Matthjis De Ligt

Originally Posted by dunk

No player was more 'marketable' than Beckham and he made his name at the club. That's what the dicks at the top need to understand; the players are marketable, first and foremost, because they play for Manchester United. Look at Lingard ffs The more successful a United team they are in, the more marketable they are.

Indeed, players at United become more marketable, players at a successful, United playing attractive football would become infinitely more marketable.

Ole said lot's of agents have been intouch, looking to get their players into United, I believe that. United under Ole and the very apparent feelgood factor and genuine warmth from the incumbent players towards Ole and the coaching staff will not have gone un-noticed.

Originally Posted by thatsfuctit

Indeed, players at United become more marketable, players at a successful, United playing attractive football would become infinitely more marketable.

Ole said lot's of agents have been intouch, looking to get their players into United, I believe that. United under Ole and the very apparent feelgood factor and genuine warmth from the incumbent players towards Ole and the coaching staff will not have gone un-noticed.

Nqat... but it depends on the player, his circumstances and his agent. These same players and agents will do a 180 deg. the minute it suits them. We might be lucky that some of our academy players make the grade and stay the course and some recruits, likewise. Depends on how much store they put by their agent and how much they invest in the club.

not that i'm a fan of the owners or woody, they're massive @#%&!s, but out of interest how does our 'net spend' compare with Liverpool's over the last, say, 5 years? Yes we've won more but they've spent pretty well in the last couple of seasons. Certainly compared with us.

I'm not really convinced the 'we can't spend city's money' argument is valid other than comparing ourselves directly to them.

If Liverpool can keep up with them in the league there's no reason we can't. We just need to be smarter.

Originally Posted by Whip Hubley

not that i'm a fan of the owners or woody, they're massive @#%&!s, but out of interest how does our 'net spend' compare with Liverpool's over the last, say, 5 years? Yes we've won more but it's they've spent pretty well in the last couple of seasons. Certainly compared with us.

I'm not really convinced the 'we can't spend city's money' argument is valid other than comparing ourselves directly to them.

If Liverpool can keep up with them in the league there's no reason we can't. We just need to be smarter.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by AK14

Nqat

But Woodward and his pals like playing billy big %@#$&!s and didn’t think that deal through and the long term effect it would have on the squad. That’s why I question the notion that he’s being told by the owners how to operate etc.

We haven’t really signed that much overpriced shite tbh? We’ve signed cheap shit.

Signing Darmian for £12m when City are signing multiple defenders for £50m. Majority of Van Gaals signings were bargain buys tbh.

We’re still being linked with Harry Maguire BTW and the links to Zaha are worrying. He’ll be 27 by November, age was apparently a reason we didn’t sign Perisic under Mou.... he was 27 at the time iirc.

Agree, they aren’t involved in the minutiae but he’s operating within their brief and to gain their approval. He’s just shit at the football side of things and needs to stick to arselicking sponsors

Originally Posted by Whip Hubley

not that i'm a fan of the owners or woody, they're massive @#%&!s, but out of interest how does our 'net spend' compare with Liverpool's over the last, say, 5 years? Yes we've won more but it's they've spent pretty well in the last couple of seasons. Certainly compared with us.

I'm not really convinced the 'we can't spend city's money' argument is valid other than comparing ourselves directly to them.

If Liverpool can keep up with them in the league there's no reason we can't. We just need to be smarter.

Liverpool have had a bit more managerial stability than we have, along with lower expectations and didn’t have the post Fergie trauma. There spending has been at the behest of one, or two managers, where’s ours has been the brainchild of 4.

Originally Posted by Denis Irwell

Liverpool have had a bit more managerial stability than we have, along with lower expectations and didn’t have the post Fergie trauma. There spending has been at the behest of one, or two managers, where’s ours has been the brainchild of 4.

Exactly the point about needing to be smarter and having stability all round.

Expectations has nowt to do with it though.

Originally Posted by Whip Hubley

not that i'm a fan of the owners or woody, they're massive @#%&!s, but out of interest how does our 'net spend' compare with Liverpool's over the last, say, 5 years? Yes we've won more but they've spent pretty well in the last couple of seasons. Certainly compared with us.

I'm not really convinced the 'we can't spend city's money' argument is valid other than comparing ourselves directly to them.

If Liverpool can keep up with them in the league there's no reason we can't. We just need to be smarter.

Agree.

The structure of the club is all wrong, we’ve allowed three completely different managers to spend hundreds of millions to re build us. That’s always going to cause problems

It’s not so much we haven’t spent enough money (because we’ve spent a shit load) it’s that it’s been spent under three different managers in six years and each with their (very different) ideas on how we should play.

That falls on the shoulders of the people making the decisions.

Let’s not forget Woodward apparently told Klopp we were “the Disney land of football”...

That’s who we have overseeing things at the club...

