Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Pepper
quote:
Originally posted by Marc
Man City are playing Championship Manager. Keep buying slightly better players than the ones you have in order to get more results/money to buy the big names.
That's exactly what man u did in the 90's when you had more moneythan anyone else by a mile. It's what the richest clubs have always done.
But Man Utd earnt their money by bringing through young players and reinvesting in their success!
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
Hi Orrob.
|
p
Member
Registered: 20th Apr 04
Location: England
User status: Offline
|
And to be fair, we got slated left right and centre for the money we spent, at every single opportunity by the media, yet I really don't see City being that slagged off for what they have spent?
As mentioned, imagine being Wayne Bridge, isn't he on around 150 grand a week? 
Yaya Toure, 220 grand, Aguero, easily 200 grand, Tevez etc
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robbo
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Pepper
quote:
Originally posted by Marc
Man City are playing Championship Manager. Keep buying slightly better players than the ones you have in order to get more results/money to buy the big names.
That's exactly what man u did in the 90's when you had more moneythan anyone else by a mile. It's what the richest clubs have always done.
But Man Utd earnt their money by bringing through young players and reinvesting in their success!
so Man U were completely self sufficiant were they? No debt at all? Of course having a great manager with a group of exeptional kids helped to form their success ... but floating the business, and taking on debt in order to build a world wide brand was as much a part of that ...that and the fact they had the biggest ground by a mile at that time.
Man u have been able to waste money on numerous £20 million plus signings without a thought.... no other clubs apart from chelsea, man u and man city have ever done that. All three of them have gambled in order to win trophies - its just that Man u have risked there own massive infasturcture to get funds to keep there highly aggressive transfer strategy going, where as man city and chelsea are spending someone elses hard cash. Of course they are spending quicker than Man u ever did - they have 20 years of Man U economic dominance to catch up with.
Wenger is the only one who has competed/dominated with a sensible transfer policy based on income - outgoings ..... and thats why its unreal that anyone would call for his head at a time where arsenal are not able to give any manager hundreds of millions to spend.
[Edited on 28-10-2011 by Dr Pepper]
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
What about what I put here?
quote:
Originally posted by Marc
With sustainable money (maybe not anymore) The club was PLC and had earn't the money needed to buy players.
City have gone from propping up the table to CL football and challenging for the league!
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Marc
What about what I put here?
quote:
Originally posted by Marc
With sustainable money (maybe not anymore) The club was PLC and had earn't the money needed to buy players.
City have gone from propping up the table to CL football and challenging for the league!
Man U were the biggest club in the country by a mile - people and companies jumped at the chance to throw money at them, plus they had a bigger income from there ground, and therefore more scope to borrow from banks ...... I dont think that makes them special.
Man city and chelsea have rich owners willing to spend there own money ...whats the problem....deal with it - they are going to be up there for the coming years.
Man u have spent just as much as them - just over a longer period - untill you are not in debt and self sufficiant I dont really see how you can complain ....your spending banks money and other companies money - man city and chelsea are spending billionaires money - whats the difference?
Man u are only sustainable while the american financial market is on the up - or while sky keeps pumping money in - you are not self sufficiant - none of the clubs are...not even arsenal .... If people cant afford to go the games, or buy the tv deals, or invest in the brand - its all over.
In many ways man city and chelsea are the most sustainable as they actually have the lowest debt - and the most hard cash behind them
[Edited on 28-10-2011 by Dr Pepper]
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Do all of your punctuation keys auto correct to ellipses?
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
Do all of your punctuation keys auto correct to ellipses?
habbit - sorry
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
but they didnt have massive debt int he 90s, they had kids theyd brought through added to established players that they spent their gate receipts and commercial sponsorship money on.
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robbo
but they didnt have massive debt int he 90s, they had kids theyd brought through added to established players that they spent their gate receipts and commercial sponsorship money on.
Kind of the point I was trying to make.
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robbo
but they didnt have massive debt int he 90s, they had kids theyd brought through added to established players that they spent their gate receipts and commercial sponsorship money on.
exactly - they spent fans money, sponsers money and investers money ...... how is that different from what chelsea and man city have done? Its just Chelsea and man city have had bigger investment, in a shorter period ... its no different....apart from chelsea and man city have far less debt than man u at the end of it all.
Man U were not able to spend £20 million on duds becuase they had some good kids in the 90's .... its was becuase people invested in them - the same as Man city. It wasnt Man us transfer policy that was funding the club - it was the investment in the club that was funding there highly aggressive transfer policy that allowed them to poach any player in the country for as much money as it took.
I understand people invested in man u/arsenal because they were successful - where as people invested in chelsea, man city becuase they wanted them to be successfull - I CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE.
I just dont see it matters much - the end result is the same ...they all spend hundreds of millions of pounds of others money, and when that money wasnt there any more for man u/liverpool they took on debt to compete.
[Edited on 28-10-2011 by Dr Pepper]
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
Here we go!
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
here we go HERE WE GO
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
There we go.
|
mwg
Member
Registered: 19th Feb 04
Location: South Lakes
User status: Offline
|
What a load of bollocks.
|
Ojc
Member
Registered: 14th Nov 00
Location: Reading: Drives : Clio 197
User status: Offline
|
Yep typical Man Utd fans not willing to see how fucking much of a bunch of scumbags they are. you are a bunch of cunts I would fight you all
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
Red Devils
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
I support them ^^^ since 1987
|
mwg
Member
Registered: 19th Feb 04
Location: South Lakes
User status: Offline
|
THE MIGHTY IPSWICH
|
mwg
Member
Registered: 19th Feb 04
Location: South Lakes
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Pepper
I just dont see it matters much - the end result is the same ...they all spend hundreds of millions of pounds of others money, and when that money wasnt there any more for man u/liverpool they took on debt to compete.
No. The debt came about from the Glazers buying the club using the banks money instead of their own. It didn't come from taking loans to be able to compete
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
Just rang up the insurance to insure new car and when i read the S out i said S for Soxtrot
Then they said F for Foxtrot, so i said no S for Soxtrot, they said yeah F for foxtrot, so i said no S for Soxtrot, this went on for quite a while to my amusement
|
Ojc
Member
Registered: 14th Nov 00
Location: Reading: Drives : Clio 197
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by mwg
THE MIGHTY IPSWICH
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ojc
Yep typical Man Utd fans not willing to see how fucking much of a bunch of scumbags they are. you are a bunch of cunts I would fight you all
Don't think anyone has ever denied that!
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
Whats the best thing about shagging 26 year olds?
Theres 20 of them
|
Dr Pepper
Member
Registered: 21st Sep 02
Location: oxford Drives Renault Clio RS200
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by mwg
What a load of bollocks.
At least with all the money you and other man u fans pay out in going to games the future should be bright. Plus they are producing some great kids that will stand the club in good stead for years to come...,. Oh no- that's not right?
|
