Realistic prospects for next season

Originally Posted by borsuk

if we lose this season we'll do it by a tiny margin having played well below what we're capable of

good skag pal?

this side is punching well above it's weight.

Originally Posted by borsuk

if we lose this season we'll do it by a tiny margin having played well below what we're capable of even with this squad, and having lost some of our most important players for large parts of the season for various reasons (vidic, scholes, fletcher, valencia). i think we'll strengthen the squad in the summer and do better.

there's nothing unreasonable there. suggesting we're going to finish 4th is crackers imo. even in the worst season's performance in years we're miles better than the likes of spurs, arsenal, chelsea etc and they've all got big problems themselves (players leaving, players ageing).

i don't think we'll finish 4th, but i wouldn't be surprised if city win it next year as they will surely go on and strengthen their squad, which is already better than ours. meanwhile, we'll sign a couple of tesco value players if we're lucky and still be relying on scholes and giggs in the big games.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop

good skag pal?

this side is punching well above it's weight.

Spurs and Arsenal are punching above their weight, not us.

League - 2nd, possibly 3rd.

European Cup - We'll manage to get out of the group, then be taken apart by the first decent side we face. Quarter finals at best.

FA Cup/League Cup - Only realistic hope of a trophy.

Of course, the main problem is that it'll be another season of mostly joyless, insipid football from United, played by overrated shit @#%&!s and old men. Even if we bag a pot, it'll hardly matter because the football will be so £#%&!ing awful.

Originally Posted by The Watcher

League - 2nd, possibly 3rd.

European Cup - We'll manage to get out of the group, then be taken apart by the first decent side we face. Quarter finals at best.

FA Cup/League Cup - Only realistic hope of a trophy.

Of course, the main problem is that it'll be another season of mostly joyless, insipid football from United, played by overrated shit @#%&!s and old men. Even if we bag a pot, it'll hardly matter because the football will be so £#%&!ing awful.

Well that saved me a few mins.

Cheers Watcherers.

League - Relegated

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

Course we can mathematically............But its over.

harsh words man, harsh

Originally Posted by Pop

Some good old doom....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/b...?newsfeed=true

the net spend argument is utterly daft though. united have never balanced outgoings and incomings in that way, nor does it take into account anything beyond headline fees.

it's not something united fans like to hear but united's spending is pretty much in line with what it's always been, even focusing on net spend, even with the ronaldo transfer skewing the figures. no idea if these figures are entirely correct but they seem pretty much on the money (though, again, nothing about wages, incentives, installments etc).

Average gross spend per season (1992/93-2010/11): £24.09m
Average net spend per season (1992/93-2010/11): £9.28m

Gross spend before Glazer takeover: £245.015 (average per season of £19.42m)
Net spend before Glazer takeover: £131.765 (average per season of £10.2m)

Gross spend since Glazer takeover: £236.745 (average per season of £33.82m)
Net spend since Glazer takeover: £53.9 (average per season of £7.7m)


