Man Utd are INSANELY rich. Fair play to them for spending money they actually have. How many other teams can afford to spend £300m, fail, then spend even more a few years later?
We will never compete with Man Utd in terms of revenue and status that is a stone cold fact. But we should be spending some of the money we have too because we could still better them in the short term while spending less. It’s the refusal to do that which seals our fate, not other club’s spending. Yet our club will certainly lament how relatively poor we are blah blah and the fans won’t buy any of that slick bullshit.
People get so frightened by the scale of expenditure but fail to understand this whole market is shifting this way. Big clubs with big money will ensure that in the long term they will remain on top.
The reason Man U are the richest club is because they have the best players, and still want to buy even more world class players.
It’s an exciting club to support, every transfer window is thrilling.
We, on the other hand, are scratching around looking for players like Jonny Evans, and persisting with dross and underperforming players.
Can anyone spot the difference?
Yes that’s right, we have more money sitting in the bank than them
It makes you proud to support such a well run club, that cares more about profit than the supporters.
What best players do United have before this window?
Apart from De Gea, I can’t think of anyone else.
Ever since Ferguson left, their moeny spending is more like an arrow shot in dark, rather than a plan where they are bringing in right players for right system.
Martial, De Gea, Depay, Mata, Shaw, Schweinsteiger, Schneiderlin and a few others.
I’m suggesting they have all worked out but then neither have a lot of ours.
At least they’re having a go.
What are we doing?
Persisting with the same players, repeating the same mistakes, the same players getting injured, and the same players under performing, with the same gaping holes in the first team.
It certainly beats our drab, underwhelming transfer windows, watching the team go stale, and our bank balance get even bigger.
Only De Gea is the best in his position.
Shaw & Martial are still a promising talent, not yet best.
Mata has been average for them. Ask any united fan & they would willingly sell him.
Depay is as frustrating as Ox
Schweinsteiger has been average so much so he is now relegated to reserves.
Schneiderlin has not been his best at United.
Seriously only De Gea in their squad has been consistent & world class.
Their needs are far higher than us & given that they are desperate having been outside CL for 2 out of last 3 seasons, their spending spree shouldn’t be any surprise.
What we are doing is we are supplementing two or three players into the squad rather than being in a position where you need complete overhaul.
I can understand City, Chelsea but No way is United better managed than us.
It is the muppet in you who calls supporting them more exciting, considering they have been a snorefest for last 3 seasons.
Atleast we won FA cups & were in contention of title during that time.
But that is how markets work, it’s really not “madness” or “scary” as Wenger and his Sparrows would like us to believe, they could still win in the end. I bought 100 shares of Apple stock at one point in time at $21.00. Sold it at 53.00. Bought it again at 76.00, now it’s back up over $100 a share. I haven’t lost anything but opportunity cost which isn’t real money. I’ve still made a killing. You don’t always have to get the best deal to make a good deal. If I was a stubborn, too proud imbecile I would have never bought back in at 76.00 after selling at 53.00 and I’d be an idiot.
Mate chill… there’s always one monster club or company. No use moaning that it ain’t us. Everyone that knows football is aware it’s safe, secure and emotionally profitable to be a United fan, just like it would be being a Barca, Real or Bayern fan. If that’s all that it was about we would all have stopped supporting Arsenal in 2006.
United are massive because they’re good, and they have been good for 30 years. They’ve been at the forefront for years, buying the best players and winning non stop until the last 3 or so seasons.
Only a couple of times in the last few seasons have they been truly awful and every time they made moves to try and not be awful so nobody has given up on them in that time. I know a lot of Liverpool fans in their late 30s, 40s, 50s but couldn’t name one under 30. United are still all over though.
Had we had the stadium capacity beforehand, lack of debt and the winning mentality of United I don’t see why we wouldn’t be close to them in stature in 2016. If we were a club that had won 8 PLs in the last 20 years rather than 3 and were still playing great football people would give much more of a shit about us.
What’s gutting now though is that stature really is unattainable, not because of United but because of City and Chelsea. They’ve diluted the “alternative” market for new fans and now City are going to stomp on our “play the best football” market that we dominated from '96 to '11ish. Had things gone on as before, we could have been the second club - the Barcelona of England but it’ll never be now.
Manchester United’s debt had reached £380 million last year. The Glazers leveraged the club to the hilt when they bought it. They’re spending money the club doesn’t actually have. Expensive signings will continue to increase the club’s market value until the Glazers decide to sell it and run off with all the money, leaving the new owners in a tough position.
Malcolm Glazer owns a american football since 1995 now plus his children are involved in both clubs I believe. What makes you think he’s going to get rid of United?
He already got rid of it when he died two years ago. I doubt the kids are going to hang onto the club forever. They’re hugely unpopular in Tampa (where they ran the club into the ground and have been accused of siphoning off NFL profits to help prop up the Premier League club they mortgaged to the hilt). I doubt they’re much more popular figures in Manchester than they were when they bought the damned club. They’ve already sold off 6 percent of the club to Baron Capital, which makes its living turning over stocks. The Glazers bought the club in the first place to turn a personal profit, not because of any love for the club or the game. Once they can no longer take anything out of it, they’ll sell. What makes you think they’re any different than Stan Kroenke? Except that Kroenke paid for the club with his own money. The Glazers used United’s own assets as security against the loans they took out to buy it, thus leaving the club with all the risk and not the Glazer family.
Unfortunately, this just isn’t true. Many big enterprises have substantial debts and big soccer clubs are no exception. Barcelona and Real have debts that put United’s debt to shame. These clubs need to service the debt every year but the amount they pay to do so represents only a very small portion of their revenues.
The reality is that United are a massive cash-printing enterprise because they have leveraged the global commercial side of their revenues in ways that far outstrip other clubs. They can do that because they have a ton of fans around the world and they have a ton of fans around the world because they dominated the world’s most popular soccer league for 20 years.
What’s next now? Since ManCity got Stones, does Jose go and get Griezmann? Then Pep goes for Bale? It’s incomprehensible but this is what it is.
I echo the sentiment that Arsenal don’t need to spend 110million plus. But is 70-90 that much to ask for? A proper plan to start the season and have some optimism?
Manchester clubs have blown through so much cash it isn’t even funny, and they’ll be spending more.
