ManU In Decline?

[MrRed]

Do we have a Liverpool in decline thread?

[HeavyDrinker]

Don't need one.....that happened before the internet was invented...

Edited May 21, 2013 by HeavyDrinker

[MrRed]

Very true Heavydrinker that reminds me i think i will go on the piss today and celebrate winning another Championship

Beware!

[mrbojangles]

Barca 39 trophies since '86.

Also Man U's haul include 4 league cup wins which they don't have in Spain.

42 actually, still more than Fergie, who for a good time were splashing the cash more than anyone in England could afford

Some interesting facts from BBC's Match of the Day last Sunday.

During SAF's twenty six years he spent a total of £531,150,000 on transfers.

But he recouped £317,740,000 from sales.

Leaving a net spend of £213,410,000 over those twenty six years.

That means SAF actually spent an average of just £8,374,615.38 per year, not even the price of an average squad player.

And his collection of thirty eight trophy's over that period of time means each trophy cost a mere £220,384.61...............or less than one weeks wages that RVP earns.

How much has man C's three trophy's cost their sugar daddy?????????????????

Abramovich's return has been a little better with thirteen trophy's...........but at what cost????????????

I bought an house 26 years ago for 13,000 pounds and just like your post, that has absolutely nothing to do with todays costs.

[petermik]

Sir Alex Ferguson has retired,thank you Sir for 26 years of history and 38 trophies to this great club,may your retirement be long and pleasant-to Mr Bojangles and the other "blue moaners" out there City have tried 15-yes 15 managers in this time to try and emulate what he has done-what a club,what a board and bunch of supporters City have-CLUELESS is the word that springs to mind

And in that time, Barcelona had 14 managers, and won a sh!t load more than red nose.

So what point are you trying to make, numb nuts?

"numb" is the apt description to yourself-my statement is accurate and factual,but then again those members who are educationally challenged (thick) then I guess it may seem difficult to understand-maybe picture books are better for you

[carmine]

Sir Alex Ferguson has retired,thank you Sir for 26 years of history and 38 trophies to this great club,may your retirement be long and pleasant-to Mr Bojangles and the other "blue moaners" out there City have tried 15-yes 15 managers in this time to try and emulate what he has done-what a club,what a board and bunch of supporters City have-CLUELESS is the word that springs to mind

And in that time, Barcelona had 14 managers, and won a sh!t load more than red nose.

So what point are you trying to make, numb nuts?

"numb" is the apt description to yourself-my statement is accurate and factual,but then again those members who are educationally challenged (thick) then I guess it may seem difficult to understand-maybe picture books are better for you

Yes but Barca had 14 managers and won a sh1t load more. Do you agree with that statement? Or is there something about it that isn't entirely correct, Peter?

[sumrit]

Barca 39 trophies since '86.

Also Man U's haul include 4 league cup wins which they don't have in Spain.

42 actually, still more than Fergie, who for a good time were splashing the cash more than anyone in England could afford

Some interesting facts from BBC's Match of the Day last Sunday.

During SAF's twenty six years he spent a total of £531,150,000 on transfers.

But he recouped £317,740,000 from sales.

Leaving a net spend of £213,410,000 over those twenty six years.

That means SAF actually spent an average of just £8,374,615.38 per year, not even the price of an average squad player.

And his collection of thirty eight trophy's over that period of time means each trophy cost a mere £220,384.61...............or less than one weeks wages that RVP earns.

How much has man C's three trophy's cost their sugar daddy?????????????????

Abramovich's return has been a little better with thirteen trophy's...........but at what cost????????????

I bought an house 26 years ago for 13,000 pounds and just like your post, that has absolutely nothing to do with todays costs.

Congrats at the price of your house MrBoj. Maggie Thatcher changed the tax relief the following year and house prices quadrupled, almost overnight .

Anyway back to the point of my post. Your sugar daddy has spent more in the last three years than SAF did in twenty six. If you look at the total spend for Man C over the the full twenty six years it's far more than Man U have spent. And for what.......................one............two............three trophy's

I think the best advise you could give Man C MrBoj is buy some houses.................................AND LEAVE THE TROPHY WINNING TO US EXPERTS

[mrbojangles]

I bought an house 26 years ago for 13,000 pounds and just like your post, that has absolutely nothing to do with todays costs.

