Bevab
Staff Member
That's pretty high. Atleast he suffers the punishment for leaving United for City.
Football Transfers Thread
- Thread starter Auwais
- Start date
That's pretty high. Atleast he suffers the punishment for leaving United for City.
thedon5
Panel of Selectors
Man Utd have spent a lot as well, let's not forget David De Gea and Phil Jones, that is A LOT to spend on players of thatt age.
iridescentt
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Upside > money.
MasterBlaster76
ICC Chairman
Compared with City?
Jones at least looks to be well worth it. David de Gea - I don't know - he's looking like one of Fergie's worst flops so far.
----------
Yeah, he really should've stayed at Utd. Still, his loss. Literally.
Speaking of stroppy players, you've got to laugh at Balotelli - him and his agent are bleating about his unfair treatment here and that he might be forced to go play football elsewhere in the world. Good luck with that - tell me, Mr Balotelli, where in the world is it in the rules that you can stamp on an opponent's head? This isn't the WWE, you know. Grow up!
give that money to a championship side and they can lick...........boots.
----------
Compared with City?
Jones at least looks to be well worth it. David de Gea - I don't know - he's looking like one of Fergie's worst flops so far.
----------
Yeah, he really should've stayed at Utd. Still, his loss. Literally.
Speaking of stroppy players, you've got to laugh at Balotelli - him and his agent are bleating about his unfair treatment here and that he might be forced to go play football elsewhere in the world. Good luck with that - tell me, Mr Balotelli, where in the world is it in the rules that you can stamp on an opponent's head? This isn't the WWE, you know. Grow up!
2009 united squad was the S.H.I.T.
Ronaldo, Berba, Tevez you name em.
He's long-sightedness problem has arguably played a major part in his mistakes so far. Give him time. He's still young. Plenty of time to improve.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Indeed and i said before the season watching de Gea a few times in La Liga i really didn't see why United wanted him so bad.
The keeper United should have got was Shay Given.
MasterBlaster76
ICC Chairman
That would explain a lot. I suppose he deserves a couple of seasons; even the great Peter Schmeichel struggled in English football at first. We'll see, eh?
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
It has always amused me how a portion of Man U fans have always been so quick to accuse Chelsea and now City of 'buying' their success.
Whilst there is no doubt that Man U never had a sugar-daddy style owner come in and throw money at the club, it is naive to ignore that much of Man U's success came having financial clout. Of course there is no doubting that their investment in their youth paid off massively with that golden generation of Scholes, Neville, Beckham etc.. It can't be ignored that they were phenomenally well run, that before many other clubs they noticed the potential gap in the global market and exploited it first.
However, it is also worth considering that it could have been almost anyone else. Their success came at a time when football changed. They were the team to win the initial Premierships, they were the team that benefitted from what is now considered to have been a fairly unfair distribution of Tv revenue. Within a season or two of winning leagues and the introduction of the Champions League, Man U left almost every other club behind financially. Until Chelsea came along, Man U were able to pretty much outbid any club in the Premiership (ignoring Blackburn's brief stay at the top).
So, whilst they were well-run, and they certainly have earnt their incredible success, it is a bit rich for Man U fans to accuse other clubs of using money to buy success. Before Chelsea and Man City, Man U did exactly the same.
----------
Keepers are playing until later and later, and if anything, getting better with age. Deciding to go with someone so young for such a large sum of money was a crazy decision with so many options available. End of the day, is De Gea worth ?18 more than Lindegaard?
Whilst there is no doubt that Man U never had a sugar-daddy style owner come in and throw money at the club, it is naive to ignore that much of Man U's success came having financial clout. Of course there is no doubting that their investment in their youth paid off massively with that golden generation of Scholes, Neville, Beckham etc.. It can't be ignored that they were phenomenally well run, that before many other clubs they noticed the potential gap in the global market and exploited it first.
However, it is also worth considering that it could have been almost anyone else. Their success came at a time when football changed. They were the team to win the initial Premierships, they were the team that benefitted from what is now considered to have been a fairly unfair distribution of Tv revenue. Within a season or two of winning leagues and the introduction of the Champions League, Man U left almost every other club behind financially. Until Chelsea came along, Man U were able to pretty much outbid any club in the Premiership (ignoring Blackburn's brief stay at the top).
