Pep's spending is insane (£941m and counting at City)

[goober88]

Pep is not going to keep spending at the level he has up until this point. Their squad was developing and now it is developed. They'll only bring in two players this summer and that is what their squad will need from now on: just a tweak here and there. This is good. It gives us hope that we can get to their level.

To get to where they are, however, we need to do what they did. They released 3/4 fullbacks last season and transformed their defence. We can do the same. Darmian can leave, Young could leave with a new left back and we can get rid of three CBs if we bring in one more and still have four left. We shouldn't be uncertain in this transfer window but bold and decisive.

I know this is Man Utd in a thread about City but it touches on what people have been saying, namely, that we can't compete. We can because they are nearly finished. They will slow down (in terms of spending) and allow us to catch them.

 

[Treble]

Would be interesting to see more numbers in this thread and genuine discussion.

How much have City spent in the last 5 years compared to the other top English clubs and compared to the top clubs back in 2000's if transfer fees are adjusted for inflation in football? The latter may prove a tricky excercise. But without doing it we have no good basis for comparison.

The only attempt to list the most expensive transfers in England adjusted for inflation within football that I've come across is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/6ph090/the_top_100_pl_transfers_adjusted_for_inflation/

I don't know whether the methodology they use is sound though. The results seem dubious. Rio cost 136m in current fees??

But if they are even remotely right, then Chelsea 04-06 had a much more expensive squad than this City team.

In the top 26 of the top transfers feature 10 Chelsea players, 9 United players, 2 Arsenal, 2 Newcastle and 2 City players (Aguero 8th and KDB 26th) and 1 Leeds player.

No player signed by Guardiola for City makes the top 60. Over 10 of the players in the top 60 have been signed by Jose.

Rooney, Rio, Carrick and Saha are the top 4 transfers for the great United team 06-08. They cost 420m in current prices.

Disclaimer: Maybe some City or Arsenal fan has done the calculations in order to put down United and Chelsea. Would be really instructive if someone came up with a sound methodology of calculating the inflation within football in the PL years or at least since the early 2000's.

Actually, the poster IS a City fan. That explains a lot even though it is not clear that the calculations are made by him.

 

[SER19]

I know the spending has been insane but Pep has really changed the entire squad pretty much to build what he felt it was his concept of football. That was not going to happen with Zaba and Sagna as his fullbacks. Let's get real, the only reason there is a debate about Pep's spending is because it has being extremely successful, breaking all sort of records this past season. I truly believe if that was not the case then we would be all laughing at City (well not me particularly, I would be hoping we bring Sampaoli though).

Nice way to tell everybody what they’re thinking. I would argue that the only reason there is debate is that because as the only club with means to remotely challenge in England is united, and as united fans it is easy to attribute criticism of his spending to sour grapes, rather than a genuine interest in the game many of us has followed closely, played, travelled to see and support for our entire lives. The spending is ludicrous and changes the face of football and successful or not is a separate discussion. I’ll tip my hat to their style of football in that discussion

 

[SER19]

Would be interesting to see more numbers in this thread and genuine discussion.

How much have City spent in the last 5 years compared to the other top English clubs and compared to the top clubs back in 2000's if transfer fees are adjusted for inflation in football? The latter may prove a tricky excercise. But without doing it we have no good basis for comparison.

The only attempt to list the most expensive transfers in England adjusted for inflation within football that I've come across is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/6ph090/the_top_100_pl_transfers_adjusted_for_inflation/

I don't know whether the methodology they use is sound though. The results seem dubious. Rio cost 136m in current fees??

But if they are even remotely right, then Chelsea 04-06 had a much more expensive squad than this City team.

In the top 26 of the top transfers feature 10 Chelsea players, 9 United players, 2 Arsenal, 2 Newcastle and 2 City players (Aguero 8th and KDB 26th) and 1 Leeds player.

No player signed by Guardiola for City makes the top 60. Over 10 of the players in the top 60 have been signed by Jose.

Rooney, Rio, Carrick and Saha are the top 4 transfers for the great United team 06-08. They cost 420m in current prices.