Congrats at the price of your house MrBoj. Maggie Thatcher changed the tax relief the following year and house prices quadrupled, almost overnight .

Anyway back to the point of my post. Your sugar daddy has spent more in the last three years than SAF did in twenty six. If you look at the total spend for Man C over the the full twenty six years it's far more than Man U have spent.

Yes, I know our owner has spent more. But as you are not taking into account inflation, those figures don't mean a thing. Or are you saying a million quid 26 years ago is worth the same in value as it is today?

Oh and I made a bundle on houses during that time and it actually started me off in the buying to rent or buy to renovate business. Good days they were.

[sumrit]

Just to clarify Man U and Man C's transfer spending a little. I've lost my old link on club by club transfers so the one I've used only covers the premiership years and goes back to 1992, not 1986.

These are all net spends.

From 1992 to date Man U have spent £213,410,000 while city have spent £481,627,000. A difference of £268,217,000

From 1992 to 2010, the year before City's FA Cup win, United spent £125,610,000 while City spent £303,377,000. A difference of £177,767,000.

So, at a cost of £90,450,000 for the last three years, you could say Man C's three trophy's cost a mere £30,150,000 each, just £29,929,000 more than each of Man U's have'

Of course United's 2010 figure includes the Ronaldo money from 2010 so not wanting to use 'massaged figures':

From 1992 to 2009 United spent £190,110,000 while City spent £204,377,000.

A difference of £14,267,000, and of course not one single trophy to show for spending £14M+ more than the experts

Edited May 21, 2013 by sumrit

[mrbojangles]

Of course United's 2010 figure includes the Ronaldo money from 2010 so not wanting to use 'massaged figures':

The whole post is massaged.

We've been through this several times on here and over the years you have been buying top players when others couldn't afford it. In the main, nowadays you are just tweaking but we had to almost build a brand new team and we won't spend like that again. It was catch up time. To help you not to massage the figures, why not look into money spent before our new owners came in. No, of course you won't because that won't paint the picture you want inside your head.

[sumrit]

Of course United's 2010 figure includes the Ronaldo money from 2010 so not wanting to use 'massaged figures':

The whole post is massaged.

We've been through this several times on here and over the years you have been buying top players when others couldn't afford it. In the main, nowadays you are just tweaking but we had to almost build a brand new team and we won't spend like that again. It was catch up time. To help you not to massage the figures,

MrBoj, SAF spent some four years taking Man U from a mediocre side to winning a trophy.

Then from 1992 until 2009, for seventeen years, Man C spent over £14M more than Man U.

During that time SAF built THREE different sides, All of which were the most successful in the EPL.

During that period Man C spent more money and couldn't build ONE successful team to win one single trophy, not even a 'one season wonder' team.

Firstly, with more resources available to them than Man U, City failed completely for seventeen years, then when you add the way your sugar daddy has spent his money since then I don't think you are the right person to be talking about massaged figures or posts.

why not look into money spent before our new owners came in. No, of course you won't because that won't paint the picture you want inside your head.

Erm, MrBoj, look at post number 1239 (it's the one above yours). That does look at the money spent by both clubs before your new owners came.

You spent over £14M MORE THAN MAN U during that time

For three seasons, from 2004/5 to 06/7, somebody must have decided Man C needed to balance their books and they had a net surplus on transfers of £21,250,000. Perhaps you'd like to just use the figures and forget the other fourteen years of very expensive failure...................Oh, you can't, you still didn't win anything then either did you

Edited May 21, 2013 by sumrit

[jellydog]

Of course United's 2010 figure includes the Ronaldo money from 2010 so not wanting to use 'massaged figures':

The whole post is massaged.

We've been through this several times on here and over the years you have been buying top players when others couldn't afford it. In the main, nowadays you are just tweaking but we had to almost build a brand new team and we won't spend like that again. It was catch up time. To help you not to massage the figures,

MrBoj, SAF spent some four years taking Man U from a mediocre side to winning a trophy.

