How many Man City and Chelsea fans doing the rounds are actually saying they really should not be spending the money they do based on what might happen if the owners pack it in?
It is only seen as disastrous after the disaster occurs and never ever before, in my experience.
As I have said before, if RA wants to spend the money on Chelsea then great. It doesn't bother me how much he has spent or even wasted. It's not my money !
I don't for one minute think it will all go tits up but if it did then so be it. In those ten years I have seen the team win the lot.
Absolute bollocks of the highest order. No one questioned it. You were spending £30k a week on tropical fish and seth johnson and you loved every minute of it!
t.
You are exaggerating to state a point, they were spending £20-200 per month for someone to look after the tropical fish.
Seth Johnson may have been on 30k a week but that has nothing to do with the fish, but you know that.
The Leeds fans had no idea what the clubs financial situation was at the time.
You have no idea what Utd's financial situation is or has been since the Glazers took over. SAF have said " If I wanted a player the board backed him" given his success they would have been mad not too. You don't know how much Moyle's has to spend on players or how much the owners take out of the club.
Utd fans blamed 'Ed' for failing to buy players in the summer transfer window, The derisory offers that Utd made for some players suggests to me Ed was limited how much he could spend. You are very naive if you honestly think Ed could have possibly got it that spectaculariy wrong, It looks to me like the owners are not willing to spend big anymore.
The interest payments crippled Leeds, the amount Utd are paying in interest, yes I know its 'manageable' is mind-blowing.
Man Utd are going to be paying 100k a week for another 2yrs for a 40yr old player that should not be any where near the starting 11 so he can reach his 1000th cap I bet that is 'manageable' too
I suspect Leeds fans have paid with great anguish over the past few years over what Risdale did to their Club and yes ok they enjoyed the riches of a semi final place in the CL but if they knew at the time what was really going on at the time I'm pretty sure they would have given that all up.
When Pompey went belly up a lot of creditors went without and that isn't fair. But in some eyes here fans "enjoyed an FA Cup win - so what".
As I have said before, if RA wants to spend the money on Chelsea then great. It doesn't bother me how much he has spent or even wasted. It's not my money !
I don't for one minute think it will all go tits up but if it did then so be it. In those ten years I have seen the team win the lot.
Well yes.
You aren't complaining now, and why would you.
This is my point. I didn't hear a single Leeds or Portsmouth fans complaining when they were doing well.
Hopefully if Abramovich pulls the plug all Chelsea fans will have the same attitude as you, along the lines of living the dream, but I doubt it...
There's a world of difference between the owners of Chelsea and Man City, who can afford to burn their money, and the likes of Risdale, Carson Yeung and the Portsmouth mob who didn't.
99% of all football fans would have no clue about the financial state of their club. If the club is spending money, most fans would presume they have the means to do it. Obviously few Leeds fans would have complained when the club was doing well because the vast majority of them would have been unaware that Ridsdale was setting them up for disaster. Some of them however may have been aware of it, but even informed football fans have either limited or no means of doing anything about it.
You are exaggerating to state a point, they were spending £20-200 per month for someone to look after the tropical fish.
Seth Johnson may have been on 30k a week but that has nothing to do with the fish, but you know that.
The Leeds fans had no idea what the clubs financial situation was at the time.
You have no idea what Utd's financial situation is or has been since the Glazers took over. SAF have said " If I wanted a player the board backed him" given his success they would have been mad not too. You don't know how much Moyle's has to spend on players or how much the owners take out of the club.
Utd fans blamed 'Ed' for failing to buy players in the summer transfer window, The derisory offers that Utd made for some players suggests to me Ed was limited how much he could spend. You are very naive if you honestly think Ed could have possibly got it that spectaculariy wrong, It looks to me like the owners are not willing to spend big anymore.
The interest payments crippled Leeds, the amount Utd are paying in interest, yes I know its 'manageable' is mind-blowing.
