Where will the goals come from?

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Oh right ok then. Nice one.



Spent over half a billion on a squad that already had De Bruyne, Aguero, Sterling, Fernandinho in it and was champions 18 months before he took over.

How much do you reckon we're going to have to shell out to replace the absolute dross we've allowed to accumulate over the course of a decade in order to get anywhere near challenging them?

Christ knows mate. We’ll probably see some sudden implementation of FFP once we’re bought out

Originally Posted by believe

They spend 611 million euros. 146 more than us in that three year period.

It's not about the amount, it's when and how it was spent and how he was allowed to deal with bad signings. All of which are in great contrast to what the Glazer's allow United to do. But again, that's apparently too complicated for you.

Originally Posted by dunk

It's not about the amount, it's when and how it was spent and how he was allowed to deal with bad signings. All of which are in great contrast to what the Glazer's allow United to do. But again, that's apparently too complicated for you.

And some of the £#%&!ing wasters we spent it on

Originally Posted by dunk

It's not about the amount, it's when and how it was spent and how he was allowed to deal with bad signings. All of which are in great contrast to what the Glazer's allow United to do. But again, that's apparently too complicated for you.

No , what you’ve done is alter the narrative to suit your agenda and completely ignore the facts. You’re very good at that. The facts, even though you choose to ignore them when it suits, are that City and United have spend roughly the same in the last ten years. City have spent it well and brought in the right people, United haven’t, it’s as simple as that.

What has been proven in the last 20 years is that you can’t buy continued success. Blackburn, Leeds, Newcastle and Chelsea all tried it and look what’s happened to all of them, what you can do is use money well and build a team and set up for long term success and that’s all City have done just like United did.

I know it keeps you up at night worrying about where city get their money from but o couldn’t give a flying £#%&!. I actually don’t think anyone cares it’s just the fact that’s it’s City who’s benefiting from it. Like as been pointed out recently no one cared when Madrid did it.

FFP was brought in to stop teams going in to bankruptcy that’s it.

Originally Posted by dunk

It's not about the amount, it's when and how it was spent and how he was allowed to deal with bad signings. All of which are in great contrast to what the Glazer's allow United to do. But again, that's apparently too complicated for you.

Bingo!

The keeper is the best example: Didn’t like Hart, got Bravo for about £40m. Didn’t like him, got Ederson for £60m.

No issues. No making do. Just a new keeper on demand. If that was us, we’d be stuck with Bravo to this day.

And the fact it’s the same manager spending, our spending is loads of managers correcting other managers/Woodward’s mistakes.

A decent spend for Ten Hag over 5 windows and we’re a different animal.

Originally Posted by dunk

It's not about the amount, it's when and how it was spent and how he was allowed to deal with bad signings. All of which are in great contrast to what the Glazer's allow United to do. But again, that's apparently too complicated for you.

And they DEFINITELY spent 600 million mate. They’re always completely honest with their book keeping.

Originally Posted by believe

No , what you’ve done is alter the narrative to suit your agenda and completely ignore the facts. You’re very good at that. The facts, even though you choose to ignore them when it suits, are that City and United have spend roughly the same in the last ten years. City have spent it well and brought in the right people, United haven’t, it’s as simple as that.

What has been proven in the last 20 years is that you can’t buy continued success. Blackburn, Leeds, Newcastle and Chelsea all tried it and look what’s happened to all of them, what you can do is use money well and build a team and set up for long term success and that’s all City have done just like United did.

I know it keeps you up at night worrying about where city get their money from but o couldn’t give a flying £#%&!. I actually don’t think anyone cares it’s just the fact that’s it’s City who’s benefiting from it. Like as been pointed out recently no one cared when Madrid did it.

FFP was brought in to stop teams going in to bankruptcy that’s it.

I’m not arsed about where City get their money from in this instance, it’s about the fact they can get out there and force deals for their top targets by dictating terms and price because they’re not hogtied by accounting people desperate to balance books. They can go out and drop millions on players you never hear about until they’re sold and the profit appears on the balance sheet because they’re not paying huge £#%&!ing debts and dividends. They can buy 13 players in 12 months and farm half a dozen out on subsidised loans to appease the new manager and then bin off half of the 13 because actual the manager doesn’t like them without it biting them on the arse.

And that’s without all the off the books stuff.

As I said, you’ve no idea what you’re on about. You look at published totals and think it tells the story, it doesn’t.

Cancelo fell out with Pep and was summarily £#%&!ed off a month later, on loan to a CL rival. We couldn’t/wouldn’t do that in a million years, the manager would get it first because the player is worth too much to the accountants. It’s why no £#%&!er ever leaves.