Then from 1992 until 2009, for seventeen years, Man C spent over £14M more than Man U.

During that time SAF built THREE different sides, All of which were the most successful in the EPL.

During that period Man C spent more money and couldn't build ONE successful team to win one single trophy, not even a 'one season wonder' team.

Firstly, with more resources available to them than Man U, City failed completely for seventeen years, then when you add the way your sugar daddy has spent his money since then I don't think you are the right person to be talking about massaged figures or posts.

why not look into money spent before our new owners came in. No, of course you won't because that won't paint the picture you want inside your head.

Erm, MrBoj, look at post number 1239 (it's the one above yours). That does look at the money spent by both clubs before your new owners came.

You spent over £14M MORE THAN MAN U during that time

For three seasons, from 2004/5 to 06/7, somebody must have decided Man C needed to balance their books and they had a net surplus on transfers of £21,250,000. Perhaps you'd like to just use the figures and forget the other fourteen years of very expensive failure...................Oh, you can't, you still didn't win anything then either did you

Who gives a shit.

[nev]

This topic makes me laugh every year all the abu's tip uniteds decline, well it has not happened and it will not be happening anytime soon, fergie has left the club in great shape, and we are premier league and u21 champions first time ever a cklub has done that, the future is bright in my eyes, just the ones who have been waiting for fergie to die or retire think it is a long downward slope for united now, cannot see that happening in fact i think we will be stronger next season and our main challengers will be chelsea not city.

[mrbojangles]

The whole post is massaged.

We've been through this several times on here and over the years you have been buying top players when others couldn't afford it. In the main, nowadays you are just tweaking but we had to almost build a brand new team and we won't spend like that again. It was catch up time. To help you not to massage the figures,

MrB.

> why not look into money spent before our new owners came in. No, of course you won't because that won't paint the picture you want inside your head.

Erm, MrBoj, look at post number 1239 (it's the one above yours). That does look at the money spent by both clubs before your new owners came.

You spent over £14M MORE THAN MAN U during that time

No it doesn't. Our new owners took over in 2008 and that is when the dosh started being spent. You have conveniently used figures from 1992 to 2010. An 18 year span is a strange time scale to use unless it is to suit your own massaging and using the excuse that is the Prem is again for your own convenience.

But you still don't get it do you. Googling how many pounds a club has spent doesn't give the full picture and shows a lack of research. As I said above, for starters you haven't taken into account inflation. Until you come up with a more sensible post, I'm ending my conversation on this one.

[JacknDanny]

The whole post is massaged.

We've been through this several times on here and over the years you have been buying top players when others couldn't afford it. In the main, nowadays you are just tweaking but we had to almost build a brand new team and we won't spend like that again. It was catch up time. To help you not to massage the figures,

MrB.

> why not look into money spent before our new owners came in. No, of course you won't because that won't paint the picture you want inside your

head.

Erm, MrBoj, look at post number 1239 (it's the one above yours). That does look at the money spent by both clubs before your new owners came.

You spent over £14M MORE THAN MAN U during that time

No it doesn't. Our new owners took over in 2008 and that is when the dosh started being spent. You have conveniently used figures from 1992 to 2010. An 18 year span is a strange time scale to use unless it is to suit your own massaging and using the excuse that is the Prem is again for your own convenience.

But you still don't get it do you. Googling how many pounds a club has spent doesn't give the full picture and shows a lack of research. As I said above, for starters you haven't taken into account inflation. Until you come up with a more sensible post, I'm ending my conversation on this one.

Its all <deleted>, but these rags are either too daft to understand or conveniently forget.

Lets go back to the 90s, when we didnt have a pot to p!ss in, and very few clubs could spend what United did either on transfers or wages

1993, Citys biggest buy David Rocastle at 2 million. United.... Roy Keane at 3.75 million.