Man Utd are going to be paying 100k a week for another 2yrs for a 40yr old player that should not be any where near the starting 11 so he can reach his 1000th cap I bet that is 'manageable' too
Yes of course i am exaggerating to make a point but it happens to be true. Leeds Utd fans couldnt have cared less about the finances when Fowler, Rio, Keane et al were rocking up to pull on the white shirt. As with most football fans all they cared about was the team on the pitch and i dont recall anyone saying "can we afford this?" when the next big name was signed up.
Man Utd CAN afford to pay Ryan Giggs £100k a week, why you have used that as an example i have absolutely no idea. The one thing we do know about Man Utd is that we have the cash. Just two days ago we released 1st quarter accounts that showed 12 new sponsorship deals. The one club in the UK that CAN pay a 40 year old £100k a week is Manchester United. Whether he should be in the first team or not is completely irrelevant to this topic.
It doesn't matter if you are owned by a billionaire or not. It is a simple fact and I will say it now for the fourth time, no fan anywhere complains when their club spends money. I did not recall a single complaint from any supporter. Not one. Its bollocks for anyone to say after the event that they weren't happy about it at the time.
Yes of course i am exaggerating to make a point but it happens to be true. Leeds Utd fans couldnt have cared less about the finances when Fowler, Rio, Keane et al were rocking up to pull on the white shirt. As with most football fans all they cared about was the team on the pitch and i dont recall anyone saying "can we afford this?" when the next big name was signed up.
Man Utd CAN afford to pay Ryan Giggs £100k a week, why you have used that as an example i have absolutely no idea. The one thing we do know about Man Utd is that we have the cash. Just two days ago we released 1st quarter accounts that showed 12 new sponsorship deals. The one club in the UK that CAN pay a 40 year old £100k a week is Manchester United. Whether he should be in the first team or not is completely irrelevant to this topic.
I mean it's a waste of money and not good business sense keeping Giggs if he brings nothing to the team. I also think Moyes has been told by higher up that he has too reach that milestone and that is the reason he's picked. I'll move on as it's irrelevant.
This has been on my mind since the summer
If i was a Utd fan i'd be a bit concerned whether or not the owners will back Moyes for the top players, are they prepared to pay 50+ for a player.
Everyone knows they need to strengthen in midfield but they did not put one bid in for Bale, I think Bale would have bitten your hand off to stay in England. Players like Bale don't become available that often. If Cardiff City can spend 30m on players in their first season then Utd should easily be able to pay 90-100 for Bale or any other World Class player.
Your club are paying 40-50m a year in interest. Surely your debt is only manageable when you can compete in the transfer market with everyone else if you cant compete then that 40-50m interest stops being manageable, it's money your manager needs to compete with other teams.
If you go out and spend 80-100m in the near future I will admit I'm wrong. I think because of SAF departure you may see a different side to the owners.:)
As I have said before, if RA wants to spend the money on Chelsea then great. It doesn't bother me how much he has spent or even wasted. It's not my money !
I don't for one minute think it will all go tits up but if it did then so be it. In those ten years I have seen the team win the lot.
I'm with you on this. There was a time when I wondered if we'd even win an FA Cup in my lifetime (before Ruud & co came along), so to actually see us win the PL and CL far exceeded any expectations. If the bubble burst tomorrow there'd be no regrets, we've lived the dream this past decade.
I mean it's a waste of money and not good business sense keeping Giggs if he brings nothing to the team. I also think Moyes has been told by higher up that he has too reach that milestone and that is the reason he's picked. I'll move on as it's irrelevant.
This has been on my mind since the summer
If i was a Utd fan i'd be a bit concerned whether or not the owners will back Moyes for the top players, are they prepared to pay 50+ for a player.
Everyone knows they need to strengthen in midfield but they did not put one bid in for Bale, I think Bale would have bitten your hand off to stay in England. Players like Bale don't become available that often. If Cardiff City can spend 30m on players in their first season then Utd should easily be able to pay 90-100 for Bale or any other World Class player.
Your club are paying 40-50m a year in interest. Surely your debt is only manageable when you can compete in the transfer market with everyone else if you cant compete then that 40-50m interest stops being manageable, it's money your manager needs to compete with other teams.
If you go out and spend 80-100m in the near future I will admit I'm wrong. I think because of SAF departure you may see a different side to the owners.:)
Regardless of how much United are paying in interest, we're bringing more in.