Disclaimer: Maybe some City or Arsenal fan has done the calculations in order to put down United and Chelsea. Would be really instructive if someone came up with a sound methodology of calculating the inflation within football in the PL years or at least since the early 2000's.

A lot of these unverified figures again make the point about individual player costs. To simplify things, I know a lot of people are happy to point to two titles in over 100 years, injection of almost 2 billion of dubious money, three titles in six years and the reduction of the premier league to Ligue 1 competitiveness. City’s bench costs more than most clubs. They have bought their success at the cost of other clubs and there’s no other way to put it in my opinion

These figures also seem ludicrously high for average annual inflation. Even being generous let’s say Ferdinand 80 (most expensive defender ever), Rooney 150 (greater than dembele fee), Saha 40m (was a bargain price and this fee is over estimating) and carrick 60m - almost double what Chelsea paid for a title winning English central midfielder last year. That’s 320m. The figures you have are blatantly wrong. Not having a go at you as they’re not yours but they’re ridiculous . Tack another 100m on to Rooney and you don’t even hit that figure

That metric argues that in today’s market, Shaun wright Phillips would cost over 100m. Let’s get real. City just bought a recent pfa player of the year and title winner for 60m, and one of the brightest most highly rated young wingers in the world for about 40m.

 

[Skills]

Would be interesting to see more numbers in this thread and genuine discussion.

How much have City spent in the last 5 years compared to the other top English clubs and compared to the top clubs back in 2000's if transfer fees are adjusted for inflation in football? The latter may prove a tricky excercise. But without doing it we have no good basis for comparison.

The only attempt to list the most expensive transfers in England adjusted for inflation within football that I've come across is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/6ph090/the_top_100_pl_transfers_adjusted_for_inflation/

I don't know whether the methodology they use is sound though. The results seem dubious. Rio cost 136m in current fees??

But if they are even remotely right, then Chelsea 04-06 had a much more expensive squad than this City team.

In the top 26 of the top transfers feature 10 Chelsea players, 9 United players, 2 Arsenal, 2 Newcastle and 2 City players (Aguero 8th and KDB 26th) and 1 Leeds player.

No player signed by Guardiola for City makes the top 60. Over 10 of the players in the top 60 have been signed by Jose.

Rooney, Rio, Carrick and Saha are the top 4 transfers for the great United team 06-08. They cost 420m in current prices.

Disclaimer: Maybe some City or Arsenal fan has done the calculations in order to put down United and Chelsea. Would be really instructive if someone came up with a sound methodology of calculating the inflation within football in the PL years or at least since the early 2000's.

Actually, the poster IS a City fan. That explains a lot even though it is not clear that the calculations are made by him.

I think with the current money in the league that everyone is throwing around, people sometimes forget how astronomical Chelsea's spending was at the time. They were spending 2-3 times more than the next biggest spending club in the league.

03-04
Chelsea ~ 123m
Man Utd ~ 55m

04-05
Chelsea ~ 90m
Man Utd ~ 30m

05-06
Chelsea ~ 54m
Man Utd ~ 20m


06-07
Chelsea ~ 66m
Man it's ~ 18m

Even relegation contenders are spending 10s of millions now

 

[Mastadon]

You have to say that City have spent their money well. Sterling, Sane, De Bruyne and Jesus combine for less than Pogba and Lukaku. It’s a huge amount of money for sure but it’s a huge job being done and the players signed have mostly proven to be good value for money.

 

[Vault Dweller]

They save a lot of money on wages since most go there for footballing reasons and play for free. This can then be put towards transfer fees.

 

[Skills]

They save a lot of money on wages since most go there for footballing reasons and play for free. This can then be put towards transfer fees.

 

[alpesh]

Hey whats the problem if your Boss has a lot of money why not spend it.

After spending a lot at least Pep is showing titles.