So, whilst they were well-run, and they certainly have earnt their incredible success, it is a bit rich for Man U fans to accuse other clubs of using money to buy success. Before Chelsea and Man City, Man U did exactly the same.
----------
Keepers are playing until later and later, and if anything, getting better with age. Deciding to go with someone so young for such a large sum of money was a crazy decision with so many options available. End of the day, is De Gea worth ?18 more than Lindegaard?
thedon5
Panel of Selectors
Totally agreed.
I always see that "Man City buys success and Man Utd earns success" sig, and I always laugh. Edit: KBC has it right now!
Back in the 90's Utd were spending millions on players, a huge amount at the time, and that hasn't stopped. I would say Man Utd are approaching Chelsea buying now. Don't forget that a lot of the players City were linked to were also linked to Utd. Nasri ring any bells? And 40 mil is HUGE, and I believe United offered that for Sneijder and will offer more for Modric. Utd would easily buy all of City's players if they coud offer similar wages
Bit of a joke really. I only mentioned De Gea and Jones, though I didn't even touch upon the wealth of other players, such as Berbatov (very City-esque in that he sits on the bench) and Ashley Young (pretty unnecessary as Nani and Valencia were fine on the wing). So remember, United also has players who sit on the bench and terrible Jo-like signings (Bebe anyone?)
De Gea will improve, he needs time to gather confidence and his laser eye surgery will help him. Him and Lindegaard will have a great battle to watch for the gloves.
----------
Compared with City?
Jones at least looks to be well worth it. David de Gea - I don't know - he's looking like one of Fergie's worst flops so far.
----------
Yeah, he really should've stayed at Utd. Still, his loss. Literally.
Speaking of stroppy players, you've got to laugh at Balotelli - him and his agent are bleating about his unfair treatment here and that he might be forced to go play football elsewhere in the world. Good luck with that - tell me, Mr Balotelli, where in the world is it in the rules that you can stamp on an opponent's head? This isn't the WWE, you know. Grow up!
Utd have had time to get the talent, a few signings a season. City could have done that, but they wanted an immediate effect, as barring Joe Hart and Micah Richards no-one in that team was even close to world class.
Can't deny Man Utd are one of the biggest spenders in Europe.
Last edited:
MasterBlaster76
ICC Chairman
This is getting really boring.
Man Utd earn success, City buy it. Fact.
Why?
Well, every penny that Utd have spent has been earned through clever business and youth development off the pitch, which led to success on the pitch. Twist it how you want, but the backbone of Utd's side over the past decade was youth players that came through the ranks. The only takeover we've had has done nothing but saddle the club with a huge debt and the sooner these gormless Americans are gone from our club, the better.
Now let's move on to City. Some overblown oil baron comes in and buys the club, giving them all the money they want like a spoilt brat of a princess. They didn't earn a single penny of it. Do you really think that Utd would be as successful were it not for the strategy off the pitch?
So stop comparing Utd's spending to City's. Utd have earned the millions they spend, City haven't. I mean, let's face it it's not like they were knocking on the door like Chelsea before the takeover, were they? Remind me which league they were in a few years back? That's right - League One. Where would they be now without the takeover? Midtable Premiership at best.
Man Utd earn success, City buy it. Fact.
Why?
Well, every penny that Utd have spent has been earned through clever business and youth development off the pitch, which led to success on the pitch. Twist it how you want, but the backbone of Utd's side over the past decade was youth players that came through the ranks. The only takeover we've had has done nothing but saddle the club with a huge debt and the sooner these gormless Americans are gone from our club, the better.
Now let's move on to City. Some overblown oil baron comes in and buys the club, giving them all the money they want like a spoilt brat of a princess. They didn't earn a single penny of it. Do you really think that Utd would be as successful were it not for the strategy off the pitch?
So stop comparing Utd's spending to City's. Utd have earned the millions they spend, City haven't. I mean, let's face it it's not like they were knocking on the door like Chelsea before the takeover, were they? Remind me which league they were in a few years back? That's right - League One. Where would they be now without the takeover? Midtable Premiership at best.