Apologies, I forgot you had the inside knowledge of everything football related. Funny how it seems to be only you that knows all this stuff a bit like you know everything going on inside United.

I’ll leave it now and go on in the hope that the manager spends his 200 million this summer on decent players ( hopefully half of that on Kane) while you keep banging on about City being cheats and how the entire of world of sport is against us like a 12 year old.

Originally Posted by dunk

I’m not arsed about where City get their money from in this instance, it’s about the fact they can get out there and force deals for their top targets by dictating terms and price because they’re not hogtied by accounting people desperate to balance books. They can go out and drop millions on players you never hear about until they’re sold and the profit appears on the balance sheet because they’re not paying huge £#%&!ing debts and dividends. They can buy 13 players in 12 months and farm half a dozen out on subsidised loans to appease the new manager and then bin off half of the 13 because actual the manager doesn’t like them without it biting them on the arse.

And that’s without all the off the books stuff.

As I said, you’ve no idea what you’re on about. You look at published totals and think it tells the story, it doesn’t.

Cancelo fell out with Pep and was summarily £#%&!ed off a month later, on loan to a CL rival. We couldn’t/wouldn’t do that in a million years, the manager would get it first because the player is worth too much to the accountants. It’s why no £#%&!er ever leaves.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Goals will come when our manager is allowed to spend the best part of a billion overhauling this dogshit squad and Sign 14 players in 3 transfer windows like lord genius pep was when he got his foot through the door.

If the truth be told, your right, but sadly for that to happen, Quatar is going to have to up their bid to the 6 Billion that our greedy owners are asking(and yes they don't deserve a single penny, the way they have lt OUR CLUB go to wrack & ruin), & even then it would still require the Glazers/ Parasites to do the decent thing & stick to their side of the deal & get lost

Like it or lump it, City have bought and sold well. That’s all there is to it. They’ve got the same set up as Barcelona did in the 00s, who similarly bought and sold well. Yes, Guardiola has had a few big money transfers that underwhelm or flat out fail (see: Grealish; Ibrahimovic), but by and large they’ve got it very right because the football director & manager there are extremely good at their jobs and are backed financially at the same time.

I was in the books that thought Guardiola was over-rated off the back of his first couple of seasons at City, but he’s effectively rebuilt sides as Fergie would while getting decent dollar for players that are broken or mediocre (taking in c £130 million for Sterling / Jesus / Zinchenko for example) and has somehow had likes of Stones and Akanji as components of a top bracket defence.

Originally Posted by believe

Apologies, I forgot you had the inside knowledge of everything football related. Funny how it seems to be only you that knows all this stuff a bit like you know everything going on inside United.

I’ll leave it now and go on in the hope that the manager spends his 200 million this summer on decent players ( hopefully half of that on Kane) while you keep banging on about City being cheats and how the entire of world of sport is against us like a 12 year old.

Anyone that looks into it knows it pal. Just because you skim the surface and don’t pay any attention to what’s happening doesn’t mean the west of us are doing the same. You’re hung up on the cheat thing, I didn’t mention any of that in the bulk of my post. This is about budgets and management. City have broken the bank to put best in class people in every position management wise and have supported them financially right through the club. From the people dishing out to the community in a charitable fashion to the person arranging the lights and flags for ‘big’ games. They’ve made sure they have the best available and given them the budget to do what needs to be done. Those best in class make the right decisions, by and large, and have the power and budget to put it right when they don’t (Bravo from Barca for £30+m, shite first season, next summer bought Ederson for even more and fired Bravo into the sun. Malanga similar)

United on the other hand absolutely have not. This is evident right through the club, nut most obvious Ed Woodward and now whoever is in charge of the football side. This has followed into the transfer side with their inability to sell players or get fees for players and ridiculous contracts to protect the value of players on the asset lists. All of this is well documented and reported on btw. It manifests itself in buying players in that the scouting systems and people making decisions are lax, again heavily reported on, and instructions from Joel etc. to not be buying ‘potential’ but ready made players wherever possible leading to us missing out on a host of talent.

Then there’s the first team transfers, 2 examples for you, Ole wanted Grealish, we were quoted £80m, we bought Beek instead. A year later City dropped £100m on Grealish as he had a release clause. United couldn’t pay £100m cash so were never in the race and are instead stuck with Beek. But they spent money right?

United need to get the terms they can work with, which limits what they can buy and where from, City pay what it takes to get it done. We end up overpaying for 3rd/4th/5th choices to get the required terms and get stuck in itv said player because we can’t take the loss when it’s time to sell.