 

[Treble]

A lot of these unverified figures again make the point about individual player costs. To simplify things, I know a lot of people are happy to point to two titles in over 100 years, injection of almost 2 billion of dubious money, three titles in six years and the reduction of the premier league to Ligue 1 competitiveness. City’s bench costs more than most clubs. They have bought their success at the cost of other clubs and there’s no other way to put it in my opinion

These figures also seem ludicrously high for average annual inflation. Even being generous let’s say Ferdinand 80 (most expensive defender ever), Rooney 150 (greater than dembele fee), Saha 40m (was a bargain price and this fee is over estimating) and carrick 60m - almost double what Chelsea paid for a title winning English central midfielder last year. That’s 320m. The figures you have are blatantly wrong. Not having a go at you as they’re not yours but they’re ridiculous . Tack another 100m on to Rooney and you don’t even hit that figure

That metric argues that in today’s market, Shaun wright Phillips would cost over 100m. Let’s get real. City just bought a recent pfa player of the year and title winner for 60m, and one of the brightest most highly rated young wingers in the world for about 40m.

I've no idea how to calculate inflation within football but it is clear that it is significantly higher than the average annual inflation outside football. Still, 136m for Rio seems absurd. Rooney would easily go for 130m in the current market though. He was a bigger name than Barca's Dembele and Coutinho for sure. He was like Mbappe.

 

[roonster09]

Would be interesting to see more numbers in this thread and genuine discussion.

How much have City spent in the last 5 years compared to the other top English clubs and compared to the top clubs back in 2000's if transfer fees are adjusted for inflation in football? The latter may prove a tricky excercise. But without doing it we have no good basis for comparison.

The only attempt to list the most expensive transfers in England adjusted for inflation within football that I've come across is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/6ph090/the_top_100_pl_transfers_adjusted_for_inflation/

I don't know whether the methodology they use is sound though. The results seem dubious. Rio cost 136m in current fees??

But if they are even remotely right, then Chelsea 04-06 had a much more expensive squad than this City team.

In the top 26 of the top transfers feature 10 Chelsea players, 9 United players, 2 Arsenal, 2 Newcastle and 2 City players (Aguero 8th and KDB 26th) and 1 Leeds player.

No player signed by Guardiola for City makes the top 60. Over 10 of the players in the top 60 have been signed by Jose.

Rooney, Rio, Carrick and Saha are the top 4 transfers for the great United team 06-08. They cost 420m in current prices.

Disclaimer: Maybe some City or Arsenal fan has done the calculations in order to put down United and Chelsea. Would be really instructive if someone came up with a sound methodology of calculating the inflation within football in the PL years or at least since the early 2000's.

Actually, the poster IS a City fan. That explains a lot even though it is not clear that the calculations are made by him.

Think the post was from Tomkins website and it's just nonsenes. How is Carrick in that list and not Torres when Carrick was signed for 16-18 Million and Torres for more than 20 million. Also Kuyt was signed in the same season for around same price.

ManUtd signed Nani for 17 million in 2007, Robbie keane was signed in 2009 for 20 plus million, still the player isn't anywhere near Nani in the list.

The list looks like a pile of shit. It's near impossible to calculate football inflation as there are so many factors that decide the price including how much money is in the game or some club paying huge money for a player which makes whole market expensive.

 

[Treble]

Think the post was from Tomkins website and it's just nonsenes. How is Carrick in that list and not Torres when Carrick was signed for 16-18 Million and Torres for more than 20 million. Also Kuyt was signed in the same season for around same price.

ManUtd signed Nani for 17 million in 2007, Robbie keane was signed in 2009 for 20 plus million, still the player isn't anywhere near Nani in the list.

The list looks like a pile of shit. It's near impossible to calculate football inflation as there are so many factors that decide the price including how much money is in the game or some club paying huge money for a player which makes whole market expensive.

Surely, Chelsea, City, PSG (also Madrid and Barca) have seriously distorted the market. You are right that it is very difficult to calculate inflation within football but it is not impossible to come up with reasonable suggestions. That said, the above calculations are probably fabricated and useless (even without the holes you are pointing out).

 

[roonster09]

Surely, Chelsea, City, PSG (also Madrid and Barca) have seriously distorted the market. You are right that it is very difficult to calculate inflation within football but it is not impossible to come up with reasonable suggestions. That said, the above calculations are probably fabricated and useless (even without the holes you are pointing out).

It's done by Liverpool fan, Tomkins. It's from his site.

