steersyutd:

Gothenburg is a stunning place, had some lovely meals in Magnus & Magnus and a seafood restaurant excuse the spelling Sjorbaren? whilst I was there on business.

Glad you enjoyed it steersy.

wliucci:

steersyutd:

My point was for you to look at the bigger picture. We are fifth in the Gross spend market, Behind Man city, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs. Now what do those four teams have in common?

They all want a piece of the action, they all want to win the premier league, qualify for Europe. Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham since the Glazers took over have HAD to more or less purchase complete new squads. We on the other hand already had a well established, successful squad so there was no need to spend huge amounts of cash buying 15-16 players because we only needed one or two here and there.

That is why there is no argument for using transfer spend Gross or net to try and have a pop at the Glazers, it just does not stand up I am afraid. Would I like more investment in the team, what fan wouldn't but it has not been needed, that is my point and that is why you can not use it as a arguement.

Also bear in mind we bought players like Vidic for £7 million, Evra for £5.5million, Van der Sar for £2 million there are other bargains as well. How much would they cost in today's market? The figures do not prove conclusively that the Glazers have 'Capped' transfers.

Ben Foster was bought for £1 million sold for £6m, Tosic, 2m profit on there, £4.5m for john o'shea cracking business. All the home grown players sold bringing in money. Lets not forget the money for Jon obi Mikel also distorts the figures, Money made from players that wanted to leave in Rossi and Pique at great returns.

When you start to look at it, it really as clear cut as you make it out to be,

P.s I am a 33 year old man with my own business so please refrain from the poor attempt at having a pop at me,

you ask me to look at the bigger picture yet you base your defence of our spending on GROSS spending??

And if you really run your own business, you should be able to appreciate the difference between GROSS spending and NET spending when it comes to buying assets. The first only gives us an indication of what ball-park of values we are working with. The second term is an indication of overall investment in a business.

btw the bargains simply EMPHASIS our lack of spending. If vidic evra and VDS had turned out to be duds, then maybe people like you will understand

I never based any argument on Gross spending, think you again have missed the point. I was asking what our gross spend under the Glazers was to highlight the fact that money has been made available for large purchases, as most deals are structured over periods of time money goes out and comes in from transfers at different rates.

I was only trying to point out that you can not just look at the net spend for our club and base your argument around that, you need to look at the factors behind it as I already explained. The club has not needed to spend money because the nucleus of the squad was already in place unlike Man City, Chelsea, Spurs and Liverpool.

The only way the argument would stand up was if all the top 6 lets say have identical teams in terms of playing ability and then look at what was spent Gross or Net after that. You can not say, The club net spend is so low so obviously the Glazers are enforcing a cap on expenditure without looking at why we have not had to spend money in the first place and why the other clubs have had too.

wliucci:

Moyesy:

Think this is the main point. We were on top, consistantly challenging for the title. SAF has over time, added one or two players to the squad to keep it fresh, keep it hungry and ensure it says on top (something he has done very very well).

Everyone else has spent vast amounts of money to be in the position we are. City have spent over £450m over the last 5 years to be in the position we are already in.

Liverpool and Spurs have outspent us, and where has it got them? Spurs have been left with a very thin squad, Liverpool have got a very poor squad. And during this time we have invested in good young players as well as developing our own, leaving us with a young and very competitive squad for years to come.

That's because they spent poorly and they never had the kind of squad we had to start with when glazers took over. Ronaldo Rooney, Rio Giggs Scholes etc the spine for our success in last 6/7 years were already there when the glazers bought us.

You have just highlighted my point. thank you.

Moyesy:

Think this is the main point. We were on top, consistantly challenging for the title. SAF has over time, added one or two players to the squad to keep it fresh, keep it hungry and ensure it says on top (something he has done very very well).

Everyone else has spent vast amounts of money to be in the position we are. City have spent over £450m over the last 5 years to be in the position we are already in.

Liverpool and Spurs have outspent us, and where has it got them? Spurs have been left with a very thin squad, Liverpool have got a very poor squad. And during this time we have invested in good young players as well as developing our own, leaving us with a young and very competitive squad for years to come.

That's because they spent poorly and they never had the kind of squad we had to start with when glazers took over. Ronaldo Rooney, Rio Giggs Scholes etc the spine for our success in last 6/7 years were already there when the glazers bought us.

steersyutd:

My point was for you to look at the bigger picture. We are fifth in the Gross spend market, Behind Man city, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs. Now what do those four teams have in common?

They all want a piece of the action, they all want to win the premier league, qualify for Europe. Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham since the Glazers took over have HAD to more or less purchase complete new squads. We on the other hand already had a well established, successful squad so there was no need to spend huge amounts of cash buying 15-16 players because we only needed one or two here and there.

That is why there is no argument for using transfer spend Gross or net to try and have a pop at the Glazers, it just does not stand up I am afraid. Would I like more investment in the team, what fan wouldn't but it has not been needed, that is my point and that is why you can not use it as a arguement.

Also bear in mind we bought players like Vidic for £7 million, Evra for £5.5million, Van der Sar for £2 million there are other bargains as well. How much would they cost in today's market? The figures do not prove conclusively that the Glazers have 'Capped' transfers.