The Glazers are playing a blinder.
We did sound Bale out. He only wanted to go to Madrid. And he went for far more than he's 'worth'. I'd have been furious, if United had paid £85m for Bale.
Regardless of how much United are paying in interest, we're bringing more in.
The Glazers are playing a blinder.
We did sound Bale out. He only wanted to go to Madrid. And he went for far more than he's 'worth'. I'd have been furious, if United had paid £85m for Bale.
that does kind of go without saying, united wouldn't be able to make the repayments otherwise. you are a bit naive if you think the glazer debt has not affected our ability in the transfer market, there is absolutely no reason why united should not be able to compete financially with the likes of barcelona, real madrid, bayern munich for the best players in the world, united are as rich as they are, the elephant in the room is the glazer's sucking money out. we can spend money, just nowhere near as much as we should be able to considering the vast wealth of the club...
Regardless of how much United are paying in interest, we're bringing more in.
The Glazers are playing a blinder.
We did sound Bale out. He only wanted to go to Madrid. And he went for far more than he's 'worth'. I'd have been furious, if United had paid £85m for Bale.
I agree Up until the summer everything was rosy and I'm not having a go at your club or manager Jim, the difference in quality you got for 30m compared to what you could have had for 50m or 85m is massive.
To buy a world Class player you got to pay 50m+ I will be interested to see if the owners are wiling to pay those prices now SAF has gone.
Absolute bollocks of the highest order. No one questioned it. You were spending £30k a week on tropical fish and seth johnson and you loved every minute of it!.
From a personal perspective, I questioned it all from the very start due to the lack of transparency at the club. I had a feeling early-on what the outcome was gonna be - big time debt at the very least due to the constant stream of new signings (some of which weren't even needed) and the high wages being paid out by Risdale. His whole economic strategy was built upon sand. I've never had a season ticket since because I have no interest in parting with cash (a lot of money, too, for a season ticket) when there is bugger all transparency.
that does kind of go without saying, united wouldn't be able to make the repayments otherwise. you are a bit naive if you think the glazer debt has not affected our ability in the transfer market, there is absolutely no reason why united should not be able to compete financially with the likes of barcelona, real madrid, bayern munich for the best players in the world, united are as rich as they are, the elephant in the room is the glazer's sucking money out. we can spend money, just nowhere near as much as we should be able to considering the vast wealth of the club...
Under the Glazers, we've paid £30m for Berbatov, £24m for Van Persie, and £27m for Fellaini.
We bid around £35m for Fabregas, in the summer. And if rumours are to be believed, we had the money to go for Bale and/or Ronaldo.
We're hardly paupers, regardless of the debt. And calling me 'naive' doesn't help your argument.
Advocating that clubs spend spend spend to try and compete with Man United and damn the consequences is just pure folly. The stark fact for QPR is that their annual revenue is £30m less than United's last QUARTER revenue. Yes United can manage their interest burden but they are an exceptional institution in football terms. So are City and Chelsea with their owners.
The sad fact is that FFP will ensure responsibility but that the PL will become deadly dull with just the top 4 or 5 eventually breaking away to form a European Super League probably.
that does kind of go without saying, united wouldn't be able to make the repayments otherwise. you are a bit naive if you think the glazer debt has not affected our ability in the transfer market, there is absolutely no reason why united should not be able to compete financially with the likes of barcelona, real madrid, bayern munich for the best players in the world, united are as rich as they are, the elephant in the room is the glazer's sucking money out. we can spend money, just nowhere near as much as we should be able to considering the vast wealth of the club...
With respect that is rubbish. We have had the same model for buying players for the entire history of the PL. It is naive to assume that the fact we havent spent similar amounts to Barca and Real is for any other reason than the fact that we have NEVER spent the same money as them. When we were a PLC the list of players we didnt sign was enormous and our manager was the poorest paid top manager in the league.
I mean it's a waste of money and not good business sense keeping Giggs if he brings nothing to the team. I also think Moyes has been told by higher up that he has too reach that milestone and that is the reason he's picked. I'll move on as it's irrelevant.