 

[Treble]

It's done by Liverpool fan, Tomkins. It's from his site.

Rawkish 'methodology' then.

 

[Lawman]

You have to say that City have spent their money well. Sterling, Sane, De Bruyne and Jesus combine for less than Pogba and Lukaku. It’s a huge amount of money for sure but it’s a huge job being done and the players signed have mostly proven to be good value for money.

Mangala and Stones say hello also.

 

[SER19]

I've no idea how to calculate inflation within football but it is clear that it is significantly higher than the average annual inflation outside football. Still, 136m for Rio seems absurd. Rooney would easily go for 130m in the current market though. He was a bigger name than Barca's Dembele and Coutinho for sure. He was like Mbappe.

Yes it would certainly be higher, in line with normal inflation Ferdinand would only be about 45m. Which is obviously unrealistic. In case city have no equal and in no time at all have become the highest spending English side ever. They will break 600m in 2 years this window. There are no comparisons necessary

 

[roonster09]

You have to say that City have spent their money well. Sterling, Sane, De Bruyne and Jesus combine for less than Pogba and Lukaku. It’s a huge amount of money for sure but it’s a huge job being done and the players signed have mostly proven to be good value for money.

It's easy game to play. City Stones and Mangala for more than 90 million and ManUtd signed Pogba for 89 million, I'm sure which player I would rather have in my team.

Also City signed Stones for 50 Million, Comined Madrid defense costed less than that including Keeper.

 

[Pexbo]

It's easy game to play. City Stones and Mangala for more than 90 million and ManUtd signed Pogba for 89 million, I'm sure which player I would rather have in my team.

Also City signed Stones for 50 Million, Comined Madrid defense costed less than that including Keeper.

Indeed. If I threw 20 darts at a dart board, I’m pretty confident I would be able to point at the 4 or 5 darts that hit treble 20 if you’re happy to ignore the ones that went in 1 and 5.

 

[roonster09]

Indeed. If I threw 20 darts at a dart board, I’m pretty confident I would be able to point at the 4 or 5 darts that hit treble 20 if you’re happy to ignore the ones that went in 1 and 5.

Exactly. they have spent shit loads of money on almost all type of players in all price ranges. Easy to cherry pick the best ones and conclude their recruiting is very good.

They have signed players like Nolito, Bravo, Bony, Mangala, Fernando, Jovetic, Negredo, Navas and shit loads to even name.

 

[breakout67]

Exactly. they have spent shit loads of money on almost all type of players in all price ranges. Easy to cherry pick the best ones and conclude their recruiting is very good.

They have signed players like Nolito, Bravo, Bony, Mangala, Fernando, Jovetic, Negredo, Navas and shit loads to even name.

City's scouting is so good and we are so shite

They are still spending £50m+ on new centre backs

 

[Mastadon]

So are you guys trying to say that you think Utd have been better operators in the transfer market than City over the last 5 years?

 

[Problem-free Philosophy]

It's easy game to play. City Stones and Mangala for more than 90 million and ManUtd signed Pogba for 89 million, I'm sure which player I would rather have in my team.

Also City signed Stones for 50 Million, Comined Madrid defense costed less than that including Keeper.

Worth noting that even so, Sterling and De Bruyne were at the top end of fees at the time, Sterling's was a record fee. They've been fortunate to get most of their key players in place before the market went completely mental, not that it's stopped Pep spending another 500m since. They've hardly been bargain buys.

Individual transfers are irrelevant though, the key difference between City and all other English clubs to date is that having spent well (and heavily) and looking far superior to their opposition, they're continuing to spend heavily. That's where it stops becoming a business venture and becomes an oil-backed disgrace which no other club can compete with. Especially annoying as the the media are too busy eulogising Pep and his 'genius' to mention it.

 

[roonster09]

So are you guys trying to say that you think Utd have been better operators in the transfer market than City over the last 5 years?

Did anyone say that?

 

[breakout67]

So are you guys trying to say that you think Utd have been better operators in the transfer market than City over the last 5 years?

A near impossible question to answer unless you get a behind the scenes look. Any answers will be filled with hindsight BS...City's transfers will be seen as a success just because they won things even though theyve had so many transfers that haven't worked out.