Ben Foster was bought for £1 million sold for £6m, Tosic, 2m profit on there, £4.5m for john o'shea cracking business. All the home grown players sold bringing in money. Lets not forget the money for Jon obi Mikel also distorts the figures, Money made from players that wanted to leave in Rossi and Pique at great returns.

When you start to look at it, it really as clear cut as you make it out to be,

P.s I am a 33 year old man with my own business so please refrain from the poor attempt at having a pop at me,

you ask me to look at the bigger picture yet you base your defence of our spending on GROSS spending??

And if you really run your own business, you should be able to appreciate the difference between GROSS spending and NET spending when it comes to buying assets. The first only gives us an indication of what ball-park of values we are working with. The second term is an indication of overall investment in a business.

btw the bargains simply EMPHASIS our lack of spending. If vidic evra and VDS had turned out to be duds, then maybe people like you will understand

pele 10:

steersyutd:

pele 10:

steersyutd:

pele 10:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

LEE TREVIS:

The reason people have this feeling that we don't have the same financial clout in the transfer market that we used to have is not actually due to less money in the kitty, it is actually and totally down to the emergence of the new breed of "billionaire-suger-daddy-with-a new-toy" owners that have distorted the market massively and dropped all clubs that are run as businesses (ie properly) down the transfer pecking order. This is not the fault of the Glazers.

Lee, interesting argument. I could take you up on a number of points but let's figure out this one first.

"Distorted market" yes, but can you explain why among the premier league clubs alone, our net spending since the glazer's takeover is merely at 7th, behind the likes of sunderland, stoke, aston villa etc? In that same period, we reached 3 Cl finals, and generated record turnovers for a football club in any season. Barca who also reached 3 Cl finals in that same period outspent us 7 times in terms of net-spending. Surely that's not all down to the of the so-called catalan-madrid monopoly over tv rights? I can use dozen other ways to argue this but simply dont have the time to repeat the same arguments over and over again on different threads. I'm not refuting you or anything. I just want to point out not everything is as nice and straight-forward as you make it sound.

What about Gross spend, where does that put us? The fact the club has managed to sell fringe players mainly for top dollar surely is not a bad thing. Also the Ronaldo sale distorts the figure some what.

The fact you pointed out the successes points to the fact that there was no need to splash the cash Unnecessarily. Not sure it is much of a argument you have put up.

I think I have quite a clear argument. But if you dont understand, it is hardly my fault.

Firstly, "Gross spending" is what the teenagers argue with. Gross spending has no real meaning in business investment. If we sell our entire squad for 400 million tomorrow and buy 350 million worth of players, our gross spending is an impressive 350 million even though we have effectively just devalued our squad.

In business, gross spending has little meaning, which is why I used NET spending.

Secondly, Ronaldo's sale may have distorted the figures, but actually if you look at what he is achieving with Madrid, you can easily argue he is worth that in current day market. In which case our net spending over glazer's reign is next to nothing. No efforts made to inject funds from our profits. Only buying once we have sold. That's our scenario right now.

Thirdly, you state that the club has sold fringe players for top dollar? Give me examples. From what I ve seen of the transfer, and I have the whole list here on transfermarket.co.uk, most of our players are moved on at a loss. And the only times we made money was by selling homegrown players. This confirms the fact we have had no real(NET) investment into the club

Finally you talk about "splashin money unnecesarily". Yeah unnecessary to spend for a 3rd place finish maybe. Most fans simply dont buy this "dont need to spend/no value in the market" crp anymore

My point was for you to look at the bigger picture. We are fifth in the Gross spend market, Behind Man city, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs. Now what do those four teams have in common?

They all want a piece of the action, they all want to win the premier league, qualify for Europe. Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham since the Glazers took over have HAD to more or less purchase complete new squads. We on the other hand already had a well established, successful squad so there was no need to spend huge amounts of cash buying 15-16 players because we only needed one or two here and there.

That is why there is no argument for using transfer spend Gross or net to try and have a pop at the Glazers, it just does not stand up I am afraid. Would I like more investment in the team, what fan wouldn't but it has not been needed, that is my point and that is why you can not use it as a arguement.

Also bear in mind we bought players like Vidic for £7 million, Evra for £5.5million, Van der Sar for £2 million there are other bargains as well. How much would they cost in today's market? The figures do not prove conclusively that the Glazers have 'Capped' transfers.

Ben Foster was bought for £1 million sold for £6m, Tosic, 2m profit on there, £4.5m for john o'shea cracking business. All the home grown players sold bringing in money. Lets not forget the money for Jon obi Mikel also distorts the figures, Money made from players that wanted to leave in Rossi and Pique at great returns.

When you start to look at it, it really as clear cut as you make it out to be,

P.s I am a 33 year old man with my own business so please refrain from the poor attempt at having a pop at me,

You keep it up I´m going to send you my laundry bill mister!!!

I will have my Secretary sort that out foryou, Cheque or electronic bank deposit?

Whichever is best for you my friend!!!

where are you in the world out of curiosity?

I´m a 58 year old Canadian retiree living in Gothenburg, Sweden. and before you ask no I had three friends plus myself at our computers primed when the Barca tickets went on sale and I still couldn´t get any. Talk about pi$$ing off the good humour man.

