restrictions and limitations regarding what they are prepared to pay for players and their aim is to be in the top four spending as little as possible, talk of unlimited funds, a 200m budget is all talk nothing more. In recent seasons I think they have made more money available because of the reduction in the debt repayments but we have invested poorly and that combined with years of under investment is why we are in a bit of a mess.

The money we spent on mata, fellaini, shaw and Herrera was way too much and you have to question how much more money is available to LVG, for a club that preaches about no value we make same terrible decisions and don't seem to get good value in the market at all. Herrera, fellaini and mata is as expensive a midfield 3 as you can find in world football but they Are inferior to alternatives at other clubs, there needs to be a lot more focus on long term planning, scouting and signing the right players. We need to spend whatever funds are available better than we have been, 60-70m spent well is better than blowing 200m on players who cant be accommodated.

That sums the glazers up on the level we are at, and the level real madrid barcelona man city and chelsea are at, the fact mata herrera shaw and fellaini was too much, 120 million to the Europe's elite is nothing too them. So the real problem is infact the glazers, with fergie gone I cannot see us winning a PL title and especially a champions league crown for a long long time, those 5 CL wins liverpool have got seems a long way too go before we even match that number under these parasites, let alone surpass it. I do not see us winning a european cup when 2020 comes round the way we are going under the glazers continued tight budget

 

[Yorkeontop]

All I know is that United have spent 27m on the likes of Fellaini and an 18 year old(whom I rate by the way). My point being,the money is there.

 

[Canuckred64]

Years of Glazer penny pinching has caught up with us.

We probably need to spend £300-£400 million to get us back into a position to be Europe's number one team again.

I agree that by not spending what was needed in replacing the likes of Ronaldo, Giggs, Scholes, Vidic and Rio have caught up with us but it's not necessary to £300-£400 million. I am not saying that they are all available, whether they would come or whether we are interested, , but Di Maria, Vidal, Hummels and Benatia would cost around £150m, maybe a bit more. With those four we would compete with anyone.

 

[Sarni]

I think it's a bit of both, one could argue that we haven't spent our money wisely in the last 24 months but there was a period from 2009-2011 where we didn't spend near enough money leading us to depend on our strong defence and the class provided by Rooney, Scholes and Giggs. This has resulted in us having players who are journeymen, aging players or young potential . If we had spent in those windows we wouldn't find ourselves needing to solve too many issues at once.

The Summer in 2009 was criminal. We just lost the best in the world with a compensation of a world record fee and signed Valencia as our only transfer. Then we went and just ignored the likes of Silva and Aguero who would have taken us forward and they went to our main rival. Another Summer we ended up with only Hernandez and Smalling which was not enough to get back to the top level either.

In 2011 we did well with Jones and De Gea but Young was unnecessary buy at an awful price. 2012 was another window of us buying quality players yet not addressing any of the issues and this trend has continued.

 

[Deleted member 78215]

£216 million in 10 years.

By comparison :

Chelsea has spent £424 million in the same time period.
Liverpool £205 million. Incredible how far Fergie took us on an almost identical budget to them.

Does that include this summer and the Suarez sale?

 

[Macaris Socks]

The Summer in 2009 was criminal. We just lost the best in the world with a compensation of a world record fee and signed Valencia as our only transfer. Then we went and just ignored the likes of Silva and Aguero who would have taken us forward and they went to our main rival. Another Summer we ended up with only Hernandez and Smalling which was not enough to get back to the top level either.

In 2011 we did well with Jones and De Gea but Young was unnecessary buy at an awful price. 2012 was another window of us buying quality players yet not addressing any of the issues and this trend has continued.

Woeful reading... Five years ago you couldn't envisage the demise of Manchester United to slipping to 7th in the premier league with such an obviously inadequate squad to get us out of the mire. Then you read this and it's apparent... This next two weeks is absolutely critical!

 

[::sonny::]

They will earn always more money

But I don't see this club, without Ferguson and with this managment, being competitive at highest levels.

This club are working without a director of football and it is unable to manage even simply transfers and off the pitch stuffs.

 

[montpelier]

Here's a link to SAF's 104 signings

http://www.barriesview.com/2013/05/sir-alex-fergusons-104-manchester-united-transfers

I was just wondering how successful & how long-term some of his last dealings were.

Most of our 2nd decade of success seems linked to a purple patch around the Rooney, Evra, Vidic & VDS time. And planning for the future disappears around 2009-10 imo, might be wrong depending on your view but the costs involved seem to indicate that most are expected to challenge for 1st XI places straightaway.

Don't know what to conclude but it doesn't seem easy and you have to keep trying. Recently we've combined not bothering over much and signing poorly. The last proper success before RVP is Valencia - who was excellent pre-injury.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

I'm prepared to see an increase in green and gold colours in Old Trafford soon.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

I'm prepared to see an increase in green and gold colours in Old Trafford soon.

