And let's not forget, Laporte is supposedly going to be City's record signing, which is still less than the fees paid for Lukaku and Pogba and basically on par with Angel Di Maria's. But it's only the likes of Chelsea and City who are responsible for big transfer fees, obviously.
Manchester City 17/18 discussion | "If you're here for the Champions clap your hands" (#6505)
- Thread starter simonhch
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
And let's not forget, Laporte is supposedly going to be City's record signing, which is still less than the fees paid for Lukaku and Pogba and basically on par with Angel Di Maria's. But it's only the likes of Chelsea and City who are responsible for big transfer fees, obviously.
You've spent £130m on fullbacks. We've got two retired wingers as fullbacks.
Pogba is a special case, due to the selling club being Juventus, marketing and talent.
Lukaku was bought after the transfermarket went crazy, you've done most your shopping before that happened.
Well maybe don't blow all your budget on a couple of players then? Can't break a world record transfer fee and then sign the second most expensive PL import as well and complain that you've got to play wingers as fullbacks (and what about Luke Shaw? You have a £30m fullback at your club anyway). You've just gone out and bought Sanchez in a deal that wasn't cheap. Clearly, you've made a decision to not prioritise fullbacks, because you've had more than enough money to address it.
If you sign Laporte, you’ll have 6 of the 10 most expensive defenders of all time.
I believe we pick and choose areas where to improve the team based on priority. Valencia has been outperforming nearly anyone in that position for a long time. As such it isn't a priority.
It is our money we are spending, not someone else's.
We are playing Shaw. Our need to buy a few mercurial players are due to our absolutely catastrophic recruitment the last few years, we needed some absolute quality. Mourinho didn't have a good core like Pep inherited at City.
And United didn't buy Sanchez, we traded a dud for him.
We've clearly spent big on our defence, an embarrassing amount, yet we've still not got a single forward in the top ten most expensive of all time. The point being?
Utd spent big on a couple of players. The year Abramovich arrived he spent over £150m. The most Utd had ever spent in a season before that was £57m. Utd have still to top that first Abramovich year. How did Shevchenko not set the record if it beat the previous record?
As an aside when I said Chelsea had most of the top transfers I was referring to that ridiculous inflation table that I was replying to.
Last edited:
Without checking I'm assuming when ManUtd paid big money for players, that will be the only big tranfers with couple off cheap additions, what Chelsea did was throwing shit loads of money like never seen in English football.
It's not about big transfers once and a while for players you hope will end up being the spine of your team for 8 years.
It is about this attitude of throwing s*** against the wall at a pace no one could keep up with and not caring if they don't work out because it isn't City's money anyway.
Santa Cruz - 18 Million
Adebayor - 25 Million
Jovetic - 25 Million
Dzeko 27 Million
Bony - 25 Million
Balotelli - 25 Million
Negredo - 20 Million
Tevez - 30+ Million
Navas - 24 Million
Nasri - 24 Million
Milner - 26 Million
Robinho 32 Million.
From the moment your owners arrived to the time Fergie retired it was the total disregard of what money meant that escalated spending to insane levels. It became normal for a squad player to cost over 20 Million.
Shevchenko cost more than Veron but less than Ferdinand.
No he didn’t. Ferdinand cost £29.1m and Shevchenko cost £30.8m. I see you’ve ignored the ridiculous sums Abramovich spent in his first year though.
I didn't ignore anything. It's a well-known fact that in the first few years of Abramovich's takeover Chelsea spent a lot of money. I just mentioned the fact that it took Abramovich's Chelsea years to break United's transfer record.
Source? Ferdinand did cost more from what I've seen.
Surely the price per player is less telling than total spend?
My grocery bill isn't just the most expensive item.
As someone posted above, City have bought about 12 strikers at more than 20m. Fine, no single one cost a Lukaku, but 4 combined did.
My grocery bill isn't just the most expensive item.
As someone posted above, City have bought about 12 strikers at more than 20m. Fine, no single one cost a Lukaku, but 4 combined did.
Google. There’s multiple sources.
You don't know the reason behind it.
I've heard that some horrible racism was thrown at Sane's family from elements of Bristol's support and it was his way of answering them. As (I presume) a black man yourself I would assume you'd be a bit less judgemental.
With none of them being anything special.
Weird my source is google too and it says Ferdinand was more expensive (depending how you consider agent fees Utd had to pay)
How much does your Google claim Ferdinand cost?
Don't forget the 20m sensation Jo
Are we not counting transfer fees at the time? No Aguero, Sterling or Jesus either
I don't think you get it.
When united were building on an already successful squad you wouldn't go out and buy 7-10 20m plus pounds players each window. You'd spend one lump on a top player that improves you.
City, due to reshaping the whole squad, spend vast amounts on a large quantity of players. Its obvious United are going to hold the single fee record in that respect but when you look at cumulative spending City are relentless and by far the highest. Total mismatch to what the club actually generates.
Receipts please..
Roman, Chelsea and Mourinho had already been doing that for years before City came along. Chelsea and Mourinho started the modern sugar daddy era, City just functioned within the guidelines Roman established.
I was watching the game tonight and after the 4th West Brom player suffered a bad injury I thought "Their next opponents are in for a bit of luck" and it turns out to be you lot! Again!
Its not bitterness since the title is gone but its honestly freaky how often opposition players injure themselves just before they play you.
Its not bitterness since the title is gone but its honestly freaky how often opposition players injure themselves just before they play you.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jan/27/pep-guardiola-manchester-city-80m-player
He's saying that with a straight face on.
He's saying that with a straight face on.
Poor St.Pep, always working within a shoestring budget.
Yeah right.
To be fair, spending 50m or plus on defenders isn't different with spending 80m-89m on midfielder & attackers. At least United spent those money on roles that manager need to have in order to start build his team. Defense is important but you don't build a team around defenders. Although Pogba, Lukaku, Walker & Mendy are proven but the likes of Stones, Mangala or even Laporte are nowhere near to be called proven defenders who are worth the money when you signed them.
I don't try to say what City has done is embarrassing or no but there are more criticism on United spent money right now when other clubs like City have done the same thing before and is still doing it right now.
For me it always felt like when Chelsea brought players for over 20 Million they would be more important purchases. I may be wrong looking back at players like Wright Phillips but the numbers do back that up somewhat when you compare their net spends.
This is the main point for me. I couldn't care less what Utd spend. If you see some bloke buying a Ferrari and you know he worked his bollox off to afford it then you aren't going to begrudge him. If you see some spoilt teen buying their 15th Porsche in 4 years with their Dad's credit card because they wrote them all off carelessly then it will grate.
The fact that the teen would then have the nerve to declare themselves more frugal and blame the Ferrari owner for inflation in sports cars because his cost more than the Porsche is embarrassing.
As a City fan the money Chelsea spent on SWP was very important!
Congratulations. That is officially the 1000th different metaphor this year on Red Cafe for City's spending being 'undeserved'. Now, remind me, what is a Bertie?
Because most of you are so backward you need a metaphor to illustrate a point just as a child needs a picture book
This is actually a United forum btw
if you don’t like it.....It isn't bitterness, I have just as much of an issue with PSG and they are not in direct competition with us. I suppose they are technically but I wouldn't fancy our chances at the CL regardless.
I am lucky enough to support one of the few clubs that don't need to be jealous of your spending. Meaning I can just look at it for what it is.
Your fans have become old pros at deflecting the argument though. Fair play.
I'd imagine so. One of the most successful players you've brought through in most fans lifetimes. Right up there with Joey Barton