Gothenburg is a stunning place, had some lovely meals in Magnus & Magnus and a seafood restaurant excuse the spelling Sjorbaren? whilst I was there on business.

steersyutd:

pele 10:

steersyutd:

pele 10:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

LEE TREVIS:

The reason people have this feeling that we don't have the same financial clout in the transfer market that we used to have is not actually due to less money in the kitty, it is actually and totally down to the emergence of the new breed of "billionaire-suger-daddy-with-a new-toy" owners that have distorted the market massively and dropped all clubs that are run as businesses (ie properly) down the transfer pecking order. This is not the fault of the Glazers.

Lee, interesting argument. I could take you up on a number of points but let's figure out this one first.

"Distorted market" yes, but can you explain why among the premier league clubs alone, our net spending since the glazer's takeover is merely at 7th, behind the likes of sunderland, stoke, aston villa etc? In that same period, we reached 3 Cl finals, and generated record turnovers for a football club in any season. Barca who also reached 3 Cl finals in that same period outspent us 7 times in terms of net-spending. Surely that's not all down to the of the so-called catalan-madrid monopoly over tv rights? I can use dozen other ways to argue this but simply dont have the time to repeat the same arguments over and over again on different threads. I'm not refuting you or anything. I just want to point out not everything is as nice and straight-forward as you make it sound.

What about Gross spend, where does that put us? The fact the club has managed to sell fringe players mainly for top dollar surely is not a bad thing. Also the Ronaldo sale distorts the figure some what.

The fact you pointed out the successes points to the fact that there was no need to splash the cash Unnecessarily. Not sure it is much of a argument you have put up.

I think I have quite a clear argument. But if you dont understand, it is hardly my fault.

Firstly, "Gross spending" is what the teenagers argue with. Gross spending has no real meaning in business investment. If we sell our entire squad for 400 million tomorrow and buy 350 million worth of players, our gross spending is an impressive 350 million even though we have effectively just devalued our squad.

In business, gross spending has little meaning, which is why I used NET spending.

Secondly, Ronaldo's sale may have distorted the figures, but actually if you look at what he is achieving with Madrid, you can easily argue he is worth that in current day market. In which case our net spending over glazer's reign is next to nothing. No efforts made to inject funds from our profits. Only buying once we have sold. That's our scenario right now.

Thirdly, you state that the club has sold fringe players for top dollar? Give me examples. From what I ve seen of the transfer, and I have the whole list here on transfermarket.co.uk, most of our players are moved on at a loss. And the only times we made money was by selling homegrown players. This confirms the fact we have had no real(NET) investment into the club

Finally you talk about "splashin money unnecesarily". Yeah unnecessary to spend for a 3rd place finish maybe. Most fans simply dont buy this "dont need to spend/no value in the market" crp anymore

My point was for you to look at the bigger picture. We are fifth in the Gross spend market, Behind Man city, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs. Now what do those four teams have in common?

They all want a piece of the action, they all want to win the premier league, qualify for Europe. Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham since the Glazers took over have HAD to more or less purchase complete new squads. We on the other hand already had a well established, successful squad so there was no need to spend huge amounts of cash buying 15-16 players because we only needed one or two here and there.

That is why there is no argument for using transfer spend Gross or net to try and have a pop at the Glazers, it just does not stand up I am afraid. Would I like more investment in the team, what fan wouldn't but it has not been needed, that is my point and that is why you can not use it as a arguement.

Also bear in mind we bought players like Vidic for £7 million, Evra for £5.5million, Van der Sar for £2 million there are other bargains as well. How much would they cost in today's market? The figures do not prove conclusively that the Glazers have 'Capped' transfers.

Ben Foster was bought for £1 million sold for £6m, Tosic, 2m profit on there, £4.5m for john o'shea cracking business. All the home grown players sold bringing in money. Lets not forget the money for Jon obi Mikel also distorts the figures, Money made from players that wanted to leave in Rossi and Pique at great returns.

When you start to look at it, it really as clear cut as you make it out to be,

P.s I am a 33 year old man with my own business so please refrain from the poor attempt at having a pop at me,

You keep it up I´m going to send you my laundry bill mister!!!

I will have my Secretary sort that out foryou, Cheque or electronic bank deposit?

Whichever is best for you my friend!!!

where are you in the world out of curiosity?

I´m a 58 year old Canadian retiree living in Gothenburg, Sweden. and before you ask no I had three friends plus myself at our computers primed when the Barca tickets went on sale and I still couldn´t get any. Talk about pi$$ing off the good humour man.

pele 10:

steersyutd:

pele 10:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

LEE TREVIS:

The reason people have this feeling that we don't have the same financial clout in the transfer market that we used to have is not actually due to less money in the kitty, it is actually and totally down to the emergence of the new breed of "billionaire-suger-daddy-with-a new-toy" owners that have distorted the market massively and dropped all clubs that are run as businesses (ie properly) down the transfer pecking order. This is not the fault of the Glazers.

Lee, interesting argument. I could take you up on a number of points but let's figure out this one first.

