comment by mancinicity (U7179)
The only other teams to win the PL also spent money to win it. And how did City spend obscene amount of money? We have not broken any British transfer record for 5 times. We did not run to the stock market to raise obscene amount of money so we can pay £60m for Rooney and Rio. We only had to spend what was necessary to catch up with you guys. Maybe if United did not go to the stock market, the PL would still be open championship.
But you can always define your own facts and believe them to be the absolute truth.
-------------------------------------------------------
When United floated on the stock market the initial income that garnered went towards redeveloping existing infrastructure, i.e. improving Old Trafford and upgrading the training facilities. It was not spunked on players. Any money spent on players has come from within United's accounts not from outside sources.
City floated on the stock market during the 90's also you know? It brought in less than £10m which was then spunked on useless over-valued players as per usual with City. Did you know this?
City floated on the stock market during the 90's also you know? It brought in less than £10m which was then spunked on useless over-valued players as per usual with City. Did you know this?
------
I actually didn't know this they've always used it as a dig when United did it
comment by RVP's Left Foot - Keeping it Halal' and United since 1992. (U11781)
posted 3 seconds ago
City floated on the stock market during the 90's also you know? It brought in less than £10m which was then spunked on useless over-valued players as per usual with City. Did you know this?
------
I actually didn't know this they've always used it as a dig when United did it
---------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure either Peter Swales or Franny Lee floated the club on the alternative stock market to get transfer funds instead of using the money to improve the ground or training facilities. Short term thinking.
City floated on the stock market during the 90's also you know? It brought in less than £10m which was then spunked on useless over-valued players as per usual with City. Did you know this?
-------------------------------------
Small club, small value, makes sense
comment by Redastomatoes- The future is cleverson!! (U12026)
posted 7 minutes ago
Wow... Till people understand that football is more than money, they will keep whinging. Because of their money, chelsea and city will never have a manager like fergie, despite being able to sign the best young managers around.
To win 4 of 5 titles comes from having a long term manager not spending millions (though it helps, as seen from last year). Mancini is the worst. If a 12 yr old champ manager expert would win the league. How can you spend 60 odd million on rodwell, sinclair, garcia and maicon? Honestly? 3 bit part players.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I think its safe to assume some United fans on here have not taken time to learn about their team's history.
It took Fergie 5 years in charge of United before he won the league. During this period, he was backed with heavy spending which saw him broke the British transfer record 5 times. And the money spent was raised through stock floatation (NOT EARNED as in your definition of earn). He was even almost getting the chop before he won the FA cup.
Also, Rodwell is £12m, Sinclair is £8m, Garcia is £15m and Maicon is £3m. I don;t think that adds up to £60m.
Compare that to Jones £20m, Bebe £7m, Young £15m, Carrick £28m.
And what would be the equivalent in todays money for the obscene amount you paid for Rooney & Rio?
From Wikipedia:
Upon becoming Chairman, Lee made a series of extravagant claims about his plans for the club, announcing that, "This will be the happiest club in the land. The players will be the best paid and we'll drink plenty of champagne, celebrate and sing until we're hoarse."[56] The club floated on the OFEX exchange in 1995, valuing the club at £8 million.[57]
Amazing quote from Franny Lee.
Carrick was just under £24million.
"How can you spend 60 odd million on "
United spent 53 mil on Jones, De Gea and Young last year.
Just sayin.
Its also safe to say that all the issue of over spending associated with the game today was caused by United.
"Its also safe to say that all the issue of over spending associated with the game today was caused by United."
no, Suarez did that
I think its safe to assume some United fans on here have not taken time to learn about their team's history.
It took Fergie 5 years in charge of United before he won the league. During this period, he was backed with heavy spending which saw him broke the British transfer record 5 times. And the money spent was raised through stock floatation (NOT EARNED as in your definition of earn). He was even almost getting the chop before he won the FA cup.
-------------------------------------------------------
Uniteds net spend from 1986-1993 was £11 million.
Money raised through a stock flotation is earned, your asset is valued at £X and you want to cash in on it.