1994 Citys biggest buy Ray Kelly at 30,000. United...... Andy Cole at 7 Million

1995 Citys biggest buy Georgi Kinkladze at 2 Million. United...... Karel Poborsky at 3.5 million

1996 Citys biggest buy Kevin Horlock at 1.25 million. United..........Teddy Sherringham at 3.5 million

1997 Citys biggest buy Lee Bradbury at 3 million. United...... Henning Berg at 5 million

1998 Citys biggest buy Terry Cooke at 1 million. United...... Dwight Yorke at 12.6 MILL AND Jaap Stam at 10.75 MILIION

1999Citys biggest buy Alfe Inge Haaaland at 2.5 million. United.... Fabian Bartez at 7.8 million (and in same season Massimo Taibi at 4.5 million )

2000 Citys biggest buy Paulo Wanchoppe at 3.65 million. United didnt buy anybody

2001 Citys biggest buy Nicolas Anelka at 13 million. United.......Juan Veron at 28 Million AND Nistelroy at 19 Million

2002 Citys biggest buy Robbie Fowler at 6 million. United.......Rio Ferdinand 27.5 million

2003 Citys biggest buy Claudio Reyna at 2 million. United..... Ronaldo 12,2 million/ Louis Saha 12,8 million

2004 Citys biggest buy Danny Mills on a FREE. United...... Wayne Rooney 27 million

2005 Citys biggest buy Georgious Samaras at 6 million. United..... Vidic 7 million/Evra 5.5 million

2006 Citys biggest buy Andreas Isaaksson 2 million. United ..... Michael Carrick 18.75 million

2007 Citys biggest buy Elano/ Bianchi/Corluka at 8 million apiece. United.... Hargreaves 17 mill/Anderson 15 mill/Nani 13,5 mill

Then as Mr BJ says, we started getting money pumped into us and we spent like mad, in order to try to close the gap on United who had been able to spend the millions on players that neither us or most other teams could anywhere near afford.

I accept we are very lucky and that we are now able to buy and pay players that most other teams can only dream of. I do not belittle other teams because of that as we were in the same position a few years ago. But when the Rags come on here and cannot see the wood for the trees and are in permanent denial about their past riches. Its kind of funny!!

But hey, maybe I am wrong, maybe United have never spent big, maybe other teams were spending 20 and 30 millions 10 yrs ago. Maybe Uniteds success is down to them NOT spending and concentrating on bringing through youth

[sumrit]

.

But you still don't get it do you. Googling how many pounds a club has spent doesn't give the full picture and shows a lack of research. As I said above, for starters you haven't taken into account inflation. Until you come up with a more sensible post, I'm ending my conversation on this one.

OK try this. I hope you'll accept that when comparing year on year figures between the two clubs in this way inflation doesn't come into it. It's how you use the money that counts.

Figures for the whole of the EPL years of the 90's (these are net transfer spends for each year and negative figures in red show a transfer profit for those years)

MAN U MAN C

1992/3 £215,000 £2,750,000

1993/4 £2,850,000 £5,750,000

1994/5 £-3,980,000 £-2,220,000

1995/6 £2,900,000 £3,590,000

1996/7 £500,000 £950,000

1997/8 £-2,525,000 £1,250,000

1998/9 £25,950,000 £-498,000

I hope you will now accept that for the first six years of the ELP Man C outspent Man U EACH AND EVERY YEAR.

In those first six years SAF's average year on year spend on new players was just £4.88M while Man C averaged £5.47M

For the last year of that decade everything changed. For the first time SAF spent heavily and didn't sell players. And it paid off because we won the treble. And of course, even though we spent a lot of money that year, it was all our money. We'd earn't every single penny. Not a single sugar daddy in sight.

During this period we also spent our own money transforming Old Trafford into one of the finest stadiums in Europe. We didn't ask for a council house.

During those first seven years of the EPL in the ninties Man U won five league titles, three FA cups, four FA Charity Shields and of course the Champions league.

Meanwhile Man City won??????????????????????????????????????????????

Some might not be able to relate these figures to today's prices so, if it helps, Roy Keane cost £3.75M in '93/4 and Andy Cole cost £7M in '94/5. Paul Ince was sold for £7M, also in '94/5

I'll do the next decade when I've got time in the next day or two.

Edited May 21, 2013 by sumrit

[JacknDanny]

.