"Distorted market" yes, but can you explain why among the premier league clubs alone, our net spending since the glazer's takeover is merely at 7th, behind the likes of sunderland, stoke, aston villa etc? In that same period, we reached 3 Cl finals, and generated record turnovers for a football club in any season. Barca who also reached 3 Cl finals in that same period outspent us 7 times in terms of net-spending. Surely that's not all down to the of the so-called catalan-madrid monopoly over tv rights? I can use dozen other ways to argue this but simply dont have the time to repeat the same arguments over and over again on different threads. I'm not refuting you or anything. I just want to point out not everything is as nice and straight-forward as you make it sound.

What about Gross spend, where does that put us? The fact the club has managed to sell fringe players mainly for top dollar surely is not a bad thing. Also the Ronaldo sale distorts the figure some what.

The fact you pointed out the successes points to the fact that there was no need to splash the cash Unnecessarily. Not sure it is much of a argument you have put up.

I think I have quite a clear argument. But if you dont understand, it is hardly my fault.

Firstly, "Gross spending" is what the teenagers argue with. Gross spending has no real meaning in business investment. If we sell our entire squad for 400 million tomorrow and buy 350 million worth of players, our gross spending is an impressive 350 million even though we have effectively just devalued our squad.

In business, gross spending has little meaning, which is why I used NET spending.

Secondly, Ronaldo's sale may have distorted the figures, but actually if you look at what he is achieving with Madrid, you can easily argue he is worth that in current day market. In which case our net spending over glazer's reign is next to nothing. No efforts made to inject funds from our profits. Only buying once we have sold. That's our scenario right now.

Thirdly, you state that the club has sold fringe players for top dollar? Give me examples. From what I ve seen of the transfer, and I have the whole list here on transfermarket.co.uk, most of our players are moved on at a loss. And the only times we made money was by selling homegrown players. This confirms the fact we have had no real(NET) investment into the club

Finally you talk about "splashin money unnecesarily". Yeah unnecessary to spend for a 3rd place finish maybe. Most fans simply dont buy this "dont need to spend/no value in the market" crp anymore

My point was for you to look at the bigger picture. We are fifth in the Gross spend market, Behind Man city, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs. Now what do those four teams have in common?

They all want a piece of the action, they all want to win the premier league, qualify for Europe. Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham since the Glazers took over have HAD to more or less purchase complete new squads. We on the other hand already had a well established, successful squad so there was no need to spend huge amounts of cash buying 15-16 players because we only needed one or two here and there.

That is why there is no argument for using transfer spend Gross or net to try and have a pop at the Glazers, it just does not stand up I am afraid. Would I like more investment in the team, what fan wouldn't but it has not been needed, that is my point and that is why you can not use it as a arguement.

Also bear in mind we bought players like Vidic for £7 million, Evra for £5.5million, Van der Sar for £2 million there are other bargains as well. How much would they cost in today's market? The figures do not prove conclusively that the Glazers have 'Capped' transfers.

Ben Foster was bought for £1 million sold for £6m, Tosic, 2m profit on there, £4.5m for john o'shea cracking business. All the home grown players sold bringing in money. Lets not forget the money for Jon obi Mikel also distorts the figures, Money made from players that wanted to leave in Rossi and Pique at great returns.

When you start to look at it, it really as clear cut as you make it out to be,

P.s I am a 33 year old man with my own business so please refrain from the poor attempt at having a pop at me,

You keep it up I´m going to send you my laundry bill mister!!!

I will have my Secretary sort that out foryou, Cheque or electronic bank deposit?

Whichever is best for you my friend!!!

where are you in the world out of curiosity?

steersyutd:

pele 10:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

LEE TREVIS:

The reason people have this feeling that we don't have the same financial clout in the transfer market that we used to have is not actually due to less money in the kitty, it is actually and totally down to the emergence of the new breed of "billionaire-suger-daddy-with-a new-toy" owners that have distorted the market massively and dropped all clubs that are run as businesses (ie properly) down the transfer pecking order. This is not the fault of the Glazers.

Lee, interesting argument. I could take you up on a number of points but let's figure out this one first.

"Distorted market" yes, but can you explain why among the premier league clubs alone, our net spending since the glazer's takeover is merely at 7th, behind the likes of sunderland, stoke, aston villa etc? In that same period, we reached 3 Cl finals, and generated record turnovers for a football club in any season. Barca who also reached 3 Cl finals in that same period outspent us 7 times in terms of net-spending. Surely that's not all down to the of the so-called catalan-madrid monopoly over tv rights? I can use dozen other ways to argue this but simply dont have the time to repeat the same arguments over and over again on different threads. I'm not refuting you or anything. I just want to point out not everything is as nice and straight-forward as you make it sound.

What about Gross spend, where does that put us? The fact the club has managed to sell fringe players mainly for top dollar surely is not a bad thing. Also the Ronaldo sale distorts the figure some what.

The fact you pointed out the successes points to the fact that there was no need to splash the cash Unnecessarily. Not sure it is much of a argument you have put up.

I think I have quite a clear argument. But if you dont understand, it is hardly my fault.

Firstly, "Gross spending" is what the teenagers argue with. Gross spending has no real meaning in business investment. If we sell our entire squad for 400 million tomorrow and buy 350 million worth of players, our gross spending is an impressive 350 million even though we have effectively just devalued our squad.