So its money earned
If City had players who would sweat blood for the shirt like Southampton players there wouldn't be any need for this thread. Outbattled from the off,outcoached and out of the title race
All in a days work for Mancini and his moonheaded cretinous sidekick
TheKaisersTrainers (U5676)
posted 3 minutes ago
"How can you spend 60 odd million on "
United spent 53 mil on Jones, De Gea and Young last year.
----------------------------------------------------------
We spent our money on those players.
Not some Oil Heads money from thousands of miles away buying our players.
When a manager spends 12m on a playerwho played less than 20 games in three years...(rodwell)
You know he doesn't understand value...
Or Sinclair.....
The FFP bubble has burst over City and they are so far behind its funny.
Where will they get the cash to pay top wages for players who normally wouldn't entertain them from.
I already state early what is the point of this thread? To gain some pity, because you're a team that has spent an obscene amount of money, and all you have to your name is you won the league on goal difference by a last minute winner?
If you truly think by mentioning players value hides the fact that your team has no chance against us, then that's pathetic.
Just to name some
Jo - £19m from CSKA Moscow
Robinho - £32.5m
De Jong - £19m
Santa Cruz - £18m
Tevez - £25m
Adebayor - £25m
Lescott - £22m
Toure - £24m
Silva - £25m
Kolarov - £17m
Balotellu - £25m
Milner - £26m
Dzeko - £27m
Nasri - £22m [Thank you for that]
Aguero - £38m
At the end of it all, you're a small time club who are nothing more than noisy neighbours. You use our spending to justify our success, yet fail to see that it isn't the case when comparing your spending to your level of success.
It takes much more than that to stay dominant. You've had your 8 minutes in the sunshine, just enjoy what you have. Your team isn't going anywhere and you'll be challenging next season when Mourinho comes over.
If it wasn't for city and Chelsea Arsenal and Liverpool could afford to compete
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Carrick cost £16m which chelsea paid £10 for mikel! Where do you get £24m from??? But I see city fans are crying now thinking the dream is over, when in truth they have a very good team and thanks to the money they aren't the team with laughed at once. Take a step back and enjoy what you did last season and it may not happen again, and stop being so dam bitter! United have earned and spent money to improve the club and win things.....it's called good management and if city want to win more they are best keep with Mancini for stability
Off the top of my head,
Carrick £28m
Rooney £30m
Rio £30m -
Veron £38m
De Gea £19m
Jones £18m
Smalling £12m
Barbatov £31m
Djemba Djemba £x
RVP £24m
If you add what other players you guys bought during Fergie's early years for British Transfer record in todays money, you will realize United ruined the PL.
And also remember we won the league twice before money came on.
"We spent our money on those players."
did you?
you could make a very valid argument that you spent Sky's money, UEFAs money, the FAs money and prems money on them.
You didn't necessarily earn that money. Football bureaucrats chose to give you 100s upon 100s of millions in money clubs lower down the table didn't get. They weren't forced to, they chose to.
No need for this thread, not today. Regarding our spending and FFP, we will be absolutely fine. The question that should be being asked is why it takes 250 million to get to third and then another 100 million to get to first. I completely understand why clubs don't want to raise that, though.
oh, and everyone knows Carrick was 18.6
It's been published to death. A lot you don't know but that one has been out of the bag since the transfer.
If it wasn't for city and Chelsea Arsenal and Liverpool could afford to compete
They can afford to compete, they just prefer giving their directors and executives large bonuses rather than buying players.
Veron was £28m and the man with the same name twice was £3.5m I mean where do you get these figures from??? But one thing you always fail to see.....these players have all win titles! And carrick was £16m, £28m dear me!
Sign in if you want to comment
PL - The One team league!!
Page 3 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 9/2/13
comment by mancinicity (U7179)
The only other teams to win the PL also spent money to win it. And how did City spend obscene amount of money? We have not broken any British transfer record for 5 times. We did not run to the stock market to raise obscene amount of money so we can pay £60m for Rooney and Rio. We only had to spend what was necessary to catch up with you guys. Maybe if United did not go to the stock market, the PL would still be open championship.
