Man U have the most expensive squad in the History of the Premier League

[Stevencc]

Not having Europe to contend with was deemed irrelevant when Liverpool were doing so well last season.

Funny how things change to suit an agenda.

 

[Pagnell]

Not having Europe to contend with was deemed irrelevant when Liverpool were doing so well last season.

Funny how things change to suit an agenda.

I don't remember anyone calling it irrelevant. I remember a lot of United fans claiming we only did well and had a chance of the top 4 because of no European football though, it will make it all the funnier this season if United don't manage it.

 

[Stevencc]

Your memory is defective.

 

[Destruction]

Your memory is defective.

I think you'll find this new Pagnell 2.0 is actually jail broken and thus has unlimited memory storage.

 

[Pagnell]

Your memory is defective.

Or alternative, you're making it up to make a cheap point knowing no one can offer proof to the contrary.

 

[Stevencc]

Or alternative, you're making it up to make a cheap point knowing no one can offer proof to the contrary.

Incorrect.

 

[Pagnell]

Incorrect.

Prove it!

 

[Stevencc]

Prove it!

I believe they call this a Mexican Standoff.

 

[SALTIRE]

Get a room you two...

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Money spent rather than net spend. Proves nothing.

How so? I don't see how you can judge a team's performance based on net spend.

 

[Cardsfan]

How so? I don't see how you can judge a team's performance based on net spend.

It suggests that one team has used more financial muscle to get to where they are, but it doesn't show how much money's been taken in in player sales so it's an irrelevant statistic.

 

[Forthright]

Most expensive and the worst. A club that has paid over the odds for players not wanted by other teams. Madrid have been laughing all the way to the bank having secured nearly £60 million for the biggest flop in premier league history.

 

[mase]

Most expensive and the worst. A club that has paid over the odds for players not wanted by other teams. Madrid have been laughing all the way to the bank having secured nearly £60 million for the biggest flop in premier league history.

Di Maria is the biggest flop in Premier League history after only 6 months in the league? Wow.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It suggests that one team has used more financial muscle to get to where they are, but it doesn't show how much money's been taken in in player sales so it's an irrelevant statistic.

But again, why is that relevant? We're judging how successful a team has been relative to how much they've spent, not how savvy they've been with their transfer dealings.

 

[Humongous Fungus]

Di Maria isn't a flop by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[mase]

It took Evra and Vidic around half a year to adapt to the English game when they signed for United so I think it's too early to speak about any of the foreign imports at United this season.

 

[thespus]

Weird, because it's never too early to talk about foreign imports at every other club. See Balotelli, Mario; Özil, God; etc. I guess that must be a weird ABU thing, my Oxford-supporting friend.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Di Maria isn't a flop by any stretch of the imagination.

I would say that's a failure of imagination on your part. He's the fifth most expensive player of all time, and an attacker with 4 goals in 21 games.

 

[Madejski]

But again, why is that relevant? We're judging how successful a team has been relative to how much they've spent, not how savvy they've been with their transfer dealings.

Net spend has some relevance (though I think it will be even more favourable to United than Chelsea and City anyway).

If a team spent £300m to transform their whole squad one season, couldn't sustain it and sold half their players the next, replacing them with youth prospects you wouldn't claim that they had a £300m squad would you?

 

[Christian Slater]

Money spent rather than net spend. Proves nothing.

Net spend makes it look even better for United.

 

[Christian Slater]

[TE="thespus, post: 46266, member: 483"]Christian Slater - why do you refuse to recognize that City and Chelsea didn't start on a level playing field to Manchester United when you began expecting them to win trophies? That chart is a nice graphic, but it doesn't begin to tell the whole story.

Unless you actually expected City to win the title and CL the first season Mansour bought the club? Which—as most objective parties will tell you—is ludicrous. They've won 2/3 of the last league titles and are currently much better placed to win more than their rivals moving forward—largely thanks to the failures of Manchester United the past two seasons when spending massive sums of money. There isn't a City fan in the world who wouldn't bite your hand off five years ago for these "failures".[/QUOTE]

It's all relative to context though, like anything else. I you spend a billion over five years then your lack of success given that money spent is a failure, regardless of how it seemed to success starved fans before money was spent.

 

[thespus]

Net spend makes it look even better for United.

"Even better" implies their spending history looked good in the first place.

 

[Christian Slater]

[Comparativspus, post: 47333, member: 483"]"Even better" implies their spending history looked good in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Comparatively it does. Are you going to be obnoxiously pedantic about every point I make?

 

[thespus]

It's all relative to context though, like anything else. I you spend a billion over five years then your lack of success given that money spent is a failure, regardless of how it seemed to success starved fans before money was spent.

Erm, so this is you freely admitting you were spouting rubbish and still ignoring that Manchester United had been spending massive sums for a decade before Mansour came around? I have yet to see anything where you acknowledge they had to catch up to your beloved brand.

Again, 2 of 3 league titles and being a much more competitive squad—despite being less expensive—than Manchester United is a fucked definition of failure.

 

[Christian Slater]

Erm, so ths you freely admitting you were spouting rubbish and still ignoring that Manchester United had been spending massive sums for a decade before Mansour came around? I have yet to see anything where you acknowledge they had to catch up to your beloved brand.

Again, 2 of 3 league titles and being a much more competitive squad—despite being less expensive—than Manchester United is a fucked definition of failure.

United spent in correlation to what other top teams were before Ambramovich turned up, so you have no point. City spent more than everyone had in twenty years in four, and then some.

It's clear this is becoming a bit personal for you, given the teenage attitude permeating your text. If you want to discuss it properly I'm game, but I won't get drawn in to a petty squabble.

 

[thespus]

Yes, me defending the success of a club I loathe more than Manchester United is certainly something personal and not at all my enjoyment of seeing the lack of supporting evidence for your claims that City are "failures" while Manchester United have a more expensive squad and are worse off.

I'll rest my case (and my teenage attitude) since it is clear I am the one resorting to insinuating things about you.

 

[Christian Slater]

Yes, me defending the suc club I loathe more than Manchester United is certainly something personal and not at all my enjoyment of seeing any supporting evidence for your claims that City are failures while Manchester United have a more expensive squad and are worse off.

I'll rest my case (and my teenage attitude) since it is clear I am the one resorting to insinuating things about you.

The fact City have a squad that costs less than ours is a bit of an indictment of the money they have burned through in the past few years. Also, the convineince of this statistic at a time where we've only just laid out a massive spend on much needed recruitment. Our squad may be more expensive, but it was much, much cheaper to assemble to this point than City's or Chelsea's

 

[DontBringBertie]

The fact City have a squad that costs less than ours is a bit of an indictment of the money they have burned through in the past few years. Also, the convineince of this statistic at a time where we've only just laid out a massive spend on much needed recruitment. Our squad may be more expensive, but it was much, much cheaper to assemble to this point than City's or Chelsea's

So it was expensive but also cheaper?

 

[Alty]

I'm a little confused by people claiming with confidence that United have little chance of winning anything in the coming seasons. Things can change quite quickly. Especially when you've got serious financial clout and a manager with a proven track record.

 

[Christian Slater]

So it was expensive but also cheaper?

How much have City spent to get their squad to that point? Twice as much as United.