In business, gross spending has little meaning, which is why I used NET spending.

Secondly, Ronaldo's sale may have distorted the figures, but actually if you look at what he is achieving with Madrid, you can easily argue he is worth that in current day market. In which case our net spending over glazer's reign is next to nothing. No efforts made to inject funds from our profits. Only buying once we have sold. That's our scenario right now.

Thirdly, you state that the club has sold fringe players for top dollar? Give me examples. From what I ve seen of the transfer, and I have the whole list here on transfermarket.co.uk, most of our players are moved on at a loss. And the only times we made money was by selling homegrown players. This confirms the fact we have had no real(NET) investment into the club

Finally you talk about "splashin money unnecesarily". Yeah unnecessary to spend for a 3rd place finish maybe. Most fans simply dont buy this "dont need to spend/no value in the market" crp anymore

My point was for you to look at the bigger picture. We are fifth in the Gross spend market, Behind Man city, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs. Now what do those four teams have in common?

They all want a piece of the action, they all want to win the premier league, qualify for Europe. Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham since the Glazers took over have HAD to more or less purchase complete new squads. We on the other hand already had a well established, successful squad so there was no need to spend huge amounts of cash buying 15-16 players because we only needed one or two here and there.

That is why there is no argument for using transfer spend Gross or net to try and have a pop at the Glazers, it just does not stand up I am afraid. Would I like more investment in the team, what fan wouldn't but it has not been needed, that is my point and that is why you can not use it as a arguement.

Also bear in mind we bought players like Vidic for £7 million, Evra for £5.5million, Van der Sar for £2 million there are other bargains as well. How much would they cost in today's market? The figures do not prove conclusively that the Glazers have 'Capped' transfers.

Ben Foster was bought for £1 million sold for £6m, Tosic, 2m profit on there, £4.5m for john o'shea cracking business. All the home grown players sold bringing in money. Lets not forget the money for Jon obi Mikel also distorts the figures, Money made from players that wanted to leave in Rossi and Pique at great returns.

When you start to look at it, it really as clear cut as you make it out to be,

P.s I am a 33 year old man with my own business so please refrain from the poor attempt at having a pop at me,

You keep it up I´m going to send you my laundry bill mister!!!

I will have my Secretary sort that out foryou, Cheque or electronic bank deposit?

Whichever is best for you my friend!!!

steersyutd:

They all want a piece of the action, they all want to win the premier league, qualify for Europe. Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham since the Glazers took over have HAD to more or less purchase complete new squads. We on the other hand already had a well established, successful squad so there was no need to spend huge amounts of cash buying 15-16 players because we only needed one or two here and there.

Think this is the main point. We were on top, consistantly challenging for the title. SAF has over time, added one or two players to the squad to keep it fresh, keep it hungry and ensure it says on top (something he has done very very well).

Everyone else has spent vast amounts of money to be in the position we are. City have spent over £450m over the last 5 years to be in the position we are already in.

Liverpool and Spurs have outspent us, and where has it got them? Spurs have been left with a very thin squad, Liverpool have got a very poor squad. And during this time we have invested in good young players as well as developing our own, leaving us with a young and very competitive squad for years to come.

pele 10:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

LEE TREVIS:

The reason people have this feeling that we don't have the same financial clout in the transfer market that we used to have is not actually due to less money in the kitty, it is actually and totally down to the emergence of the new breed of "billionaire-suger-daddy-with-a new-toy" owners that have distorted the market massively and dropped all clubs that are run as businesses (ie properly) down the transfer pecking order. This is not the fault of the Glazers.

Lee, interesting argument. I could take you up on a number of points but let's figure out this one first.

"Distorted market" yes, but can you explain why among the premier league clubs alone, our net spending since the glazer's takeover is merely at 7th, behind the likes of sunderland, stoke, aston villa etc? In that same period, we reached 3 Cl finals, and generated record turnovers for a football club in any season. Barca who also reached 3 Cl finals in that same period outspent us 7 times in terms of net-spending. Surely that's not all down to the of the so-called catalan-madrid monopoly over tv rights? I can use dozen other ways to argue this but simply dont have the time to repeat the same arguments over and over again on different threads. I'm not refuting you or anything. I just want to point out not everything is as nice and straight-forward as you make it sound.

What about Gross spend, where does that put us? The fact the club has managed to sell fringe players mainly for top dollar surely is not a bad thing. Also the Ronaldo sale distorts the figure some what.

The fact you pointed out the successes points to the fact that there was no need to splash the cash Unnecessarily. Not sure it is much of a argument you have put up.

I think I have quite a clear argument. But if you dont understand, it is hardly my fault.

Firstly, "Gross spending" is what the teenagers argue with. Gross spending has no real meaning in business investment. If we sell our entire squad for 400 million tomorrow and buy 350 million worth of players, our gross spending is an impressive 350 million even though we have effectively just devalued our squad.

In business, gross spending has little meaning, which is why I used NET spending.

Secondly, Ronaldo's sale may have distorted the figures, but actually if you look at what he is achieving with Madrid, you can easily argue he is worth that in current day market. In which case our net spending over glazer's reign is next to nothing. No efforts made to inject funds from our profits. Only buying once we have sold. That's our scenario right now.