This has been on my mind since the summer
If i was a Utd fan i'd be a bit concerned whether or not the owners will back Moyes for the top players, are they prepared to pay 50+ for a player.
Everyone knows they need to strengthen in midfield but they did not put one bid in for Bale, I think Bale would have bitten your hand off to stay in England. Players like Bale don't become available that often. If Cardiff City can spend 30m on players in their first season then Utd should easily be able to pay 90-100 for Bale or any other World Class player.
Your club are paying 40-50m a year in interest. Surely your debt is only manageable when you can compete in the transfer market with everyone else if you cant compete then that 40-50m interest stops being manageable, it's money your manager needs to compete with other teams.
If you go out and spend 80-100m in the near future I will admit I'm wrong. I think because of SAF departure you may see a different side to the owners.:)
The misguided idea is that were we not paying the interest the money would be going on players. There is no evidence to support that. The money would be going into the Glazer pocket and there would be further complaints.
There is nothing to be gained for us by having Giggs reach 1000 games. Its fairly laughable to suggest that there is an agenda whereby the manager has been told it has to happen. Giggs is beoing kept around for the same reasons he has been for the last 5 years - because his name is Ryan Giggs.
Much as I rate Bale, the money he went for was absolutely crazy and in 99% of cases if Real are in for a player Real get the player, that has pretty much always been the way.
With respect that is rubbish. We have had the same model for buying players for the entire history of the PL. It is naive to assume that the fact we havent spent similar amounts to Barca and Real is for any other reason than the fact that we have NEVER spent the same money as them. When we were a PLC the list of players we didnt sign was enormous and our manager was the poorest paid top manager in the league.
if you think any manager would rather have ashley young and valencia then ribery, robben, hazard or lucas moura then you are sorely mistaken, we have been making do with players who are not good enough for a long time now, alex ferguson did a great job getting so much out of them. we ended up signing ashley young because we were priced out of getting the players we really wanted.
we did spend big before the glazers by the way, what we spent on veron, ferdinand and rooney were huge amounts of money at the time before the massive inflation on fees. our revenue has gone up massively since then, so has player valuations, but we haven't moved with the times. wether or not we competed with the big european clubs in the transfer market in the past is somewhat irrelevant, we need to now and won't come close to winning the champions league again until we do, our squad needs a massive overhaul from top to bottom to get to that level.
if you think any manager would rather have ashley young and valencia then ribery, robben, hazard or lucas moura then you are sorely mistaken, we have been making do with players who are not good enough for a long time now, alex ferguson did a great job getting so much out of them. we ended up signing ashley young because we were priced out of getting the players we really wanted.
we did spend big before the glazers by the way, what we spent on veron, ferdinand and rooney were huge amounts of money at the time before the massive inflation on fees. our revenue has gone up massively since then, so has player valuations, but we haven't moved with the times. wether or not we competed with the big european clubs in the transfer market in the past is somewhat irrelevant, we need to now and won't come close to winning the champions league again until we do, our squad needs a massive overhaul from top to bottom to get to that level.
We signed the top UK talent. Thats pretty much the same as its always been. Rio for £30m was £3m a year. Rooney works out at less than £3m a year. Its what we have always done. Veron i the one huge exception to that rule and it really didnt work. I didnt ever say we would want Young over Ribery but we have absolutely no history of signing the Ribery type of player. You dont need me to tell you this. The model has always been to buy players at a certain age and make them better and suppliment that with PL talent. There are a handful of examples of us not doing this, but on the whole it is the model that the previous manager liked to follow.
Our squad doesnt need a massive overhaul from top to bottom, where does that even come from? We need improvements but our keeper is sound, our defence is sound and our strikers are top notch. Its the squad that won the league with ease last season and lost it by one goal the season before.
We signed the top UK talent. Thats pretty much the same as its always been. Rio for £30m was £3m a year. Rooney works out at less than £3m a year. Its what we have always done. Veron i the one huge exception to that rule and it really didnt work. I didnt ever say we would want Young over Ribery but we have absolutely no history of signing the Ribery type of player. You dont need me to tell you this. The model has always been to buy players at a certain age and make them better and suppliment that with PL talent. There are a handful of examples of us not doing this, but on the whole it is the model that the previous manager liked to follow.