Originally Posted by Whip Hubley

not that i'm a fan of the owners or woody, they're massive @#%&!s, but out of interest how does our 'net spend' compare with Liverpool's over the last, say, 5 years? Yes we've won more but they've spent pretty well in the last couple of seasons. Certainly compared with us.

I'm not really convinced the 'we can't spend city's money' argument is valid other than comparing ourselves directly to them.

If Liverpool can keep up with them in the league there's no reason we can't. We just need to be smarter.

Net spend is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Denis Irwell

Agree, they aren’t involved in the minutiae but he’s operating within their brief and to gain their approval. He’s just shit at the football side of things and needs to stick to arselicking sponsors



Liverpool have had a bit more managerial stability than we have, along with lower expectations and didn’t have the post Fergie trauma. There spending has been at the behest of one, or two managers, where’s ours has been the brainchild of 4.

Yeah I don’t think anyone can disagree he’s shit at the football side of things tbh

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

Net spend is irrelevant.

Are you whooshing me?


If not, my point about net spend is that whatever Liverpool have spent (net), we surely must have equalled - further point being money is not a sufficient excuse to not 'keep up' at least with city.

Originally Posted by Whip Hubley

Are you whooshing me?


If not, my point about net spend is that whatever Liverpool have spent (net), we surely must have equalled - further point being money is not a sufficient excuse to not 'keep up' at least with city.

Transfers aren't conducted in a vacuum. It's a completely fatuous metric made up by desperate scousers to explain why they haven't won the league in 29 years.

I'm surprised at you Michael.

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

Transfers aren't conducted in a vacuum. It's a completely fatuous metric made up by desperate scousers to explain why they haven't won the league in 29 years.

I'm surprised at you Michael.

No but from a purely business point of view, i.e. ins and outs net P&L, I suspect we've outspent the scousers? Which means that money spent on the squad (or lack thereof) is no indicator or excuse for not keeping up with city.

Again I'm not giving the glazers free reign, we should be spending far more given our size, it's just not a great excuse when it comes to the shit show we've had to endure because our spending has been, for the most part, a £#%&!ing abomination.

Originally Posted by Whip Hubley

No but from a purely business point of view, i.e. ins and outs net P&L, I suspect we've outspent the scousers? Which means that money spent on the squad (or lack thereof) is no indicator or excuse for not keeping up with city.

Again I'm not giving the glazers free reign, we should be spending far more given our size, it's just not a great excuse when it comes to the shit show we've had to endure because our spending has been, for the most part, a £#%&!ing abomination.

But a purely business point of view would take into account the other revenue streams and not just the money made on transfers - which is made in installments more often than not anyway.

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

How do you know Liverpool and Everton couldn't have made their signings without sales?

Their turnover/profit? The fact hey hadn't spent at that level previously, or since?

Or is it purely coincidence that their largest ever spending sprees occurred around the time of the their largest ever sales?

Originally Posted by dunk

Their turnover/profit? The fact hey hadn't spent at that level previously, or since?

Or is it purely coincidence that their largest ever spending sprees occurred around the time of the their largest ever sales?

Their largest ever spending sprees also came at a time when Everton had just got a new monied owner and Liverpool had expanded their stadium and commercial deals. And recorded record turnover and prize money.

Transfer fees also tend to go up rather than down so you'd expect transfer spending to be higher more recently than 5 or 10 years ago.

Maybe it's a coincidence that ever increasing turnover has resulted in ever increasing transfer spending?

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

Their largest ever spending sprees also came at a time when Everton had just got a new monied owner and Liverpool had expanded their stadium and commercial deals. And recorded record turnover and prize money.

Transfer fees also tend to go up rather than down so you'd expect transfer spending to be higher more recently than 5 or 10 years ago.

Maybe it's a coincidence that ever increasing turnover has resulted in ever increasing transfer spending?

You want to dismiss £100+m of sudden income as not related to sudden spending of a similar level and attribute it instead to natural increases in their commercial revenue?

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

But a purely business point of view would take into account the other revenue streams and not just the money made on transfers - which is made in installments more often than not anyway.

I think we're discussing different things here.

My point is, we have spent more than Liverpool (gross £10m, net £240m) in the last 5 seasons therefore we can't use the glazers perceived lack of spending as an excuse for our current predicament.

That's not really even a debate as it seems fairly obvious our lack of stability at managerial level and lack of leadership and proper footballing structure at board level is what's at fault.

Originally Posted by dunk

You want to dismiss £100+m of sudden income as not related to sudden spending of a similar level and attribute it instead to natural increases in their commercial revenue?

No I am trying to convey my original point - that income from transfers is only a part of the income of a football club and net spend is a flawed metric because:

Actual transfer fees are rarely known;
How the fees are paid is known even less;
Fees themselves form only a proportion of the money available to a club to spend on transfers.

If you wanted to specify spending as a percentage of turnover sure... I'd still have issues with it but it would at least be relevant.

No chance he comes here.

Originally Posted by windy waffles

No chance he comes here.

Not if he has been watching us recently, anyway.