Thirdly, you state that the club has sold fringe players for top dollar? Give me examples. From what I ve seen of the transfer, and I have the whole list here on transfermarket.co.uk, most of our players are moved on at a loss. And the only times we made money was by selling homegrown players. This confirms the fact we have had no real(NET) investment into the club

Finally you talk about "splashin money unnecesarily". Yeah unnecessary to spend for a 3rd place finish maybe. Most fans simply dont buy this "dont need to spend/no value in the market" crp anymore

My point was for you to look at the bigger picture. We are fifth in the Gross spend market, Behind Man city, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs. Now what do those four teams have in common?

They all want a piece of the action, they all want to win the premier league, qualify for Europe. Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham since the Glazers took over have HAD to more or less purchase complete new squads. We on the other hand already had a well established, successful squad so there was no need to spend huge amounts of cash buying 15-16 players because we only needed one or two here and there.

That is why there is no argument for using transfer spend Gross or net to try and have a pop at the Glazers, it just does not stand up I am afraid. Would I like more investment in the team, what fan wouldn't but it has not been needed, that is my point and that is why you can not use it as a arguement.

Also bear in mind we bought players like Vidic for £7 million, Evra for £5.5million, Van der Sar for £2 million there are other bargains as well. How much would they cost in today's market? The figures do not prove conclusively that the Glazers have 'Capped' transfers.

Ben Foster was bought for £1 million sold for £6m, Tosic, 2m profit on there, £4.5m for john o'shea cracking business. All the home grown players sold bringing in money. Lets not forget the money for Jon obi Mikel also distorts the figures, Money made from players that wanted to leave in Rossi and Pique at great returns.

When you start to look at it, it really as clear cut as you make it out to be,

P.s I am a 33 year old man with my own business so please refrain from the poor attempt at having a pop at me,

You keep it up I´m going to send you my laundry bill mister!!!

I will have my Secretary sort that out foryou, Cheque or electronic bank deposit?

steersyutd:

wliucci:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

LEE TREVIS:

The reason people have this feeling that we don't have the same financial clout in the transfer market that we used to have is not actually due to less money in the kitty, it is actually and totally down to the emergence of the new breed of "billionaire-suger-daddy-with-a new-toy" owners that have distorted the market massively and dropped all clubs that are run as businesses (ie properly) down the transfer pecking order. This is not the fault of the Glazers.

Lee, interesting argument. I could take you up on a number of points but let's figure out this one first.

"Distorted market" yes, but can you explain why among the premier league clubs alone, our net spending since the glazer's takeover is merely at 7th, behind the likes of sunderland, stoke, aston villa etc? In that same period, we reached 3 Cl finals, and generated record turnovers for a football club in any season. Barca who also reached 3 Cl finals in that same period outspent us 7 times in terms of net-spending. Surely that's not all down to the of the so-called catalan-madrid monopoly over tv rights? I can use dozen other ways to argue this but simply dont have the time to repeat the same arguments over and over again on different threads. I'm not refuting you or anything. I just want to point out not everything is as nice and straight-forward as you make it sound.

What about Gross spend, where does that put us? The fact the club has managed to sell fringe players mainly for top dollar surely is not a bad thing. Also the Ronaldo sale distorts the figure some what.

The fact you pointed out the successes points to the fact that there was no need to splash the cash Unnecessarily. Not sure it is much of a argument you have put up.

I think I have quite a clear argument. But if you dont understand, it is hardly my fault.

Firstly, "Gross spending" is what the teenagers argue with. Gross spending has no real meaning in business investment. If we sell our entire squad for 400 million tomorrow and buy 350 million worth of players, our gross spending is an impressive 350 million even though we have effectively just devalued our squad.

In business, gross spending has little meaning, which is why I used NET spending.

Secondly, Ronaldo's sale may have distorted the figures, but actually if you look at what he is achieving with Madrid, you can easily argue he is worth that in current day market. In which case our net spending over glazer's reign is next to nothing. No efforts made to inject funds from our profits. Only buying once we have sold. That's our scenario right now.

Thirdly, you state that the club has sold fringe players for top dollar? Give me examples. From what I ve seen of the transfer, and I have the whole list here on transfermarket.co.uk, most of our players are moved on at a loss. And the only times we made money was by selling homegrown players. This confirms the fact we have had no real(NET) investment into the club

Finally you talk about "splashin money unnecesarily". Yeah unnecessary to spend for a 3rd place finish maybe. Most fans simply dont buy this "dont need to spend/no value in the market" crp anymore

My point was for you to look at the bigger picture. We are fifth in the Gross spend market, Behind Man city, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs. Now what do those four teams have in common?

They all want a piece of the action, they all want to win the premier league, qualify for Europe. Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham since the Glazers took over have HAD to more or less purchase complete new squads. We on the other hand already had a well established, successful squad so there was no need to spend huge amounts of cash buying 15-16 players because we only needed one or two here and there.

That is why there is no argument for using transfer spend Gross or net to try and have a pop at the Glazers, it just does not stand up I am afraid. Would I like more investment in the team, what fan wouldn't but it has not been needed, that is my point and that is why you can not use it as a arguement.