Last edited:
lancashire666
International Coach
United earn there money, brilliant business sense at te outset of the premier league, flotation, the greatest group of youth players to ever come through together and exploiting the gap for football clubs in Asia have made then the highest grossing team in the world (even through the glaziers are stealing most of that money).
They have earnt that money, where as city have been given it is correct, we just made outselves an attractive opportunity to investors with good facilities, premier league football, massive chance for development, and cheap to buy.
Football is a different place to the early 90's and there isn't the chance for growth which united so expertly used, the only possible way for a club in the position we were in to compete is to have major investment, so that's what the club did, is that wrong? I don't know, but I do know without investment we would never have been able to break the top 4, and the more clubs who are competitive in the league the better. Spurs and city breaking in rater than it being just united, arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool has made the league more interesting.
Both city and united are spending a hell of a lot of money, just like Chelsea and Liverpool.
The only way to win the premier league is to spend many millions on players. That's just the way football is now, like it or not, if you don't spend stupid amounts on players and wages you arnt going anywhere.
I really don't care about the money we have spent.
Would I rather spend nothing and finish 15th or get bought out and be in the top 4?
Anyone who goes and sits in the cold for their team year after year like me will tell you this, away games at macc town and bury arnt that much fun.
Away trips to Munich however are.
Thank god for sheik monsoor, he's done fantastic things for my club, long may it continue.
And any united fan who says there unhappy about it, just think of this, you have to come to our place with three games to go this season, would you rather win that game and we finish 10th while you win the league, or win that game to go above us into top spot in the league?
I know which of those I'd prefer to try and get if I was a united fan.
They have earnt that money, where as city have been given it is correct, we just made outselves an attractive opportunity to investors with good facilities, premier league football, massive chance for development, and cheap to buy.
Football is a different place to the early 90's and there isn't the chance for growth which united so expertly used, the only possible way for a club in the position we were in to compete is to have major investment, so that's what the club did, is that wrong? I don't know, but I do know without investment we would never have been able to break the top 4, and the more clubs who are competitive in the league the better. Spurs and city breaking in rater than it being just united, arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool has made the league more interesting.
Both city and united are spending a hell of a lot of money, just like Chelsea and Liverpool.
The only way to win the premier league is to spend many millions on players. That's just the way football is now, like it or not, if you don't spend stupid amounts on players and wages you arnt going anywhere.
I really don't care about the money we have spent.
Would I rather spend nothing and finish 15th or get bought out and be in the top 4?
Anyone who goes and sits in the cold for their team year after year like me will tell you this, away games at macc town and bury arnt that much fun.
Away trips to Munich however are.
Thank god for sheik monsoor, he's done fantastic things for my club, long may it continue.
And any united fan who says there unhappy about it, just think of this, you have to come to our place with three games to go this season, would you rather win that game and we finish 10th while you win the league, or win that game to go above us into top spot in the league?
I know which of those I'd prefer to try and get if I was a united fan.
My sig is a fact. There are two ways to get to the everest. To climb it with struggle, patience and countless days of hard work, which United have done until now, and if you say they are big spenders is not a contradiction but actually highlighting their success through gradual development to their prime with painstakingly formed team with a brilliant manager.
There is another way, get on the choppa and get to the summit. Which is just like spoofing it.
It may sound like a mute comment to say City and utd spend big but how they got to spend big actually implies on how much "football" has been part of the business the clubs have carried out. In that matter United will always win.
Let's face it straight up, City was not even in the radar before the Arab bought it and pour a billion pounds to make it a stronghold. I don't blame it, and it's not like he's all the money in the world, and billion pounds to spend in a club and get those hard-working experienced individuals trained for several years in their respective clubs and Academies until City have bought them into a fresh squad which is more of a stealing but does make the owner pay. I don't have any argument with City making an arsenal of a squad. What is arrogant and irrelevant is to compare the two clubs' financial status in the wrong perspective because the two clubs have two different stories.
Arsenal were the biggest losers from City's finanical power too. They lost Clichy, Nasri, Toure, Adebayor, Taylor and Sylvinho to City, at a cost. It's not like Arsenal wanted to sell them, but was forced to.