Our squad doesnt need a massive overhaul from top to bottom, where does that even come from? We need improvements but our keeper is sound, our defence is sound and our strikers are top notch. Its the squad that won the league with ease last season and lost it by one goal the season before.
i will continue this conversation in the man utd thread...
The rules as they stand do mean that Championship clubs who post losses over £18m for the 2013/14 financial year who are promoted at the end of the 2013/14 season will be fined, but actually that's not the most interesting part for me. These clubs will have achieved their aim of promotion to the Premier League, which is why they set out to spend so much in the first place.
The other part of this is that clubs who post losses for 2013/14 in excess of £8m and who aren't promoted will face a transfer embargo which will apply "until the club is able to lodge financial information that demonstrates that it meets the Financial Fair Play regulations." You have to wonder how many other clubs might be caught by this, e.g. Blackburn recorded a loss of £36m for 2012-13 and they are very unlikely to get promoted in 2013-14.
So clubs who get promoted getting fined doesn't really bother me, it will be more interesting to see what impact this has in 2014-15 for clubs who didn't get promoted.
FFP is great in theory but in reality it creates a closed shop. How does Jack Walker bankroll a PL dream now? Even as a Man Utd fan i hate this. City may stand for a lot that is wrong with football but lets be honest, it caused a new team to be on the block, a new challenge, something fresh and exciting. Chelsea had done it a few years previous. Its great. It shakes things up and it creates some excitement. As a United fan I welcome the challenge of a club spending £200m in a summer just to beat us!
At the same time lower down the leagues there are guys who are subsidising clubs hand over fist. Not to win PLs and CLs but just to stay in business. Look at what Eddie Thompson (RIP) did for Dundee United. That should never be discouraged.
These are very good points.
I was quite disappointed that Bill Kenwright voted for FFP, because it was like raising the white flag on ever getting investment, and accepting that Everton's place will always be between 6th and 16th in the Premier League.
A club like us, or Villa, or Spurs would be ideal for MCFC-style investment, on the 'if you build it, they will come' principle. FFP closes the door on that. The music has stopped in this game of musical chairs, and those that have the money now are likely to be near the top for the forseeable future...
But eventually, it will only benefit Manchester United and Liverpool, as they are the only English clubs who would benefit from negotiating their own tv deals worldwide, which is the way things are going for the future. As a fair-minded MUFC fan, you obviously like the competition, but in ten years time, when it all settles down and the turkeys who voted for Christmas see what they've created, it will be a league as boring and uncompetitive as Spain's.
Comments
As I have said before, if RA wants to spend the money on Chelsea then great. It doesn't bother me how much he has spent or even wasted. It's not my money !
I don't for one minute think it will all go tits up but if it did then so be it. In those ten years I have seen the team win the lot.
You are exaggerating to state a point, they were spending £20-200 per month for someone to look after the tropical fish.
Seth Johnson may have been on 30k a week but that has nothing to do with the fish, but you know that.
The Leeds fans had no idea what the clubs financial situation was at the time.
You have no idea what Utd's financial situation is or has been since the Glazers took over. SAF have said " If I wanted a player the board backed him" given his success they would have been mad not too. You don't know how much Moyle's has to spend on players or how much the owners take out of the club.
Utd fans blamed 'Ed' for failing to buy players in the summer transfer window, The derisory offers that Utd made for some players suggests to me Ed was limited how much he could spend. You are very naive if you honestly think Ed could have possibly got it that spectaculariy wrong, It looks to me like the owners are not willing to spend big anymore.
The interest payments crippled Leeds, the amount Utd are paying in interest, yes I know its 'manageable' is mind-blowing.
Man Utd are going to be paying 100k a week for another 2yrs for a 40yr old player that should not be any where near the starting 11 so he can reach his 1000th cap I bet that is 'manageable' too
When Pompey went belly up a lot of creditors went without and that isn't fair. But in some eyes here fans "enjoyed an FA Cup win - so what".
