It's well said

comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 15 minutes ago
“Yeah spending money we generate is exactly the same as City getting a Sheikh.“

Think you’re missing the point of the OP. Stanley Matthews didn’t need to have an official noodle sponsor to generate revenue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Most football clubs are ran as a business not as a means to cleanse the image of a human rights abusing middle Eastern country.

Ffs Eric have a day off. Completely missing the point of the op. United has their heads in the trough for two decades before City came along. I think, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the op is looking at the time before that.

t's almost impossible now for a team that is not rich, one way or the other, to get to the top of the game either in the UK or Europe.
------------------------------------------
Two words :

Leicester
Spurs

comment by Oscar. 2019 YEAR OF THE MACK! #TeamFury (U12980)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Glazers_Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 13 minutes ago
The bitterness on here has cheered me up after the news of Vinny's departure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

He's left to join a big club who don't need a Sheikh to be relevant in their domestic league. A step up for him.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, haven't United spent about 600 million in the last 3 years? Not really City's fault they've spent their money better than you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Half mate, 310 million

Leicester spent 132 million in 5 years, hardly breaking the bank

For all that City might have the biggest transfer spend amongst PL clubs, exactly how much more, percentage-wise, is it? And how much more is their overall budget once wages are taken into account?

Much is being made about how they've ruined football with their spending, but I'd be very surprised if they'd proportionally outspent their peers by as much as the top clubs have in Spain, Germany, Italy or France. For that matter, I'd like to see some proof that they've proportionally outspent their rivals by that much more than the dominant teams in England have at other times.

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 59 minutes ago
For all that City might have the biggest transfer spend amongst PL clubs, exactly how much more, percentage-wise, is it? And how much more is their overall budget once wages are taken into account?

Much is being made about how they've ruined football with their spending, but I'd be very surprised if they'd proportionally outspent their peers by as much as the top clubs have in Spain, Germany, Italy or France. For that matter, I'd like to see some proof that they've proportionally outspent their rivals by that much more than the dominant teams in England have at other times.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1

The main thing that table shows is how well managed Spurs are.

comment by Fake Dutch Hulk (U1250)
posted 22 hours, 32 minutes ago

Leicester spent 132 million in 5 years, hardly breaking the bank
___________________________________
True, but not poor either. How much can Burnley or Oldham spend. Can they make the jump up, the answer is no, not possible.

comment by Fake Dutch Hulk (U1250)
posted 2 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 59 minutes ago
For all that City might have the biggest transfer spend amongst PL clubs, exactly how much more, percentage-wise, is it? And how much more is their overall budget once wages are taken into account?

Much is being made about how they've ruined football with their spending, but I'd be very surprised if they'd proportionally outspent their peers by as much as the top clubs have in Spain, Germany, Italy or France. For that matter, I'd like to see some proof that they've proportionally outspent their rivals by that much more than the dominant teams in England have at other times.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, though still somewhat misleading, as wages probably have just as much of an impact, or even far greater depending on the case.

Case in point, Real Madrid's transfer activity over the same period amounts to £-21.51m net, i.e., even less/better than Spurs, but I'm pretty sure that their wage bill would put them up there with, or not far off the top spenders.

(Still quite remarkable, nevertheless, that their net transfer spend is lower than any PL club's bar Southampton.)