1992/93: Gross spend: £2.3m - Net spend: £0.465m

1993/94: Gross spend: £3.75m - Net spend: £2.65m

1994/95: Gross spend: £8.35m - Net spend: £4.82m

1995/96: Gross spend: £0.75m - Net spend: (minus) -£13.115m

1996/97: Gross spend: £7.1m - Net spend: £2m

1997/98: Gross spend: £11.15m - Net spend: £5.43m

1998/99: Gross spend: £27.95m - Net spend: £23.175m

1999/00: Gross spend: £10.25m - Net spend: £10m

2000/01: Gross spend: £7.85m - Net spend: (minus) -£1.95m

2001/02: Gross spend: £56.5m - Net spend: £28.9m

2002/03: Gross spend: £29.55m - Net spend: £27.35m

2003/04: Gross spend: £39.565m - Net spend: £2.94m

2004/05: Gross spend: £39.95m - Net spend: £34.1m

2005/06: Gross spend: £19.5m - Net spend: £13.5m

2006/07: Gross spend: £18.65m - Net spend: (minus) -£5.25m

2007/08: Gross spend: £56.125m - Net spend: £25.825m

2008/09: Gross spend: £42.45m - Net spend: £35.45m

2009/10: Gross spend: £21.5m - Net spend: (minus) -£64.6m

2010/11: Gross spend: £28.12m - Net spend: £13.32m

2010/11: Gross spend: £50.4m - Net spend: £38.65m

the problem, imo, is not that no money has been spent, or that we're spending less than we were. the problems are that some money has not been well spent (bebe, berbatov etc) and that spending what we always have is no longer enough. we need to spend more because we are competing against clubs that are subsidised in one way or another - chelsea, city, real, barca - and can spend pretty much without worrying about the consequences, and because prices today are far higher than in the past - £10m got you a top player not so long ago, now you need to double that. fergie is right that we can't compete with the likes of city but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be investing at a level that is required, especially as we are effectively having to replace two £30m+ players in giggs and scholes.

pre-glazer the club had the ability to increase its spending if required and if willing (though, often, it was not): it was profitable, stable and debt-free. today the club is able to maintain its spending but is not really able to respond in the way it needs to new challenges, and to the need to replace home-grown world-class names that came through the ranks.

Our general trend since winning the CL has been of a gradual decline, just getting slightly worse each year. Not really surprising when we're rebuilding that squad with players who are nowhere near the same level.

In that time City have steadily improved each year, their general trend is up - again not really a surprise with a £Billion to throw at it.

This season is the crossover point by the look of it, but if both Clubs continue in the direction they're going we're going to have a problem keeping up. We seriously need to halt the decline and start going the other way.

The saving grace is that we should still have enough to keep ahead of the rest, and if there is one thing SAF has mastered it is racking up wins and points despite the team not playing well more often than not - take the head to heads out and we've got more points. The problem will be if the points totals start to mirror the performances...

I'll wait until I see who we bring in, but I really don't see much changing - I can't see us getting the level of player that we need because we just seem to go for squad players or potential.

Europe - no chance, we can't keep the ball under pressure and we can't win it back. We'd need the intervention of the sporting gods like Chelsea have had.

Cups - Bottled virtually every 'one-off' game this season, that would need to change if we were to get any joy there.

Originally Posted by borsuk

who said 'nothing's changed' ffs?

I'm not going to let what you did (or didn't) write get in the way of a good rant tbh.

Originally Posted by The Watcher

I'm not going to let what you did (or didn't) write get in the way of a good rant tbh.

furry muff


the really depressing thing is i think we've got the basis for a really good squad. the youth side looks far better than before and there's quality in a lot of the side... with just two or three additions we could be a really good, young and entertaining side. is it going to happen though?

Originally Posted by borsuk

who said 'nothing's changed' ffs?

You are absolutely right. To base a whole article on 'net spend' alone and not address the differences in how the clubs and managers involved go about their business makes it a waste of ink.

The funny thing is Fergie's talk about the owners giving him free rein over transfers, but complaining about a lack of value in the market is automatically met with scorn, particularly by Glazer detractors, as an indication of owner restraint and subservient manager, but what if he's telling the truth?

Consider this. Ferguson and Mancini or whoever happens to be managing Chelsea for the next six months are working from a whole different set of values. Fergie knows he has a job for life, the others go from month to month, meaning the former is planning long term, the others targetting instant results in order to save their jobs. Who's the best player out there? Get them. Who gives a shit what they will be doing in two years time, we'll worry about it then.

Fergie is a manager who places emphasis on certain attributes (youth, personality and potential) that the others can't aford to dwell too deeply on. He would much rather build a Ronaldo than buy one, but if you are not sure about your job status, how can you consider this?

Ferguson is also an old time Jock who came from a different era, and we all know that the sweaties will squeeze a pound note until the queen screams. But quite frankly, if he didn't think that Nasri with one year left on his deal was worth 25m and 190 per, or Sneijder was worth 35m and 250 per, who's to say he was wrong? Neither have had stellar seasons.

Smalling, Jones, Anderson, Nani, De Gea, The twins, Chicha, Lindegaard, Ronaldo. These are the types of player Ferguson likes to buy, and they are usually fairly inexpensive. Then he'll add players from the youth set up and every now and then a 30m player who has attributes that can't readily be moulded. That's how our manager does his business, it's been fairly successful and will certainly be less costly than purchasing a whole team of Aguero's.