Well yes.
You aren't complaining now, and why would you.
This is my point. I didn't hear a single Leeds or Portsmouth fans complaining when they were doing well.
Hopefully if Abramovich pulls the plug all Chelsea fans will have the same attitude as you, along the lines of living the dream, but I doubt it...
I doubt it too. To be fair there are some who are not keen on RA now. Obviously very much in the minority but they are out there.
In reality most supporters just live for the day, though some prefer the past
Yes of course i am exaggerating to make a point but it happens to be true. Leeds Utd fans couldnt have cared less about the finances when Fowler, Rio, Keane et al were rocking up to pull on the white shirt. As with most football fans all they cared about was the team on the pitch and i dont recall anyone saying "can we afford this?" when the next big name was signed up.
Man Utd CAN afford to pay Ryan Giggs £100k a week, why you have used that as an example i have absolutely no idea. The one thing we do know about Man Utd is that we have the cash. Just two days ago we released 1st quarter accounts that showed 12 new sponsorship deals. The one club in the UK that CAN pay a 40 year old £100k a week is Manchester United. Whether he should be in the first team or not is completely irrelevant to this topic.
Agree with you there.
I mean it's a waste of money and not good business sense keeping Giggs if he brings nothing to the team. I also think Moyes has been told by higher up that he has too reach that milestone and that is the reason he's picked. I'll move on as it's irrelevant.
This has been on my mind since the summer
If i was a Utd fan i'd be a bit concerned whether or not the owners will back Moyes for the top players, are they prepared to pay 50+ for a player.
Everyone knows they need to strengthen in midfield but they did not put one bid in for Bale, I think Bale would have bitten your hand off to stay in England. Players like Bale don't become available that often. If Cardiff City can spend 30m on players in their first season then Utd should easily be able to pay 90-100 for Bale or any other World Class player.
Your club are paying 40-50m a year in interest. Surely your debt is only manageable when you can compete in the transfer market with everyone else if you cant compete then that 40-50m interest stops being manageable, it's money your manager needs to compete with other teams.
If you go out and spend 80-100m in the near future I will admit I'm wrong. I think because of SAF departure you may see a different side to the owners.:)
I'm with you on this. There was a time when I wondered if we'd even win an FA Cup in my lifetime (before Ruud & co came along), so to actually see us win the PL and CL far exceeded any expectations. If the bubble burst tomorrow there'd be no regrets, we've lived the dream this past decade.
Regardless of how much United are paying in interest, we're bringing more in.
The Glazers are playing a blinder.
We did sound Bale out. He only wanted to go to Madrid. And he went for far more than he's 'worth'. I'd have been furious, if United had paid £85m for Bale.
that does kind of go without saying, united wouldn't be able to make the repayments otherwise. you are a bit naive if you think the glazer debt has not affected our ability in the transfer market, there is absolutely no reason why united should not be able to compete financially with the likes of barcelona, real madrid, bayern munich for the best players in the world, united are as rich as they are, the elephant in the room is the glazer's sucking money out. we can spend money, just nowhere near as much as we should be able to considering the vast wealth of the club...
I agree Up until the summer everything was rosy and I'm not having a go at your club or manager Jim, the difference in quality you got for 30m compared to what you could have had for 50m or 85m is massive.
To buy a world Class player you got to pay 50m+ I will be interested to see if the owners are wiling to pay those prices now SAF has gone.
From a personal perspective, I questioned it all from the very start due to the lack of transparency at the club. I had a feeling early-on what the outcome was gonna be - big time debt at the very least due to the constant stream of new signings (some of which weren't even needed) and the high wages being paid out by Risdale. His whole economic strategy was built upon sand. I've never had a season ticket since because I have no interest in parting with cash (a lot of money, too, for a season ticket) when there is bugger all transparency.
Under the Glazers, we've paid £30m for Berbatov, £24m for Van Persie, and £27m for Fellaini.
We bid around £35m for Fabregas, in the summer. And if rumours are to be believed, we had the money to go for Bale and/or Ronaldo.
We're hardly paupers, regardless of the debt. And calling me 'naive' doesn't help your argument.
