I think this was exactly the thought process while replacing Persie as well
Not really in the same light as the monopoly wasnât as easy to control and stock piling wasnât really possible.
The worse I remember was them having 4 foreign players when you could only play 3 at the time.
Forget the lads name but he was a top Romanian striker at the time. It was quite blatant to stop others buying him.
Tapei at Marseille was probably more comparable with bought and manipulation success.
1 Like
Grealish isnât a 100m player. Villa done extremely well here with the price.
3 Likes
Whatâs this bloke on about. We wouldnât stand in your way if a CL club came in for you, however we only sold you because we were powerless to resist the release clause?
So he would have rejected 100m if not for the clause, and therefore stood in his way? 
1 Like
And they replaced him ahead of time as well. Didnât they sign Buendia in early June? They were trying to poach ESR while the Euros were going on too.
He said City informed them that theyâll be paying his RC after the Euros. So clearly they some things donât check out on this story. 
1 Like
Donât really see much difference between this and Utd buying 40 mil players 20 years ago. Thing is, utd pool and Chelsea even Arsenal spend big on players so itâs still competitive compared to back in the day
1 Like
United didnât buy a ÂŁ40m player 20 years ago? Most of the big spending was being done by Italian and Spanish clubs.
In 2001, Zidane at around ÂŁ45m would have been the world record transfer fee.
How about Rio Ferdinand and Veron? How much did United spend on them? They were about 20 years ago.
2 Likes
Wasnât Rio about 30mil and veron about 25mil could be wrong just going of memory
1 Like
Yeah youâre probably right. And Rooney was about same price as well. Still a lot of money obviously. But I guess they didnât go really wild/over ÂŁ40m with transfer fees until Di Maria?
1 Like
RVN and Veron in the same summer for a combined fee of around ÂŁ50m. Rio the following summer for 30. United spent big way before any other English clubs.
1 Like
But clubs have allways spent big money it just increased due to more money coming into the game from TV, sponsorship and oil backed club it wasnât that long ago Newcastle signed shearer for ÂŁ15mil which was alot of money back then.
1 Like
Still huge transfer fees in the league when no other team was spending close to that. Whereas now you have multiple teams spending between 70 and 100 on one players and multiple clubs getting close to 300m spent
Is it much different to massive car companies funding clubs like in Germany and Italy?
I suppose that at least Belusconi was a supporter, unlike our owners, but the situation in the Italian league was nowhere near as bad as it is now.
But where there is money, there will be corruption, even at the top level like with FIFA and UEFA.
Iâm not defending it, but unless you are a dodgy billionaire, there is no other way of buying a top European club and, letâs face it, if youâre a billionaire, you are dodgy. 
But, like in Italy, I do think the bubble will burst because there is no way this is sustainable and as soon as these incredibly rich owners become bored, then weâll see less investment.
So the PL might go the same way as Serie A did and possibly the way La Liga is going as well.
1 Like
What are they feeding this guy?
At this point youâre fucking asking to be audited, better to just shut the fuck up rather than be so brazen.
Is he trying to say theyve sold 60m worth of players so worth when they clearly havenât? Biggest blagger in the business
LOL yeah their netspend is otherworldly - keep trying to big yourself up, Pep⌠fact is, you spend more than any other club in world football and dwarf everyone in EPL other than ManU.