But you still don't get it do you. Googling how many pounds a club has spent doesn't give the full picture and shows a lack of research. As I said above, for starters you haven't taken into account inflation. Until you come up with a more sensible post, I'm ending my conversation on this one.

OK try this. I hope you'll accept that when comparing year on year figures between the two clubs in this way inflation doesn't come into it. It's how you use the money that counts.

Figures for the whole of the EPL years of the 90's (these are net transfer spends for each year and negative figures in red show a transfer profit for those years)

MAN U MAN C

1992/3 £215,000 £2,750,000

1993/4 £2,850,000 £5,750,000

1994/5 £-3,980,000 £-2,220,000

1995/6 £2,900,000 £3,590,000

1996/7 £500,000 £950,000

1997/8 £-2,525,000 £1,250,000

1998/9 £25,950,000 £-498,000

I hope you will now accept that for the first six years of the ELP Man C outspent Man U EACH AND EVERY YEAR.

In those first six years SAF's average year on year spend on new players was just £4.88M while Man C averaged £5.47M

For the last year of that decade everything changed. For the first time SAF spent heavily and didn't sell players. And it paid off because we won the treble. And of course, even though we spent a lot of money that year, it was all our money. We'd earn't every single penny. Not a single sugar daddy in sight.

During this period we also spent our own money transforming Old Trafford into one of the finest stadiums in Europe. We didn't ask for a council house.

During those first seven years of the EPL in the ninties Man U won five league titles, three FA cups, four FA Charity Shields and of course the Champions league.

Meanwhile Man City won??????????????????????????????????????????????

Some might not be able to relate these figures to today's prices so, if it helps, Roy Keane cost £3.75M in '93/4 and Andy Cole cost £7M in '94/5. Paul Ince was sold for £7M, also in '94/5

I'll do the next decade when I've got time in the next day or two.

I give up trying to explain to you lot. City and most other teams could not afford to spend what you did on INDIVIDUAL players.

Not talking about net spend or any other terms. United were virtually on their own in having the ability to spend 10/20/30 million on individual players. Now that us and Chelsae can match it, all I hear is you lot whinging.

Total hypocrites!!

[MrRed]

Thank <deleted> you are giving up JACK

I was enjoying this thread until the money men got involved.

Who gives a <deleted> it is always about the money i am just glad we have more than most and if you think city will not become hypocritical in years to come well then!

[rixalex]

The issue for me isn't how much a club spends, the issue is has the club generated the money that it spends off its own back, or has it simply been handed it?

If a club generates its money with success (which is what Fergie did because when he arrived at United, he certainly did not have the buying power he was later afforded after he delivered success, and nor was he given the blank cheque book the likes of the Mourinhos or the Mancinis had the luxury of with which to win their titles), and then the club pumps that "success" money back in to strengthening the squad by buying better more expensive players, isn't that reasonable, fair and justified? If hard work and success doesn't come with rewards, what's the point of winning? You'll only end up back at square one.

United has the spending power it does now because it bloody well earned it. City on the other hand...

[sumrit]

.

I give up trying to explain to you lot. City and most other teams could not afford to spend what you did on INDIVIDUAL players.

Not talking about net spend or any other terms. United were virtually on their own in having the ability to spend 10/20/30 million on individual players. Now that us and Chelsae can match it, all I hear is you lot whinging.

Total hypocrites!!

Money spent and recouped by both clubs during the nineties.

As you can see, apart from 94/5 (when I think your only purchase must have been the Accrington Stanley dinner lady) you matched and outspent Man U right up until 1998/9. We bought quality such as Roy Keane and Andy Cole and sold players like Paul Ince to fund some of those purchases.

You might have bought crap with your money but you certainly had at least as much money available for purchases, and you spent it.

So no, we weren't 'out on our own, We didn't have more money available for individual players than other clubs such as Man City did, we just chose to use the same amount of money on buying one or two quality players instead of buying loads of lesser players that your club chose to do. And of course we had the best youth policy in the country which also helped. .

