City's spending

Has anyone got facts and figures on this to help me out with arguments with various Citeh fans.

Specifically, I'm after City's net and gross spend over the last 3 years v United's net and gross spend over the same period/over the life of the Premiership.

I want to be able to say that City have spent more in the last 3 years than United have since the Premiership began, which of course I can say but it would be nice to be factually accurate.

Spoke to my father in law (non-tash wearing city fan) who claimed United had spent about the same as City over the last 5 years which has got to be absolute %@#$&!s. To be fair, he is diabetic and I'm pretty sure he was going low at the time.

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/inde...2006-2010.html

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/

Thanks - that should do it.

Gonna spend another £50+ million in the next few days too.

They are just doing what we have always done.

Originally Posted by dunk

They are just doing what we have always done.

We replaced a player with a player though, there just adding more to there squad, double standards the lot of them....

Originally Posted by originalhogg

We replaced a player with a player though, there just adding more to there squad, double standards the lot of them....

whoosh

[quote=My Name is Keith;2116569]
(non-tash wearing city fan)


wum

I wasn't aware they'd overtaken Chelsea in the spending stakes

And that's in just a couple of seasons. Menkul.

I see the Dippers are struggling in the spend stakes there, poor old Rafa, it must have been so hard for him to build from a CL winning team to 7th in 4 years with so little money.

Originally Posted by Sullingtons

I wasn't aware they'd overtaken Chelsea in the spending stakes

And that's in just a couple of seasons. Menkul.

My bad, thought it was averages.

Still. Menkul

Originally Posted by Sullingtons

My bad, thought it was averages.

Still. Menkul

:£#%&!er:

Our net spend in 5 years is about £10m, there's is £328M...

They're only 60m behind chelsea in overall spending in the last 18 years ffs.

They'll overtake them soon. Absolutely crazy amounts of money.

Anyone seen the berties being interviewed on Sky, Usual clueless looking mongs. "Yeah he's good inne, he'll bring loads of goals." Such insight. Most of them would have probably walked past him in the street without knowing who the £#%&! he was.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Anyone seen the berties being interviewed on Sky, Usual clueless looking mongs. "Yeah he's good inne, he'll bring loads of goals." Such insight. Most of them would have probably walked past him in the street without knowing who the £#%&! he was.

same @#%&!s who went to Shinywater's free curry fest outside the Town hall and said he was the messiah

same @#%&!s who were gooning around with tea towels on their head outside the hovel when they signed Kaka

same @#%&!s crying into their BNP fanzines when United hit THREE last minutee winneers in THREE games against them last season


comedy £#%&!ing gold

Watched an old programme from ESPN i had sky plussed the other day. It had Mike 'top bitter' McClean on it talking about Chelsea spending loads of cash (pre arab takeover). Went something like "enjoy it now chelsea fans because once he goes and takes his money, it's a long way down and it hurts."

important to remember that much of United's income over the past two decades has been generated off the back of an incredible favouritism in live TV coverage, resulting in grossly disproportionate revenues, and from the CL expanding to catch teams finishing off the top of the league.

the argument may be a bit chicken and egg, but the facts are that the rise of United and the rise of Sky was a very profitable coincidence for both parties. Sky took a little longer to get on board the CL cash cow, but safe to say they caught up quickly.

in a supposedly neutral and block TV deal under the PL banner United have done very well - probably better than they'd have done had they had their own deal.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

important to remember that much of United's income over the past two decades has been generated off the back of an incredible favouritism in live TV coverage, resulting in grossly disproportionate revenues, and from the CL expanding to catch teams finishing off the top of the league.

the argument may be a bit chicken and egg, but the facts are that the rise of United and the rise of Sky was a very profitable coincidence for both parties. Sky took a little longer to get on board the CL cash cow, but safe to say they caught up quickly.

in a supposedly neutral and block TV deal under the PL banner United have done very well - probably better than they'd have done had they had their own deal.

Are you suggest that United get paid more than everybody else by Sky?