When the going gets tough, bring out the green and gold. I expected them last season too.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

When the going gets tough, bring out the green and gold. I expected them last season too.

Moyes was the villain last season, which spared the Glazer's. Saw on Twitter there's a Glazer protest due our next home game anyway.

 

[Sarni]

Moyes was the villain last season, which spared the Glazer's. Saw on Twitter there's a Glazer protest due our next home game anyway.

What do people expect Glazers to do? They have made £140m available to Moyes and van Gaal, they supported Ferguson in the big deals - see Berbatov and van Persie. Their mistake is not preventing us from spending money, it is the lack of plan so unless this protest is aimed at that I don't see the point.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

What do people expect Glazers to do? They have made £140m available to Moyes and van Gaal, they supported Ferguson in the big deals - see Berbatov and van Persie. Their mistake is not preventing us from spending money, it is the lack of plan so unless this protest is aimed at that I don't see the point.

If spending the Glazer's money was no issue we'd have signed some quality players already this summer.

 

[Sarni]

If spending the Glazer's money was no issue we'd have signed some quality players already this summer.

We spent £100m this year and lost out on CL revenue. We might still spend more.

 

[kps88]

What do people expect Glazers to do? They have made £140m available to Moyes and van Gaal, they supported Ferguson in the big deals - see Berbatov and van Persie. Their mistake is not preventing us from spending money, it is the lack of plan so unless this protest is aimed at that I don't see the point.

The thinking is, if they weren't here, we could spend even more money.

 

[bleedred]

They will earn always more money

But I don't see this club, without Ferguson and with this managment, being competitive at highest levels.

This club are working without a director of football and it is unable to manage even simply transfers and off the pitch stuffs.

This. Ideally, Fergie should have left the squad with a DOF in place to support Moyes. Even if we had a bad season last year, the DOF would have cleared out the deadwood and given LVG a fresh team to start of with, instead of LVG having to go through the players and assessing them all over again and the cycle keeps continuing with underperforming players enjoying another term under a new manager.

If it stays the same, LVG is going to be fighting a losing battle.

 

[thelemon]

The Glazers have not been good enough, used Fergie's brilliance as an excuse not to spend and wouldn't compensate for that when he left. We need to start the catch up now before it's too late. I believe in Glazers out.

 

[El Zoido]

Herrera said in the Guardian interview that we didn't offer enough for him last summer. We didn't meet his buyout clause.

We were penny pinching last summer and the evidence is there, so it's pretty bloody obvious it's happening again. We low-balled Barcelona over Fabregas too.

The evidence points to a man that knows how to seal a corporate deal but is a failure when it comes to purchasing players. Surely he has instructions from the Glazers to save where possible, the blame can be shared. I think we also have a problem with identifying targets, and this, coupled with the aforementioned issues creates the embarrassing situation we've witnessed the past two summers.

 

[Sarni]

The thinking is, if they weren't here, we could spend even more money.

Yeah, we might be able to spend more. Money is not going to save us from our issues though, they go much deeper than simply not spending enough of it.

 

[kps88]

Yeah, we might be able to spend more. Money is not going to save us from our issues though, they go much deeper than simply not spending enough of it.

True. The easy way out is to keep throwing money at the problem.

 

[bleedred]

What do people expect Glazers to do? They have made £140m available to Moyes and van Gaal, they supported Ferguson in the big deals - see Berbatov and van Persie. Their mistake is not preventing us from spending money, it is the lack of plan so unless this protest is aimed at that I don't see the point.

This. We had no clear plan on life after Fergie. Also, it should be noted that Fergie was the one who consistently ignored investment in the midfield. He was obsessed with signing wingers and strikers. I mean that money spent on Young could have been used to sign a decent midfielder. Why was that not done. I would blame the Glazers for various reasons but not for the transfers.

Yes, Glazers are profiting out of the club, but they know very well that they cannot capitalise on it, if we remain unsuccessful. They are here for the long term sadly, because, they could have easily sold out when our the stock and appeal was really massive. So , if they are in it for the long term, they know they will have to invest.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

£20m a season where do you get that from?

One window they signed Anderson/Nani/Hargreaves and Tevez - I honestly do believe if a manager wants a player they will open their wallets no questions asked, if this was not the case Moyes could easy come out and say that right now, he does not because there was no cap by the Glazers.

They've been great, not only getting commercial deals but how they've invested too, people forget when we was a plc our budget was £20-30m per season (not per window), as said they've spent £130m in the last 12 months alone and will probably spend more in the next 2 weeks, that's comparable with any big team in Europe.

A minor point but still: I don't think Moyes can come out and say what he wants about his United stint, actually. There's a clause in his severance package - or something of the sort. He mentioned it in a recent interview.

Anyway, I've no reason to believe there was a cap as such. The Glazers have coughed up plenty in the last year or so. Whether we have spent wisely is another matter.