It’s all very obvious with the slightest investigation or thought tbh.

Everything you say might be true but you completely negate it with the Beek analogy, because this has been my point all along. It’s happened since Ferguson left and it’s why I completely ignore all the other stuff.

Nearly every player has gone through the same process. Not one person thought Beek was a bad signing, people still thinks he’s a good signing but the minute they go to shit they’re Woodward signings or a representation of the glazer regime. Or if they turn out half decent they’re a masterstroke of management, until they turn to shit and they’re Woodward again.

Ps doesnt everyone think Grealish is shit nowadays?

The point was about backing the manager re: Grealish and how far the budget allows them to go in doing that.

Due to the rank bad management since the Glazers too over every manager has had shite foisted on them as a result of budget constraints. The fact we’ve spent figures similar to City in that period is irrelevant because we’re operating on different playing fields as a result if how the clubs are financially operated.

We’ve been in ‘take a punt’ territory for too long because we’re not doing the work behind the scenes to the required standard and because if/when we do identify the right players (be it manager or scouts or football director) we’re hamstrung by finances.

Originally Posted by dunk

The point was about backing the manager re: Grealish and how far the budget allows them to go in doing that.

Due to the rank bad management since the Glazers too over every manager has had shite foisted on them as a result of budget constraints. The fact we’ve spent figures similar to City in that period is irrelevant because we’re operating on different playing fields as a result if how the clubs are financially operated.

We’ve been in ‘take a punt’ territory for too long because we’re not doing the work behind the scenes to the required standard and because if/when we do identify the right players (be it manager or scouts or football director) we’re hamstrung by finances.

We’ve spent a kings ransom. Sancho, Martial & DDG are taking more than a million quid a week from the club. Fred & DVB cost as much as Rodri & Gundogan. Issue has always been with the people making recruitment decision not with the £ spend. The lack of spend is not remotely the reason we’ve been so far off the pace in recent years. Not remotely

Originally Posted by ErikvanHaaksbergen

We’ve spent a kings ransom. Sancho, Martial & DDG are taking more than a million quid a week from the club. Fred & DVB cost as much as Rodri & Gundogan. Issue has always been with the people making recruitment decision not with the £ spend. The lack of spend is not remotely the reason we’ve been so far off the pace in recent years. Not remotely

I’ve not said it is I said it’s been badly spent and we’ve had to spend it certain ways leading to poor signings, due to the budget. We’ve been penny smart and pound stupid. Wrong people making my poor decisions.

Originally Posted by dunk

I’ve not said it is I said it’s been badly spent and we’ve had to spend it certain ways leading to poor signings, due to the budget.

Who were the poor signings we made?

Originally Posted by believe

Who were the poor signings we made?

Most of them for varying reasons. Maguire is the obvious one though, only the truly lost thought he was anything other than shite, we could’ve had Diaz in the same window for half of that money and plenty of us said so at the time.

Originally Posted by dunk

Most of them for varying reasons. Maguire is the obvious one though, only the truly lost thought he was anything other than shite, we could’ve had Diaz in the same window for half of that money and plenty of us said so at the time.

We wanted Maguire. Two managers wanted him. He was regarded as the best center half in the country when we bought him. He had spells here when everyone said he was worthy every penny. For whatever reason he’s gone to absolute shit, seems all to be linked to whatever happened in Greece. Woodward signing!!!

Next

Originally Posted by believe

We wanted Maguire. Two managers wanted him. He was regarded as the best center half in the country when we bought him. He had spells here when everyone said he was worthy every penny. For whatever reason he’s gone to absolute shit, seems all to be linked to whatever happened in Greece. Woodward signing!!!

Next

None of that is true maybe Mou wanting him. Best centre half in the Country he’s had one spell when he didn’t look a complete waste of money, but even then it’s the others around him that we’re getting the shit in Lindelof and Shaw, when he was the problem.

Anyway… I’m not sure what your angle is here. Defending the owners? Defending Woodward? Chastising the managers? Whichever, it’s horribly misplaced, as usual.

Edit: sorry, you’ve reminded me of another example; Mou quoted as saying he wanted to buy VvD but the owners £#%&!ed him saying £70m was too expensive, only to then buy Maguire for £80m 12-18 months later. Bad management and budgetary constraints. There are countless examples like this.

And to go back to the original point, had City bought Maguire and he had performed as he has here, he’d have been on loan at Valencia 18 months ago just as they did with Mangala, United can not do that.