MAN U MAN C

BOUGHT PLAYERS SOLD BOUGHT PLAYERS SOLD

(SPENT) MONEY (RECOUPED) (SPENT) MONEY (RECOUPED)

92/3 £2,300,000 £2,085,000 £3,400,000 £2,750,000

93/4 £3,850,000 £1,000,000 £8,200,000 £2,450,000

94/5 £8,250,000 £12,230,000 £30,000 £2.250,000

95/6 £8,750,000 £5,850,000 £8,750,000 £5,160,000

96/7 £5,000,000 £4,500,000 £4,950,000 £4,000,000

97/8 £6,250,000 £8,675,000 £7,500,000 £6,250,000

98/9 £27,750,000 £1,800,000 £1,480,000 £1,978,000

[smokie36]

The issue for me isn't how much a club spends, the issue is has the club generated the money that it spends off its own back, or has it simply been handed it?

If a club generates its money with success (which is what Fergie did because when he arrived at United, he certainly did not have the buying power he was later afforded after he delivered success, and nor was he given the blank cheque book the likes of the Mourinhos or the Mancinis had the luxury of with which to win their titles), and then the club pumps that "success" money back in to strengthening the squad by buying better more expensive players, isn't that reasonable, fair and justified? If hard work and success doesn't come with rewards, what's the point of winning? You'll only end up back at square one.

United has the spending power it does now because it bloody well earned it. City on the other hand...

This accruing it of your own back thing is nonsense now with European seedings.

Take that away and level the playing field for everyone.

[JacknDanny]

The issue for me isn't how much a club spends, the issue is has the club generated the money that it spends off its own back, or has it simply been handed it?

If a club generates its money with success (which is what Fergie did because when he arrived at United, he certainly did not have the buying power he was later afforded after he delivered success, and nor was he given the blank cheque book the likes of the Mourinhos or the Mancinis had the luxury of with which to win their titles), and then the club pumps that "success" money back in to strengthening the squad by buying better more expensive players, isn't that reasonable, fair and justified? If hard work and success doesn't come with rewards, what's the point of winning? You'll only end up back at square one.

United has the spending power it does now because it bloody well earned it. City on the other hand...

1987 was Fergies first full season.

He finished 11th the season before. His reward for finishing 11th?

He bought Anderson for 250,000, a decent amount for a defender in those days. 850,000 for Brian McClair ( the same month Hoddle was sold for 800,000.... a fair chunk of change), and Steve Bruce for 900,000. United spent more than Spurs, Everton, Arsenal, Chelsea, yes and City who spent a huge 175,000. Only Liverpool spent more than United, and they happened to be the most successful at that time so using your argument they earned their spending power. How did United earn their spending power in 1987?

[HeavyDrinker]

1987 was Fergies first full season.

Don't be a bellend all your life....

[JacknDanny]

1987 was Fergies first full season.

Don't be a bellend all your life....

Either you dont understand my post or you dont know your own history, which makes you the bellend, my friend.

Fergie joined United in November 1986, therefore his first FULL season was the following year 1987, or the 1987-88 season.

You guys are getting as bad as Alfie

[nev]

The issue for me isn't how much a club spends, the issue is has the club generated the money that it spends off its own back, or has it simply been handed it?

If a club generates its money with success (which is what Fergie did because when he arrived at United, he certainly did not have the buying power he was later afforded after he delivered success, and nor was he given the blank cheque book the likes of the Mourinhos or the Mancinis had the luxury of with which to win their titles), and then the club pumps that "success" money back in to strengthening the squad by buying better more expensive players, isn't that reasonable, fair and justified? If hard work and success doesn't come with rewards, what's the point of winning? You'll only end up back at square one.

United has the spending power it does now because it bloody well earned it. City on the other hand...

1987 was Fergies first full season.

He finished 11th the season before. His reward for finishing 11th?

He bought Anderson for 250,000, a decent amount for a defender in those days. 850,000 for Brian McClair ( the same month Hoddle was sold for 800,000.... a fair chunk of change), and Steve Bruce for 900,000. United spent more than Spurs, Everton, Arsenal, Chelsea, yes and City who spent a huge 175,000. Only Liverpool spent more than United, and they happened to be the most successful at that time so using your argument they earned their spending power. How did United earn their spending power in 1987?

