Comment deleted by Site Moderator

You won't see any 'thank you sheikh mansour' banners in his own country though. Why is that?

--------------

Is that a rhetorical question?

Comment deleted by Article Creator

Germany is booming but I've never seen a "Danke, Frau Merkel" banner.

What got deleted? Not that charlton comment, surely?

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 19 minutes ago
What got deleted? Not that charlton comment, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The filthy rags love to complain Melton
Call the dippers for it but are as bad if not worse

I didn't see the comment.

Either way, it's ruined yet another thread.

What was said? And why oh why did anybody feel the need to complain?

Sad.

Not sure what all that was about....

But it's the net spend I'm on about Melton, that's what's going to give us the advantage catching up with you.

We have Anderson worth whatever value we paid for him, but the real way we will improve the squad is getting rid of that flop cheaply and buying in an expensive replacement.

Something that will not affect our squad value all that much.

Besides since the takeover I think your net spend is something like a few hundred million more than ours. As we start to catch up with your spending (we spend more than you) you will find it harder and harder to stay ahead, as we did when you and Chelsea were outspending us.

Not sure the squad value really has much meaning given we could replace Anderson and Young, spend a decent bit of money and actually reduce our squad value!!

I get the point saf, but still the assets at your managers disposal have still been enough to compete with us comparably financially. The squad value is what people use to determine on pitch performance and where clubs should finish as the discrepency is only ever around two places.

It was where you spent it that was the issue (like Anderson) and not prioritising missing positions. When ferguson wanted to spend, he did and was allowed to - RVP being a good example of it.

Not sure what all that was about....

But it's the net spend I'm on about Melton, that's what's going to give us the advantage catching up with you.

We have Anderson worth whatever value we paid for him, but the real way we will improve the squad is getting rid of that flop cheaply and buying in an expensive replacement.

Something that will not affect our squad value all that much.

Besides since the takeover I think your net spend is something like a few hundred million more than ours. As we start to catch up with your spending (we spend more than you) you will find it harder and harder to stay ahead, as we did when you and Chelsea were outspending us.

Not sure the squad value really has much meaning given we could replace Anderson and Young, spend a decent bit of money and actually reduce our squad value!!

-------------------

Spoken by a fan who simply hasn't got a clue.

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 8 minutes ago
Not sure what all that was about....

But it's the net spend I'm on about Melton, that's what's going to give us the advantage catching up with you.

We have Anderson worth whatever value we paid for him, but the real way we will improve the squad is getting rid of that flop cheaply and buying in an expensive replacement.

Something that will not affect our squad value all that much.

Besides since the takeover I think your net spend is something like a few hundred million more than ours. As we start to catch up with your spending (we spend more than you) you will find it harder and harder to stay ahead, as we did when you and Chelsea were outspending us.

Not sure the squad value really has much meaning given we could replace Anderson and Young, spend a decent bit of money and actually reduce our squad value!!

-------------------

Spoken by a fan who simply hasn't got a clue.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just your average rag then

Just your average rag then

-------------

Nah, just your average fan. Him being a United fan is neither here nor there.

Yeah because increasing your squad value by a few million whilst getting rid Santa Cruz and bringing in Aguero only gave you a few million of improvement right?

Clueless!

(Not that the deals necessarily went down at the same time)

Melton, I am not saying we could not afford to compete but we have come from a place where you could construct your squad value through a huge spend and we had to construct our squad value from a far smaller spend.

Having a greater spend even if we don't dramatically increase our squad value will help us greatly because we can cheaply get rid of expensive flops and replace them with players actually worth the value paid for them.

Surely being able to cast off Anderson cheaply and replace him expensively will help us even if the squad value doesn't shift at all.

To being up Santa Cruz as an example, he wasnt worth the money you paid, so spending a lot of money replacing him really improved your team even though it wouldn't affect your squad value much.

SAF

You're missing a very crucial point.

Squad value is not based on transfer fees.

What is squad value anyways?

So if its not based on transfer fees at all I can only assume its based on predicted values of players?