But you can always define your own facts and believe them to be the absolute truth.
-------------------------------------------------------
When United floated on the stock market the initial income that garnered went towards redeveloping existing infrastructure, i.e. improving Old Trafford and upgrading the training facilities. It was not spunked on players. Any money spent on players has come from within United's accounts not from outside sources.
City floated on the stock market during the 90's also you know? It brought in less than £10m which was then spunked on useless over-valued players as per usual with City. Did you know this?
posted on 9/2/13
City floated on the stock market during the 90's also you know? It brought in less than £10m which was then spunked on useless over-valued players as per usual with City. Did you know this?
------
I actually didn't know this they've always used it as a dig when United did it
posted on 9/2/13
comment by RVP's Left Foot - Keeping it Halal' and United since 1992. (U11781)
posted 3 seconds ago
City floated on the stock market during the 90's also you know? It brought in less than £10m which was then spunked on useless over-valued players as per usual with City. Did you know this?
------
I actually didn't know this they've always used it as a dig when United did it
---------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure either Peter Swales or Franny Lee floated the club on the alternative stock market to get transfer funds instead of using the money to improve the ground or training facilities. Short term thinking.
posted on 9/2/13
City floated on the stock market during the 90's also you know? It brought in less than £10m which was then spunked on useless over-valued players as per usual with City. Did you know this?
-------------------------------------
Small club, small value, makes sense
posted on 9/2/13
comment by Redastomatoes- The future is cleverson!! (U12026)
posted 7 minutes ago
Wow... Till people understand that football is more than money, they will keep whinging. Because of their money, chelsea and city will never have a manager like fergie, despite being able to sign the best young managers around.
To win 4 of 5 titles comes from having a long term manager not spending millions (though it helps, as seen from last year). Mancini is the worst. If a 12 yr old champ manager expert would win the league. How can you spend 60 odd million on rodwell, sinclair, garcia and maicon? Honestly? 3 bit part players.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I think its safe to assume some United fans on here have not taken time to learn about their team's history.
It took Fergie 5 years in charge of United before he won the league. During this period, he was backed with heavy spending which saw him broke the British transfer record 5 times. And the money spent was raised through stock floatation (NOT EARNED as in your definition of earn). He was even almost getting the chop before he won the FA cup.
Also, Rodwell is £12m, Sinclair is £8m, Garcia is £15m and Maicon is £3m. I don;t think that adds up to £60m.
Compare that to Jones £20m, Bebe £7m, Young £15m, Carrick £28m.
And what would be the equivalent in todays money for the obscene amount you paid for Rooney & Rio?
posted on 9/2/13
From Wikipedia:
Upon becoming Chairman, Lee made a series of extravagant claims about his plans for the club, announcing that, "This will be the happiest club in the land. The players will be the best paid and we'll drink plenty of champagne, celebrate and sing until we're hoarse."[56] The club floated on the OFEX exchange in 1995, valuing the club at £8 million.[57]
Amazing quote from Franny Lee.
posted on 9/2/13
Carrick £28m?
posted on 9/2/13
Carrick was just under £24million.
posted on 9/2/13
"How can you spend 60 odd million on "
United spent 53 mil on Jones, De Gea and Young last year.
Just sayin.
posted on 9/2/13
Its also safe to say that all the issue of over spending associated with the game today was caused by United.
posted on 9/2/13
"Its also safe to say that all the issue of over spending associated with the game today was caused by United."
no, Suarez did that
posted on 9/2/13
I think its safe to assume some United fans on here have not taken time to learn about their team's history.
It took Fergie 5 years in charge of United before he won the league. During this period, he was backed with heavy spending which saw him broke the British transfer record 5 times. And the money spent was raised through stock floatation (NOT EARNED as in your definition of earn). He was even almost getting the chop before he won the FA cup.
-------------------------------------------------------
Uniteds net spend from 1986-1993 was £11 million.
Money raised through a stock flotation is earned, your asset is valued at £X and you want to cash in on it.