Best supported club money generated from inside the club, something city fans can not relate too, you are used to having money handed on a platter, by the way in the 1st 10 years of fergie in charge city was out spending united, and thats why your club ended up in such a bad state.

[sumrit]

. How did United earn their spending power in 1987?

Simple. Spending power comes from income as well as sugar daddies. Even in those far distant days of mediorecy we were the best supported team in the UK.

Company's also recognized the size of our fan base and wanted to be associated with Man U, boosting our advertising revenue as well.

More supporters = more gate receipts +more advertising = more income = more spending power .

Plus an efficient and well run club from top to bottom helps of course.

Edited May 22, 2013 by sumrit

[mjj]

. How did United earn their spending power in 1987?

Simple. Spending power comes from income as well as sugar daddies. Even in those far distant days of mediorecy we were the best supported team in the UK.

Company's also recognized the size of our fan base and wanted to be associated with Man U, boosting our advertising revenue as well.

More supporters = more gate receipts +more advertising = more income = more spending power:wai2: .

Plus an efficient and well run club from top to bottom helps of course.

I agree with that,

But since then the money in football has exploded. Do you think any team could now break into the elite without a sugar daddy? If so, how long do you think it would take?

[sumrit]

. How did United earn their spending power in 1987?

Simple. Spending power comes from income as well as sugar daddies. Even in those far distant days of mediorecy we were the best supported team in the UK.

Company's also recognized the size of our fan base and wanted to be associated with Man U, boosting our advertising revenue as well.

More supporters = more gate receipts +more advertising = more income = more spending power:wai2: .

Plus an efficient and well run club from top to bottom helps of course.

I agree with that,

But since then the money in football has exploded. Do you think any team could now break into the elite without a sugar daddy? If so, how long do you think it would take?

In the present set up I agree it would be very, very difficult, although not impossible. Everton have been close for a few years now and Spurs are almost there. I think Spurs just need to believe in themselves to get those few extra points instead of getting overawed at the 'elite clubs'.

I would like to see a fairer distribution of all revenues that are not generated by the clubs themselves. ie: from the EPL, TV payments, and especially from Europe. But that money shouldn't just be given away, the clubs must still have to earn their share.

The very fact that the elite clubs play in Europe not only means they get UEFA money and EXTRA TV money, they're also guaranteed extra games which means the extra gate money with extra advertising revenue as well.

I don't think it was fair, nor do I want to see a return of the old system, where the home side had to share their gate money with the away side. That just meant the home supporters of better supported clubs were subsidizing the lesser teams and that was wrong.

I think the whole system needs completely overhauling throughout Europe with the all premier league teams from each major country guaranteed European football.

Which is why I was surprised by the general comments on the 'if you were Michel Platini' thread I started. Most people wanted to concentrate on domestic football and have European football, almost, as a side show. Personally I think Europe is the way to go and I'd like to see every EPL club pit their wits against European teams each season, not just the elite.

I thought this up a few years ago as an alternative when the elite European teams were talking about a breakaway Euopean league. Firstly the elite (Man U, Chelsea, etc) are guaranteed 44 games per season, 38 EPL and 6 Champions league group matches. That number should be maintained, but for everybody.

So here's my suggestion. To start, reduce all the major European domestic leagues (EPL, Spain, Germany, France, Italy, etc) to 16 teams. This will give 30 domestic league games per season.

Then instead of just one Champions league competition have four identical ones. Europe 1, 2, 3 and 4

Teams in positions one to four from each domestic league qualify for 'Europe one', teams five to eight go into 'Europe two, 9 to 12 into 'Europe three' and 13, 14 plus two promoted teams into 'Europe four'.

Then, using a similar pre season qualifying competition that's used now, have clubs from the 'minor countries domestic leagues' (eg Scotland) to bring the number of teams in each competition up to 32. Divide these 32 clubs into four leagues of eight for the initial round robin group stage and that will give a guaranteed fourteen more league matches, making forty four guaranteed games in all.

Every club would be guaranteed 44 games.

Every club get experience of playing European football and the different systems used in other countries.

All clubs would benefit from increased gate money, etc. TV and advertising revenue would also be shared between/available to all clubs.