United have always tried to keep wages to 50% or less than turnover, and that was the case way before the Glazers took control. This implies that at least on some level, Ferguson has been expected to excercise fiscal restraint and to handle the clubs money prudently. In the face of City throwing true vauations out of the window and offering monopoly money to good/above average players, what is he to do, scrap his whole model? Try to fight fire with fire? Maybe, but I think he also understands that it's a fight he can't win, so try to find value elsewhere and hope the the FFP will eventually even things out.

Finally, the 'Ronaldo money' is not just a skew, it's a huge skew. Never before has a club received such a huge amount for one player. Most other clubs would have to sell their three best players to get that, which would imply a selling club on it's way down. So to write an article about net spend and not factor this in is a waste of both the author and the readers time.

Originally Posted by utd99

You are absolutely right. To base a whole article on 'net spend' alone and not address the differences in how the clubs and managers involved go about their business makes it a waste of ink.

The funny thing is Fergie's talk about the owners giving him free rein over transfers, but complaining about a lack of value in the market is automatically met with scorn, particularly by Glazer detractors, as an indication of owner restraint and subservient manager, but what if he's telling the truth?

Consider this. Ferguson and Mancini or whoever happens to be managing Chelsea for the next six months are working from a whole different set of values. Fergie knows he has a job for life, the others go from month to month, meaning the former is planning long term, the others targetting instant results in order to save their jobs. Who's the best player out there? Get them. Who gives a shit what they will be doing in two years time, we'll worry about it then.

Fergie is a manager who places emphasis on certain attributes (youth, personality and potential) that the others can't aford to dwell too deeply on. He would much rather build a Ronaldo than buy one, but if you are not sure about your job status, how can you consider this?

Ferguson is also an old time Jock who came from a different era, and we all know that the sweaties will squeeze a pound note until the queen screams. But quite frankly, if he didn't think that Nasri with one year left on his deal was worth 25m and 190 per, or Sneijder was worth 35m and 250 per, who's to say he was wrong? Neither have had stellar seasons.

Smalling, Jones, Anderson, Nani, De Gea, The twins, Chicha, Lindegaard, Ronaldo. These are the types of player Ferguson likes to buy, and they are usually fairly inexpensive. Then he'll add players from the youth set up and every now and then a 30m player who has attributes that can't readily be moulded. That's how our manager does his business, it's been fairly successful and will certainly be less costly than purchasing a whole team of Aguero's.

United have always tried to keep wages to 50% or less than turnover, and that was the case way before the Glazers took control. This implies that at least on some level, Ferguson has been expected to excercise fiscal restraint and to handle the clubs money prudently. In the face of City throwing true vauations out of the window and offering monopoly money to good/above average players, what is he to do, scrap his whole model? Try to fight fire with fire? Maybe, but I think he also understands that it's a fight he can't win, so try to find value elsewhere and hope the the FFP will eventually even things out.

Finally, the 'Ronaldo money' is not just a skew, it's a huge skew. Never before has a club received such a huge amount for one player. Most other clubs would have to sell their three best players to get that, which would imply a selling club on it's way down. So to write an article about net spend and not factor this in is a waste of both the author and the readers time.

Don't think the doomlords will recover from this ferocious postage from big utdd99ers. #woof

The most hilarious thing of all this Glazer/Fergie/money/chelsea/city cry£#%&!ing is the madmen who claim we'd be offering above average curtainheads like Nasri £185k a week had it not been for the debt. We had no problem fronting up £25m for him, even though his contract was ending within 12 months. We had no problems agreeing a fee for Sneijder if you believe the British press. There is a massive difference long term between paying someone £120k and £180k, not just for that one player, but implications for future signings and current players too. If we made Nasri our highest paid player, or Sneijder - Rooney would be playing up again. This is what football has come, what SOME United fans have become. Become desperate to spend money like Russians and Arabs with their plastic clubs. Sad2£#%&!ingc.

Originally Posted by Albert Tatlock

It depends on the Glazers.

I thought their financial plan accounted for a top 4 finish, QF in the CL and a couple of rounds of domestic cup action. They could achieve all that with little or no investment this summer

you say this as if there is a chance they will open their wallets (by which I mean allow the club to spend its own money).


we could easily win the league - this year or next year - if everyone else continues to be as shit as they are. but we should be in a far stronger position than we are. and we should be playing exciting football. blame who you like; the glazers didn't pick the team against city or let everton score two in the last 7 minutes.