Don't see how us having a spending advantage on City and Chelsea wouldn't help in that regard, because it certainly would....

So if its not based on transfer fees at all I can only assume its based on predicted values of players?

-----------

Nope. You assume wrong.

So it's not based at all on transfer fees (so nothing to do with amortisation either) and it isn't anything to with predicted values....

Is it wages related?

TBH It sounds like a bit of a broken measure...

How can it be squad value, if the value of the players in your squad doesn't affect it...

Sorry Ripley but I think you're talking rubbish here, or at the very least calling it squad value is an inaccurate term if it actually has nothing to do with the value of the players in the squad.

I'll post a reply to this in a bit, going to be a lengthy one I think.

I did try having a look online but googling squad value football didn't give me anything that helpful....

To be honest, I'm not sure on ripleys interpretation of it (attached to revenue perhaps?). It's a different one to mine though, as mine was purely on the cost of assembly of the squad (and by that, I mean the ones registered to play in the pl).

There is a direct correlation between the cost of assembly (and wages) and the finishing position in the league with a discrepency of two places. Anything above or below that is either a big over or underachievement comparative to what the stats show, and that goes right back to the start of the pl.

In that time, only one team has won the title that wasn't in the top three in terms of squad cost and that was Wengers invincibles, to me, a bigger achievement than going unbeaten for the season.

At no point in the entire of the pl has United been outside of the top three and for the vast majority were either top or second, particularly with wages. Coupled with that, the last three seasons have seen Uniteds net spend be higher, significantly now due to the summer, than our own.

In terms of assisting to replace duds, absolutely it is an advantage. You have to remember the starting position though. We had to build effectively three teams. One to challenge for Europe, one to get into the CL and then one to challenge for the title. The last one took 100 million alone and it was only then that our squad value actually overtook Uniteds.

I'm going to go completely off course now but....

This is my problem with the arguments against the sugar daddies. Creating a plc to circumvent FA rules and float on the stock market, changing match day revenue allocation and advocation of the pl all created the disparity that led to investors having to significantly increase the amount needed to challenge. Newcastle, Blackburn, Leeds, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpooland us. All of them needed big injections of cash (in Leeds case, Monopoly money rather than real cash unfortunately...) to enable them to challenge at the top and bar arsenal due to their property developments in the capital, all made losses in the process (arsenal did too if you just look at the football side of the business).

Each one was overcome by both the brilliance of your manager and also the sheer size of revenue you had that enabled you to maintain an advantage. Newcastle doing well? Buy cole. Leeds? Ferdinand. No one could sustainably compete over a lengthy period.

Now, Chelsea and ourselves both have over the past few years. That is the only difference, you have had rivals that are capable of matching both your outlay in wages and transfer outlay. Even with that, you have had a significantly higher net spend over the last three years - a timeframe in which City had two title winning teams despite a change in manager and playing style.

You are currently at no greater disadvantage than your rivals have ever been against you and it is inevitable that you will invest more money and return back to the top. At no point have you had a squad that shouldn't have been capable of that though.

It is not a case of other clubs having a serious advantage over you, it is a case of other clubs have simply done better than you have for a couple of years in their squad management and on the pitch.

Even with that, you have had a significantly higher net spend over the last three years - a timeframe in which City had two title winning teams despite a change in manager and playing style.
....................................................

Lets expand that 3 years to another 6 or 7 and who comes out higher though?

Not just a little bit either.

Thats what will probably change around over the next 6 or 7 years though...

I am not here to criticise clubs for being sugar daddy clubs or anything like that (not right this second anyway ) but the ability to recycle your spending (and replace duds on high wages, sometimes paying them off) helped a lot with keeping 'the assembly cost' low...

I am not suggesting that United will hike up their assembly cost tremendously maybe just cycle a bit more quickly though the players who don't justify their price tag. I am suspecting it will be a bit of a role reversal between City and United in ability to change up the squad a bit more over the next few years and that is a big help.

Is Virgin Atlantic a Sugar Daddy airline because its owner invested his own money in it originally?