£250m spend

City have spent £240m in the same period, and they're only 3 points ahead of us.

Liverpool and Chelsea have both spent the best part of £200m in the same period, and they're both behind us.

How come the big man's spending is the only spending that gets mentioned?

Originally Posted by Switching Off

City have spent £240m in the same period, and they're only 3 points ahead of us.

Liverpool and Chelsea have both spent the best part of £200m in the same period, and they're both behind us.

How come the big man's spending is the only spending that gets mentioned?

Agreed. It's not an issue for me.

Saddly, everything else about him is. He is £#%&!.

With this team, we'll be much better with another manager.

Originally Posted by Switching Off

City have spent £240m in the same period, and they're only 3 points ahead of us.

Liverpool and Chelsea have both spent the best part of £200m in the same period, and they're both behind us.

How come the big man's spending is the only spending that gets mentioned?

it's curious.

no mention of the fact that we are having to re-build our squad because of key players retiring in the last few years, fergie neglecting rebuilding the squad to an extent in his last few years, and trying to repair the damage moyes did. i would wager that our wage bill is lower now than it was when the likes of rio and giggs were playing. there's also very little mention of the fact that we are competing at the top end of the market, where the prices are inflated, even before you add on the "united tax" that fergie used to talk about.

Because we used to see off the challenge from this crowd without spending what they did.

Now we don't.

We might, one day, but right now we look so very poor that it's the easiest thing in the world to take the piss out of us.

Originally Posted by Jack Duckworth

it's curious.

no mention of the fact that we are having to re-build our squad because of key players retiring in the last few years, fergie neglecting rebuilding the squad to an extent in his last few years, and trying to repair the damage moyes did. i would wager that our wage bill is lower now than it was when the likes of rio and giggs were playing. there's also very little mention of the fact that we are competing at the top end of the market, where the prices are inflated, even before you add on the "united tax" that fergie used to talk about.

Yep.

And if you take out Di Maria whose gone our spending is lower than all 3 of those.

Di Maria was a woody signing not a van gaal signing.

Di Maria was a Mendes signing.

Di Maria was a @#%&!

and less than £60 million of them able to start tonight.

We paid galactico money for someone a couple of levels down. He was never worth it.

Great player on his game though.

Originally Posted by armchair

Di Maria was a woody signing not a van gaal signing.

Originally Posted by andyroo

Di Maria was a Mendes signing.

Still included in this 250m stick they're beating him with.

About half of what needs to be spent without some seriously inventive scouting, and that would be if the £60m spent on Di Maria was actually any used to us out of that £250mz.

Di Maria and Falcao £#%&!ed us, big time.

It was van gaal who wanted a small squad apparently oblivious to the fact that footballers can get injured. He could have signed back up, he could have signed better players. He could get the players he has playing better football. He could stop making bizarre substitutions.

Originally Posted by dunk

About half of what needs to be spent without some seriously inventive scouting, and that would be if the £60m spent on Di Maria was actually any used to us out of that £250mz.

Di Maria and Falcao £#%&!ed us, big time.

Appointing moyes then LVG has £#%&!ed us up big time

Originally Posted by dunk

About half of what needs to be spent without some seriously inventive scouting, and that would be if the £60m spent on Di Maria was actually any used to us out of that £250mz.

Di Maria and Falcao £#%&!ed us, big time.

Aye, on paper we had two top quality international players with bags of experience.

We also had RVP and Rooney nose dive form wise.

In today's market you're talking £250 Million just to replace them 4 like for like ffs. People are £#%&!ing #@&%!s.

Originally Posted by Switching Off

Still included in this 250m stick they're beating him with.

The purchase price maybe, not the sale price. That one doesn't help.

Glazers money ....£#%&! em

Originally Posted by ScarFace

Agreed. It's not an issue for me.

Saddly, everything else about him is. He is £#%&!.

With this team, we'll be much better with another manager.

You clown

Originally Posted by Switching Off

Yep.

And if you take out Di Maria whose gone our spending is lower than all 3 of those.

And if you take out all the other singings then he's not spent anything.

Anyway, the point is is he's bought 15 players and they've generally been shite.

The reason our spending gets mentioned and not city/Liverpool is because we're a bigger club than those @#%&!s

Originally Posted by irk

It was van gaal who wanted a small squad apparently oblivious to the fact that footballers can get injured. He could have signed back up, he could have signed better players. He could get the players he has playing better football. He could stop making bizarre substitutions.

if anyone said "I thought we played well in the first half. we were a bit unlucky and I can't really explain why we didn't do better in the second. we created chances. I am not worried." in a dour scottish accent, looking like a zombie, everyone would want a shotgun to the @#%&!'s head. being smug and dutch and foppy shouldn't matter.

we are a £#%&!ing shambles. the fact that we are a handful of points off top, despite being unable to score, is an indictment of the rest of the shit at the top.

it's not even fun.