Originally Posted by saffers;2855234/

There is a massive difference long term between paying someone £120k and £180k, not just for that one player, but implications for future signings and current players too. If we made Nasri our highest paid player, or Sneijder - Rooney would be playing up again. .

That's correct, and people often fail to assess the true cost of a player like Nasri. They see the 25m, but the wages somehow become this vague number that's out there but strangely insubstantial. With the transfer fee plus 185 per over 4 years, Nasri would have meant an investment of over 63 million pounds to United. Now look as his performances over the whole season and tell me that you think that's value. That's what I think Fergie is getting at.

Risk/reward evaluation is a very human trait. You're quite happy to stay in the game with two pairs, but what happens when the pot gets to five grand? Well I guess the answer to that depends on whether you are considering the future of your club, or just playing with someone else's money and planning on doing a bunk at the end of the game anyway.

Originally Posted by Jethro

We'll be up there for the title again next season I have no worries about that at all.

CL and Cups, anything bettering this year is a bonus.

Only if the, Glazers sell to an arab during the summer.

League - 2nd ( maybe 1st if the Arabs decide to pull the rug from under Mancini's feet and we reinforce, or 3rd if Chelsea get their shit together )

European Cup - Semi Finals

FA Cup - Win

League Cup - out first round.

Originally Posted by Stickman

FA Cup, well its draw dependant isnt it but we probably wont win it

If we are due one thing, it is the sort of passage through the FA Cup that Chelski get year after year

Originally Posted by red in cumbria

If we are due one thing, it is the sort of passage through the FA Cup that Chelski get year after year

Not possible. It'll be city, Arsenal or Liverpool away in the third round whilst Chelsea dance through to the final by playing Stone Dominoes, Manchester Boys, London Dinner Ladies XI, the Hungarian synchronised swimming team, Graham Norton and my gran.

Originally Posted by utd99

You are absolutely right. To base a whole article on 'net spend' alone and not address the differences in how the clubs and managers involved go about their business makes it a waste of ink.

The funny thing is Fergie's talk about the owners giving him free rein over transfers, but complaining about a lack of value in the market is automatically met with scorn, particularly by Glazer detractors, as an indication of owner restraint and subservient manager, but what if he's telling the truth?

Consider this. Ferguson and Mancini or whoever happens to be managing Chelsea for the next six months are working from a whole different set of values. Fergie knows he has a job for life, the others go from month to month, meaning the former is planning long term, the others targetting instant results in order to save their jobs. Who's the best player out there? Get them. Who gives a shit what they will be doing in two years time, we'll worry about it then.

Fergie is a manager who places emphasis on certain attributes (youth, personality and potential) that the others can't aford to dwell too deeply on. He would much rather build a Ronaldo than buy one, but if you are not sure about your job status, how can you consider this?

Ferguson is also an old time Jock who came from a different era, and we all know that the sweaties will squeeze a pound note until the queen screams. But quite frankly, if he didn't think that Nasri with one year left on his deal was worth 25m and 190 per, or Sneijder was worth 35m and 250 per, who's to say he was wrong? Neither have had stellar seasons.

Smalling, Jones, Anderson, Nani, De Gea, The twins, Chicha, Lindegaard, Ronaldo. These are the types of player Ferguson likes to buy, and they are usually fairly inexpensive. Then he'll add players from the youth set up and every now and then a 30m player who has attributes that can't readily be moulded. That's how our manager does his business, it's been fairly successful and will certainly be less costly than purchasing a whole team of Aguero's.

United have always tried to keep wages to 50% or less than turnover, and that was the case way before the Glazers took control. This implies that at least on some level, Ferguson has been expected to excercise fiscal restraint and to handle the clubs money prudently. In the face of City throwing true vauations out of the window and offering monopoly money to good/above average players, what is he to do, scrap his whole model? Try to fight fire with fire? Maybe, but I think he also understands that it's a fight he can't win, so try to find value elsewhere and hope the the FFP will eventually even things out.

Finally, the 'Ronaldo money' is not just a skew, it's a huge skew. Never before has a club received such a huge amount for one player. Most other clubs would have to sell their three best players to get that, which would imply a selling club on it's way down. So to write an article about net spend and not factor this in is a waste of both the author and the readers time.

bang on