Blackburn was heavily invested in the Nineties, where they got to make a stronghold over the premiership over a couple of years until their fortress fell fast and hit them hard to the mid-table. That also implies how well United have managed their finances, as well as proper organization even back then.
Money in football has a different trend today and changed invariably ever since the 21st century. Until Kaka and Ronaldo were transferred to Madrid, followed by Ibra, torres, Aguero and Carroll and etc., Zidane held the record for nearly a decade, which is huge considering there were no record breakers until Ronaldo came through and see how the top 5 graph changed since his transfer to Real Madrid.
World football transfer record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That has set up an inflated trend to a player's value and asking rate.
There's not a distinctive line to point and say, to spend this much is to spend big because it's become normal in today's generation and we have to live with it.
There is another way, get on the choppa and get to the summit. Which is just like spoofing it.
It may sound like a mute comment to say City and utd spend big but how they got to spend big actually implies on how much "football" has been part of the business the clubs have carried out. In that matter United will always win.
Let's face it straight up, City was not even in the radar before the Arab bought it and pour a billion pounds to make it a stronghold. I don't blame it, and it's not like he's all the money in the world, and billion pounds to spend in a club and get those hard-working experienced individuals trained for several years in their respective clubs and Academies until City have bought them into a fresh squad which is more of a stealing but does make the owner pay. I don't have any argument with City making an arsenal of a squad. What is arrogant and irrelevant is to compare the two clubs' financial status in the wrong perspective because the two clubs have two different stories.
Arsenal were the biggest losers from City's finanical power too. They lost Clichy, Nasri, Toure, Adebayor, Taylor and Sylvinho to City, at a cost. It's not like Arsenal wanted to sell them, but was forced to.
Blackburn was heavily invested in the Nineties, where they got to make a stronghold over the premiership over a couple of years until their fortress fell fast and hit them hard to the mid-table. That also implies how well United have managed their finances, as well as proper organization even back then.
Money in football has a different trend today and changed invariably ever since the 21st century. Until Kaka and Ronaldo were transferred to Madrid, followed by Ibra, torres, Aguero and Carroll and etc., Zidane held the record for nearly a decade, which is huge considering there were no record breakers until Ronaldo came through and see how the top 5 graph changed since his transfer to Real Madrid.
World football transfer record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That has set up an inflated trend to a player's value and asking rate.
There's not a distinctive line to point and say, to spend this much is to spend big because it's become normal in today's generation and we have to live with it.
Last edited:
Dr. Pepper
Chairman of Selectors
Urgh, every team spends money. At the end of the day it's a business and as a fan you'd want your owners to invest in the squad. Get over it.
lancashire666
International Coach
United may have had success repeatedly over the last 20 years, but you should also remember that the first trophys of fergies were also bought.
The figures are obviously tiny campared to today's, but united broke transfer records for Roy keane, and schmeichel was the most expensive keeper in British football history as well.
Other signings like Paul Parker et al were also, at the time very big money moves.
If this thread happened in the early 90's it would be full of liverpool fans saying they earned success and united are trying to buy it.
The amounts of money are a lot more in today's football, but the more things change the more they stay the same.
United have been the most fantastically run club in football history over the last 20 years, and are exactly what every other club in England are hoping to emulate, but as good as they have been run and managed, they still needed to break transfer records and out bid other teams to get the success rolling and end Liverpools dominance.
City are trying to do the same just 20 years later.
If only we had a ferguson of our own, as I dont think Mancini is the man to build a club as he's not even close to fergusons tactical level
The figures are obviously tiny campared to today's, but united broke transfer records for Roy keane, and schmeichel was the most expensive keeper in British football history as well.
Other signings like Paul Parker et al were also, at the time very big money moves.
If this thread happened in the early 90's it would be full of liverpool fans saying they earned success and united are trying to buy it.
The amounts of money are a lot more in today's football, but the more things change the more they stay the same.
United have been the most fantastically run club in football history over the last 20 years, and are exactly what every other club in England are hoping to emulate, but as good as they have been run and managed, they still needed to break transfer records and out bid other teams to get the success rolling and end Liverpools dominance.
City are trying to do the same just 20 years later.
If only we had a ferguson of our own, as I dont think Mancini is the man to build a club as he's not even close to fergusons tactical level