Also bear in mind we bought players like Vidic for £7 million, Evra for £5.5million, Van der Sar for £2 million there are other bargains as well. How much would they cost in today's market? The figures do not prove conclusively that the Glazers have 'Capped' transfers.

Ben Foster was bought for £1 million sold for £6m, Tosic, 2m profit on there, £4.5m for john o'shea cracking business. All the home grown players sold bringing in money. Lets not forget the money for Jon obi Mikel also distorts the figures, Money made from players that wanted to leave in Rossi and Pique at great returns.

When you start to look at it, it really as clear cut as you make it out to be,

P.s I am a 33 year old man with my own business so please refrain from the poor attempt at having a pop at me,

You keep it up I´m going to send you my laundry bill mister!!!

wliucci:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

LEE TREVIS:

The reason people have this feeling that we don't have the same financial clout in the transfer market that we used to have is not actually due to less money in the kitty, it is actually and totally down to the emergence of the new breed of "billionaire-suger-daddy-with-a new-toy" owners that have distorted the market massively and dropped all clubs that are run as businesses (ie properly) down the transfer pecking order. This is not the fault of the Glazers.

Lee, interesting argument. I could take you up on a number of points but let's figure out this one first.

"Distorted market" yes, but can you explain why among the premier league clubs alone, our net spending since the glazer's takeover is merely at 7th, behind the likes of sunderland, stoke, aston villa etc? In that same period, we reached 3 Cl finals, and generated record turnovers for a football club in any season. Barca who also reached 3 Cl finals in that same period outspent us 7 times in terms of net-spending. Surely that's not all down to the of the so-called catalan-madrid monopoly over tv rights? I can use dozen other ways to argue this but simply dont have the time to repeat the same arguments over and over again on different threads. I'm not refuting you or anything. I just want to point out not everything is as nice and straight-forward as you make it sound.

What about Gross spend, where does that put us? The fact the club has managed to sell fringe players mainly for top dollar surely is not a bad thing. Also the Ronaldo sale distorts the figure some what.

The fact you pointed out the successes points to the fact that there was no need to splash the cash Unnecessarily. Not sure it is much of a argument you have put up.

I think I have quite a clear argument. But if you dont understand, it is hardly my fault.

Firstly, "Gross spending" is what the teenagers argue with. Gross spending has no real meaning in business investment. If we sell our entire squad for 400 million tomorrow and buy 350 million worth of players, our gross spending is an impressive 350 million even though we have effectively just devalued our squad.

In business, gross spending has little meaning, which is why I used NET spending.

Secondly, Ronaldo's sale may have distorted the figures, but actually if you look at what he is achieving with Madrid, you can easily argue he is worth that in current day market. In which case our net spending over glazer's reign is next to nothing. No efforts made to inject funds from our profits. Only buying once we have sold. That's our scenario right now.

Thirdly, you state that the club has sold fringe players for top dollar? Give me examples. From what I ve seen of the transfer, and I have the whole list here on transfermarket.co.uk, most of our players are moved on at a loss. And the only times we made money was by selling homegrown players. This confirms the fact we have had no real(NET) investment into the club

Finally you talk about "splashin money unnecesarily". Yeah unnecessary to spend for a 3rd place finish maybe. Most fans simply dont buy this "dont need to spend/no value in the market" crp anymore

My point was for you to look at the bigger picture. We are fifth in the Gross spend market, Behind Man city, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs. Now what do those four teams have in common?

They all want a piece of the action, they all want to win the premier league, qualify for Europe. Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham since the Glazers took over have HAD to more or less purchase complete new squads. We on the other hand already had a well established, successful squad so there was no need to spend huge amounts of cash buying 15-16 players because we only needed one or two here and there.

That is why there is no argument for using transfer spend Gross or net to try and have a pop at the Glazers, it just does not stand up I am afraid. Would I like more investment in the team, what fan wouldn't but it has not been needed, that is my point and that is why you can not use it as a arguement.

Also bear in mind we bought players like Vidic for £7 million, Evra for £5.5million, Van der Sar for £2 million there are other bargains as well. How much would they cost in today's market? The figures do not prove conclusively that the Glazers have 'Capped' transfers.

Ben Foster was bought for £1 million sold for £6m, Tosic, 2m profit on there, £4.5m for john o'shea cracking business. All the home grown players sold bringing in money. Lets not forget the money for Jon obi Mikel also distorts the figures, Money made from players that wanted to leave in Rossi and Pique at great returns.

When you start to look at it, it really as clear cut as you make it out to be,

P.s I am a 33 year old man with my own business so please refrain from the poor attempt at having a pop at me,

wliucci:

steersyutd:

wliucci:

LEE TREVIS:

The reason people have this feeling that we don't have the same financial clout in the transfer market that we used to have is not actually due to less money in the kitty, it is actually and totally down to the emergence of the new breed of "billionaire-suger-daddy-with-a new-toy" owners that have distorted the market massively and dropped all clubs that are run as businesses (ie properly) down the transfer pecking order. This is not the fault of the Glazers.

Lee, interesting argument. I could take you up on a number of points but let's figure out this one first.