So its money earned
posted on 9/2/13
If City had players who would sweat blood for the shirt like Southampton players there wouldn't be any need for this thread. Outbattled from the off,outcoached and out of the title race
All in a days work for Mancini and his moonheaded cretinous sidekick
posted on 9/2/13
TheKaisersTrainers (U5676)
posted 3 minutes ago
"How can you spend 60 odd million on "
United spent 53 mil on Jones, De Gea and Young last year.
----------------------------------------------------------
We spent our money on those players.
Not some Oil Heads money from thousands of miles away buying our players.
posted on 9/2/13
When a manager spends 12m on a playerwho played less than 20 games in three years...(rodwell)
You know he doesn't understand value...
Or Sinclair.....
The FFP bubble has burst over City and they are so far behind its funny.
Where will they get the cash to pay top wages for players who normally wouldn't entertain them from.
posted on 9/2/13
I already state early what is the point of this thread? To gain some pity, because you're a team that has spent an obscene amount of money, and all you have to your name is you won the league on goal difference by a last minute winner?
If you truly think by mentioning players value hides the fact that your team has no chance against us, then that's pathetic.
Just to name some
Jo - £19m from CSKA Moscow
Robinho - £32.5m
De Jong - £19m
Santa Cruz - £18m
Tevez - £25m
Adebayor - £25m
Lescott - £22m
Toure - £24m
Silva - £25m
Kolarov - £17m
Balotellu - £25m
Milner - £26m
Dzeko - £27m
Nasri - £22m [Thank you for that]
Aguero - £38m
At the end of it all, you're a small time club who are nothing more than noisy neighbours. You use our spending to justify our success, yet fail to see that it isn't the case when comparing your spending to your level of success.
It takes much more than that to stay dominant. You've had your 8 minutes in the sunshine, just enjoy what you have. Your team isn't going anywhere and you'll be challenging next season when Mourinho comes over.
posted on 9/2/13
If it wasn't for city and Chelsea Arsenal and Liverpool could afford to compete
posted on 9/2/13
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/2/13
Carrick cost £16m which chelsea paid £10 for mikel! Where do you get £24m from??? But I see city fans are crying now thinking the dream is over, when in truth they have a very good team and thanks to the money they aren't the team with laughed at once. Take a step back and enjoy what you did last season and it may not happen again, and stop being so dam bitter! United have earned and spent money to improve the club and win things.....it's called good management and if city want to win more they are best keep with Mancini for stability
posted on 9/2/13
Off the top of my head,
Carrick £28m
Rooney £30m
Rio £30m -
Veron £38m
De Gea £19m
Jones £18m
Smalling £12m
Barbatov £31m
Djemba Djemba £x
RVP £24m
If you add what other players you guys bought during Fergie's early years for British Transfer record in todays money, you will realize United ruined the PL.
And also remember we won the league twice before money came on.
posted on 9/2/13
"We spent our money on those players."
did you?
you could make a very valid argument that you spent Sky's money, UEFAs money, the FAs money and prems money on them.
You didn't necessarily earn that money. Football bureaucrats chose to give you 100s upon 100s of millions in money clubs lower down the table didn't get. They weren't forced to, they chose to.
posted on 9/2/13
No need for this thread, not today. Regarding our spending and FFP, we will be absolutely fine. The question that should be being asked is why it takes 250 million to get to third and then another 100 million to get to first. I completely understand why clubs don't want to raise that, though.
posted on 9/2/13
oh, and everyone knows Carrick was 18.6
It's been published to death. A lot you don't know but that one has been out of the bag since the transfer.
posted on 9/2/13
If it wasn't for city and Chelsea Arsenal and Liverpool could afford to compete
They can afford to compete, they just prefer giving their directors and executives large bonuses rather than buying players.
posted on 9/2/13
Veron was £28m and the man with the same name twice was £3.5m I mean where do you get these figures from??? But one thing you always fail to see.....these players have all win titles! And carrick was £16m, £28m dear me!
Page 3 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10