The sad fact is that FFP will ensure responsibility but that the PL will become deadly dull with just the top 4 or 5 eventually breaking away to form a European Super League probably.
With respect that is rubbish. We have had the same model for buying players for the entire history of the PL. It is naive to assume that the fact we havent spent similar amounts to Barca and Real is for any other reason than the fact that we have NEVER spent the same money as them. When we were a PLC the list of players we didnt sign was enormous and our manager was the poorest paid top manager in the league.
The misguided idea is that were we not paying the interest the money would be going on players. There is no evidence to support that. The money would be going into the Glazer pocket and there would be further complaints.
There is nothing to be gained for us by having Giggs reach 1000 games. Its fairly laughable to suggest that there is an agenda whereby the manager has been told it has to happen. Giggs is beoing kept around for the same reasons he has been for the last 5 years - because his name is Ryan Giggs.
Much as I rate Bale, the money he went for was absolutely crazy and in 99% of cases if Real are in for a player Real get the player, that has pretty much always been the way.
if you think any manager would rather have ashley young and valencia then ribery, robben, hazard or lucas moura then you are sorely mistaken, we have been making do with players who are not good enough for a long time now, alex ferguson did a great job getting so much out of them. we ended up signing ashley young because we were priced out of getting the players we really wanted.
we did spend big before the glazers by the way, what we spent on veron, ferdinand and rooney were huge amounts of money at the time before the massive inflation on fees. our revenue has gone up massively since then, so has player valuations, but we haven't moved with the times. wether or not we competed with the big european clubs in the transfer market in the past is somewhat irrelevant, we need to now and won't come close to winning the champions league again until we do, our squad needs a massive overhaul from top to bottom to get to that level.
We signed the top UK talent. Thats pretty much the same as its always been. Rio for £30m was £3m a year. Rooney works out at less than £3m a year. Its what we have always done. Veron i the one huge exception to that rule and it really didnt work. I didnt ever say we would want Young over Ribery but we have absolutely no history of signing the Ribery type of player. You dont need me to tell you this. The model has always been to buy players at a certain age and make them better and suppliment that with PL talent. There are a handful of examples of us not doing this, but on the whole it is the model that the previous manager liked to follow.
Our squad doesnt need a massive overhaul from top to bottom, where does that even come from? We need improvements but our keeper is sound, our defence is sound and our strikers are top notch. Its the squad that won the league with ease last season and lost it by one goal the season before.
i will continue this conversation in the man utd thread...
The rules as they stand do mean that Championship clubs who post losses over £18m for the 2013/14 financial year who are promoted at the end of the 2013/14 season will be fined, but actually that's not the most interesting part for me. These clubs will have achieved their aim of promotion to the Premier League, which is why they set out to spend so much in the first place.
The other part of this is that clubs who post losses for 2013/14 in excess of £8m and who aren't promoted will face a transfer embargo which will apply "until the club is able to lodge financial information that demonstrates that it meets the Financial Fair Play regulations." You have to wonder how many other clubs might be caught by this, e.g. Blackburn recorded a loss of £36m for 2012-13 and they are very unlikely to get promoted in 2013-14.
So clubs who get promoted getting fined doesn't really bother me, it will be more interesting to see what impact this has in 2014-15 for clubs who didn't get promoted.
These are very good points.
I was quite disappointed that Bill Kenwright voted for FFP, because it was like raising the white flag on ever getting investment, and accepting that Everton's place will always be between 6th and 16th in the Premier League.
A club like us, or Villa, or Spurs would be ideal for MCFC-style investment, on the 'if you build it, they will come' principle. FFP closes the door on that. The music has stopped in this game of musical chairs, and those that have the money now are likely to be near the top for the forseeable future...
But eventually, it will only benefit Manchester United and Liverpool, as they are the only English clubs who would benefit from negotiating their own tv deals worldwide, which is the way things are going for the future. As a fair-minded MUFC fan, you obviously like the competition, but in ten years time, when it all settles down and the turkeys who voted for Christmas see what they've created, it will be a league as boring and uncompetitive as Spain's.