"Distorted market" yes, but can you explain why among the premier league clubs alone, our net spending since the glazer's takeover is merely at 7th, behind the likes of sunderland, stoke, aston villa etc? In that same period, we reached 3 Cl finals, and generated record turnovers for a football club in any season. Barca who also reached 3 Cl finals in that same period outspent us 7 times in terms of net-spending. Surely that's not all down to the of the so-called catalan-madrid monopoly over tv rights? I can use dozen other ways to argue this but simply dont have the time to repeat the same arguments over and over again on different threads. I'm not refuting you or anything. I just want to point out not everything is as nice and straight-forward as you make it sound.

What about Gross spend, where does that put us? The fact the club has managed to sell fringe players mainly for top dollar surely is not a bad thing. Also the Ronaldo sale distorts the figure some what.

The fact you pointed out the successes points to the fact that there was no need to splash the cash Unnecessarily. Not sure it is much of a argument you have put up.

I think I have quite a clear argument. But if you dont understand, it is hardly my fault.

Firstly, "Gross spending" is what the teenagers argue with. Gross spending has no real meaning in business investment. If we sell our entire squad for 400 million tomorrow and buy 350 million worth of players, our gross spending is an impressive 350 million even though we have effectively just devalued our squad.

In business, gross spending has little meaning, which is why I used NET spending.

Secondly, Ronaldo's sale may have distorted the figures, but actually if you look at what he is achieving with Madrid, you can easily argue he is worth that in current day market. In which case our net spending over glazer's reign is next to nothing. No efforts made to inject funds from our profits. Only buying once we have sold. That's our scenario right now.

Thirdly, you state that the club has sold fringe players for top dollar? Give me examples. From what I ve seen of the transfer, and I have the whole list here on transfermarket.co.uk, most of our players are moved on at a loss. And the only times we made money was by selling homegrown players. This confirms the fact we have had no real(NET) investment into the club

Finally you talk about "splashin money unnecesarily". Yeah unnecessary to spend for a 3rd place finish maybe. Most fans simply dont buy this "dont need to spend/no value in the market" crp anymore

No need to spend unnecessarily is what steersy said. United have been one of the most successful clubs in football on and off the pitch since the Glazers took over.

You can say whatever you like(inspite of not because of)the Glazers. The first thing a smart business manager does is make sure they have a smart management team and that is exactly what the Glazers have. So the whole group deserves the credit(SAF, the coaches, Gill and the Glazers) and the team the way they have performed.

Refresh my memory when did we finish third?

We had a poor performance in Europe last season but with injuries, retirements and youngsters trying to find there feet I think it was an admirable performance and can´t wait to see what happens this year.

So to be honest I don´t think you have an argument and if you do it doesn´t hold water.

United have always spent money when it was deemed necessay. Hence why we usually remain in contention in all competitions.

steersyutd:

wliucci:

LEE TREVIS:

The reason people have this feeling that we don't have the same financial clout in the transfer market that we used to have is not actually due to less money in the kitty, it is actually and totally down to the emergence of the new breed of "billionaire-suger-daddy-with-a new-toy" owners that have distorted the market massively and dropped all clubs that are run as businesses (ie properly) down the transfer pecking order. This is not the fault of the Glazers.

Lee, interesting argument. I could take you up on a number of points but let's figure out this one first.

"Distorted market" yes, but can you explain why among the premier league clubs alone, our net spending since the glazer's takeover is merely at 7th, behind the likes of sunderland, stoke, aston villa etc? In that same period, we reached 3 Cl finals, and generated record turnovers for a football club in any season. Barca who also reached 3 Cl finals in that same period outspent us 7 times in terms of net-spending. Surely that's not all down to the of the so-called catalan-madrid monopoly over tv rights? I can use dozen other ways to argue this but simply dont have the time to repeat the same arguments over and over again on different threads. I'm not refuting you or anything. I just want to point out not everything is as nice and straight-forward as you make it sound.

What about Gross spend, where does that put us? The fact the club has managed to sell fringe players mainly for top dollar surely is not a bad thing. Also the Ronaldo sale distorts the figure some what.

The fact you pointed out the successes points to the fact that there was no need to splash the cash Unnecessarily. Not sure it is much of a argument you have put up.

I think I have quite a clear argument. But if you dont understand, it is hardly my fault.

Firstly, "Gross spending" is what the teenagers argue with. Gross spending has no real meaning in business investment. If we sell our entire squad for 400 million tomorrow and buy 350 million worth of players, our gross spending is an impressive 350 million even though we have effectively just devalued our squad.

In business, gross spending has little meaning, which is why I used NET spending.

Secondly, Ronaldo's sale may have distorted the figures, but actually if you look at what he is achieving with Madrid, you can easily argue he is worth that in current day market. In which case our net spending over glazer's reign is next to nothing. No efforts made to inject funds from our profits. Only buying once we have sold. That's our scenario right now.

Thirdly, you state that the club has sold fringe players for top dollar? Give me examples. From what I ve seen of the transfer, and I have the whole list here on transfermarket.co.uk, most of our players are moved on at a loss. And the only times we made money was by selling homegrown players. This confirms the fact we have had no real(NET) investment into the club

Finally you talk about "splashin money unnecesarily". Yeah unnecessary to spend for a 3rd place finish maybe. Most fans simply dont buy this "dont need to spend/no value in the market" crp anymore