If you want to look at how well the clubs prepare their players for top level football then United is light years ahead of City. We bring in a lot of top talent into our academy that make it at the top level, and we contribute a massive amount to the english player base at the top level. You'll generally find a former United academy player in a team that has an english base in the team.

 

[tenpoless]

A club could spend 1 billion for transfers and if They win things (especially in an impressive way) people will still see it as a success. In reality most people don't really care about how much their club spend if They win things (not to mention if their club's owner is a sugar daddy). If the said club spent a lot and won nothing significant however, the same people would moan and complain.

Pep's spending is insane but people will see it as a success regardless. It's not their money, They only know Pep lift a PL trophy by playing good football (even though He bought a lot of good attackers which by logic, should've made it easier for him to play attacking football).

 

[Bearded One]

I think with the current money in the league that everyone is throwing around, people sometimes forget how astronomical Chelsea's spending was at the time. They were spending 2-3 times more than the next biggest spending club in the league.

03-04
Chelsea ~ 123m
Man Utd ~ 55m

04-05
Chelsea ~ 90m
Man Utd ~ 30m

05-06
Chelsea ~ 54m
Man Utd ~ 20m


06-07
Chelsea ~ 66m
Man it's ~ 18m

Even relegation contenders are spending 10s of millions now

I wouldn't begrudge Chelsea at all. They sure spent loads but I think their involvement in his manner was necessary for competitiveness of the league. I'd add that City have also been big big spenders. They were bankrolled and are a nothing club without the huge injection of funds. However I don't think their involvement has been costly for the entire premier league. Maybe one or two top dogs who they exchanged places with but not in a general sense. Afterall we cannot say a Spurs for example were challenging for the title year in year out. If anything their involvement has given the epl an air of competitiveness and increased bucks alongside.

Real Madrid who themselves have histroy of state support spent £190m in transfers a decade ago so I struggle to see how £260m now can be looked at as totally out of order when a figure as high as 100m plus had been done a decade earlier without even looking at inflation.

This is the reality of the market today. Its what it is. One thing is for sure the competition that given he league an appeal you wouldn't see anywhere else and attendant deals and revenues.

The trend will not stop with them and there will be new investors coming to gatecrash and we even have one knocking on our door. I'd certainly welcome them if they were allowed to invest in God's own club.

Edit: didn't realize you are a city fan, sorry if my post came accross as derogatory to your club, @Skills

 

[Revan]

We’ve set PL records that are unlikely to be erased in my lifetime. Many are already conceding next season’s PL to us already (not me BTW). The reason most of us follow Football is to witness whether the favourites (Liverpool or United most years, City and Chelsea more recently) prevail or whether they come unstuck and someone like Leicester comes along and upsets the odds.
Ferguson famously knocked Liverpool off their perch. Pundits consider City almost uncatchable at the moment. Can your current group of players, coaches and execs bring you back to the top of the English game?
Let’s find out and enjoy the ride.

Does this season's title counts twice?

Despite spending more than small countries, you are still nobodies in Europe and you have yet to defend the title. Heck, the other plastics did it immediately, but you have yet to do it.

Come back when you've won 20! Then you can say that you have knocked us off our perch. Since you've became Arabs you have won a single title more than us (and one UCL, one Europa League less).

 

[Adisa]

I think with the current money in the league that everyone is throwing around, people sometimes forget how astronomical Chelsea's spending was at the time. They were spending 2-3 times more than the next biggest spending club in the league.

03-04
Chelsea ~ 123m
Man Utd ~ 55m

04-05
Chelsea ~ 90m
Man Utd ~ 30m

05-06
Chelsea ~ 54m
Man Utd ~ 20m


06-07
Chelsea ~ 66m
Man it's ~ 18m

Even relegation contenders are spending 10s of millions now

This. I don't really get the moaning.

 

[Adisa]

I also don't think they've distorted the market. Their record signing is £57m.
Don't know why people are acting like we've not been in this situation before.

 

[Cascarino]

If you want to speak about burying ones head in the sand then have a conversation with an city fan about this and watch them cling onto to some absurd convoluted notion like a last shred of dignity as if tonconvince themselves they haven’t shattered English football and the chances of 99% of sides ever competing at the top.

A little dramatic mate

I also don't think they've distorted the market. Their record signing is £57m.
Don't know why people are acting like we've not been in this situation before.

Yeah fully agree.

 

[Treble]

Yes it would certainly be higher, in line with normal inflation Ferdinand would only be about 45m. Which is obviously unrealistic. In case city have no equal and in no time at all have become the highest spending English side ever. They will break 600m in 2 years this window. There are no comparisons necessary

Spending should be considered in context if you are interested in a serious discussion and not just in ventilatating your frustration.

Otherwise, scousers are perfecty right to say that United 99 and United 08 were superior/equal to Liverpool in the 70's and 80's or Nottingham 79-80 only because Fergie spent much much more money than their managers. Which he did because transfer fees changed enormously over the next 2 decades. Fergie was a greater manager than theirs not because he spent much more than theirs.

Jose spent 270m in 04-06. That was an incredible sum back in the 2000's given the inflation in football over the next decade. It was relatively much bigger than the sum spent by Guardiola at City. To talk about spending without providing any meaningful context is meaningless (if you are intersted in discussion, that is).

The fantastic part is that Fergie managed to beat Jose in 06/07 despite spending a lot less than Jose did.

 

[SER19]

A little dramatic mate


Yeah fully agree.

We’ll see. These things take time but without a huge change in rules I expect the landscape of football will be completely different in ten years.

 

[SER19]

Spending should be considered in context if you are interested in a serious discussion and not just in ventilatating your frustration.

Otherwise, scousers are perfecty right to say that United 99 and United 08 were superior/equal to Liverpool in the 70's and 80's or Nottingham 79-80 only because Fergie spent much much more money than their managers. Which he did because transfer fees changed enormously over the next 2 decades. Fergie was a greater manager than theirs not because he spent much more than theirs.

Jose spent 270m in 04-06. That was an incredible sum back in the 2000's given the inflation in football over the next decade. It was relatively much bigger than the sum spent by Guardiola at City. To talk about spending without providing any meaningful context is meaningless (if you are intersted in discussion, that is).

The fantastic part is that Fergie managed to beat Jose in 06/07 despite spending a lot less than Jose did.

I’m not under any illusions that city with Gary megson managing would win the league. There is an element of achievement for sure. I think comparing spend from those eras to what city have done especially in the last 2 years is stretching a comparison. Not to mention the obvious fact at least there was something organic about uniteds growth under Ferguson, the man spent 4 years with fans calling for his head and when he retired, he was such a force he was always going to leave a vacuum that opened the door to clubs built similarly. Leicester, Tottenham, Liverpool, and many others would have been fighting for the title and who knows, had something to kick on with. In the end it didn’t matter as city activated football manager mode and obliterated them from competition.

I wish I was a stoke fan so I could express an opinion without it just seeming like sour grapes. City have polluted the game. That’s my opinion, nobody has to agree.

 

[Ian Reus]

There's absolutely no comparison between United's spending and the Arab money.

We maybe bought 1 player every 2 seasons for a higher than average price, but citeh were and still are spending above average across the board on every position including the bench. And they're buying several every season.

And even SAF got outspent by Blackburn and then Newcastle a few times.

 

[Treble]

I’m not under any illusions that city with Gary megson managing would win the league. There is an element of achievement for sure. I think comparing spend from those eras to what city have done especially in the last 2 years is stretching a comparison. Not to mention the obvious fact at least there was something organic about uniteds growth under Ferguson, the man spent 4 years with fans calling for his head and when he retired, he was such a force he was always going to leave a vacuum that opened the door to clubs built similarly. Leicester, Tottenham, Liverpool, and many others would have been fighting for the title and who knows, had something to kick on with. In the end it didn’t matter as city activated football manager mode and obliterated them from competition.

I wish I was a stoke fan so I could express an opinion without it just seeming like sour grapes. City have polluted the game. That’s my opinion, nobody has to agree.

I quite dislike their owners, If I'm honest, but I refrain from discussing them to avoid accusations of rassism or something. Their growth is artificial. I don't think that even City fans will be deluded enough to think that their development was organic. Same was with Chelsea though despite them having a much better basis prior to Abramovich. Russian oligarchs are no better than City's owners in my book.

 

[SER19]

Spending should be considered in context if you are interested in a serious discussion and not just in ventilatating your frustration.

Otherwise, scousers are perfecty right to say that United 99 and United 08 were superior/equal to Liverpool in the 70's and 80's or Nottingham 79-80 only because Fergie spent much much more money than their managers. Which he did because transfer fees changed enormously over the next 2 decades. Fergie was a greater manager than theirs not because he spent much more than theirs.

Jose spent 270m in 04-06. That was an incredible sum back in the 2000's given the inflation in football over the next decade. It was relatively much bigger than the sum spent by Guardiola at City. To talk about spending without providing any meaningful context is meaningless (if you are intersted in discussion, that is).

The fantastic part is that Fergie managed to beat Jose in 06/07 despite spending a lot less than Jose did.

Okay, so In the five seasons leading up to and including the treble winning season window spend from a sample,of teams was as follows

Liverpool 75m
United 90m
Newcastle 130
Blackburn 100m

I’m 4 seasons around united most successful spell ever Liverpool spent about 240 to uniteds 180. That’s gross spend, In that time we also lost Ronaldo so that huge fee has not been deducted and nor did we just replace him by spending a shit load of money

Is that context enough? Or will we just ignore it and pretend united dominated football in the 90s by outspending everybody? Were they outspent by Chelsea hugely leading up to our must successful spell ever? Yes. But let’signore that too so we can be very fair minded and pretend city spending has a comparison. Look at numbers before patronising me again

 

[Treble]

Okay, so In the five seasons leading up to and including the treble winning season window spend from a sample,of teams was as follows

Liverpool 75m
United 90m
Newcastle 130
Blackburn 100m

I’m 4 seasons around united most successful spell ever Liverpool spent about 240 to uniteds 180. That’s gross spend, In that time we also lost Ronaldo so that huge fee has not been deducted and nor did we just replace him by spending a shit load of money

Is that context enough? Or will we just ignore it and pretend united dominated football in the 90s by outspending everybody? Were they outspent by Chelsea hugely leading up to our must successful spell ever? Yes. But let’signore that too so we can be very fair minded and pretend city spending has a comparison. Look at numbers before patronising me again

Unsurpriingly, you missed the point. The comparison was between United 99 and, say, Liverpool 77, not between United 2008 and Liverpool 2008. Because your point in previous posts was based entirely on absolute numbers irrespective of inflation and context.

And yes, Chelsea 04-06 spent more in relative terms than City 16-18. One must be really daft not to grasp it.

 

[Bubz27]

I’m sure someone can work it out. I’m not being that cryptic.

If not, all will be revealed when I sober up

Sober yet

 

[totaalvoetbal]

As an ajax fan I can only laugh when clubs that spend 100+ million every season complain about another club spending 100+ million as well. At this point I never even look at the spending alone, I look at the quality of the signing and how they can help the team progress.

 

[SER19]

Unsurpriingly, you missed the point. The comparison was between United 99 and, say, Liverpool 77, not between United 2008 and Liverpool 2008. Because your point in previous posts was based entirely on absolute numbers irrespective of inflation and context.

And yes, Chelsea 04-06 spent more in relative terms than City 16-18. One must be really daft not to grasp it.

But what person would think fees wouldn’t be different between the 70s and the 90s? That’s absurd. I’ve discussed inflation previously in this thread and am not ignoring it. I’ve made the point that united spending in the nineties was matched or bettered and the range between teams was competitive. That can’t be compared to city nowadays. Their spending relative to other clubs. The same criticisms were levelled at Chelsea only they have a single man in charge who had to reign it in. City have state backing and an unlimited budget and if anything are spending more with no reason they will ever slow down or stop.

I’ll let economists extrapolate Chelsea’s 315m in those years versus city’s 750m in the period you mention. But that’s nothing to do with my point