There would still have to be more prize money for the more successful clubs but every club would get a share, not just the elite.

Even the promoted clubs would automatically play in Europe and benefit from that extra revenue and experience.

There would no longer be any 'end of season' meaningless games because even the mid table sides would want to finish as high as possible to get into a higher European group and earn more prize money.

All English players, in all EPL teams, would benefit from playing against different football styles/systems played in other countries. Might even help our National side.

All clubs would gain European experience as they improve, unlike the present system where a team qualifying for the Europa league (as a one off) rarely do well because of that lack of previous experience.

And lastly the all important fans would all see regular European football as well as the EPL.

As I said, judging by the 'Platini' comments, most people seem to want to concentrate domestically and not be more involved in Europe so I'm expecting mostly negative comments on this. But before you slate it just for the sake of it (or because you're an ABU and I'm a Man U supporter) see if you can come up with a better way of distributing all the money in a fairer way than we have today.............but where all clubs will have to earn the money and not just be given it.

After all I'm suggesting something that would take money presently given to Man U and share it among the lesser clubs.

[JacknDanny]

. How did United earn their spending power in 1987?

Simple. Spending power comes from income as well as sugar daddies. Even in those far distant days of mediorecy we were the best supported team in the UK.

Company's also recognized the size of our fan base and wanted to be associated with Man U, boosting our advertising revenue as well.

More supporters = more gate receipts +more advertising = more income = more spending power:wai2: .

Plus an efficient and well run club from top to bottom helps of course.

I agree with that,

But since then the money in football has exploded. Do you think any team could now break into the elite without a sugar daddy? If so, how long do you think it would take?

In the present set up I agree it would be very, very difficult, although not impossible. Everton have been close for a few years now and Spurs are almost there. I think Spurs just need to believe in themselves to get those few extra points instead of getting overawed at the 'elite clubs'.

I would like to see a fairer distribution of all revenues that are not generated by the clubs themselves. ie: from the EPL, TV payments, and especially from Europe. But that money shouldn't just be given away, the clubs must still have to earn their share.

The very fact that the elite clubs play in Europe not only means they get UEFA money and EXTRA TV money, they're also guaranteed extra games which means the extra gate money with extra advertising revenue as well.

I don't think it was fair, nor do I want to see a return of the old system, where the home side had to share their gate money with the away side. That just meant the home supporters of better supported clubs were subsidizing the lesser teams and that was wrong.

I think the whole system needs completely overhauling throughout Europe with the all premier league teams from each major country guaranteed European football.

Which is why I was surprised by the general comments on the 'if you were Michel Platini' thread I started. Most people wanted to concentrate on domestic football and have European football, almost, as a side show. Personally I think Europe is the way to go and I'd like to see every EPL club pit their wits against European teams each season, not just the elite.

I thought this up a few years ago as an alternative when the elite European teams were talking about a breakaway Euopean league. Firstly the elite (Man U, Chelsea, etc) are guaranteed 44 games per season, 38 EPL and 6 Champions league group matches. That number should be maintained, but for everybody.

So here's my suggestion. To start, reduce all the major European domestic leagues (EPL, Spain, Germany, France, Italy, etc) to 16 teams. This will give 30 domestic league games per season.

Then instead of just one Champions league competition have four identical ones. Europe 1, 2, 3 and 4

Teams in positions one to four from each domestic league qualify for 'Europe one', teams five to eight go into 'Europe two, 9 to 12 into 'Europe three' and 13, 14 plus two promoted teams into 'Europe four'.

Then, using a similar pre season qualifying competition that's used now, have clubs from the 'minor countries domestic leagues' (eg Scotland) to bring the number of teams in each competition up to 32. Divide these 32 clubs into four leagues of eight for the initial round robin group stage and that will give a guaranteed fourteen more league matches, making forty four guaranteed games in all.

Every club would be guaranteed 44 games.

Every club get experience of playing European football and the different systems used in other countries.

All clubs would benefit from increased gate money, etc. TV and advertising revenue would also be shared between/available to all clubs.

There would still have to be more prize money for the more successful clubs but every club would get a share, not just the elite.

Even the promoted clubs would automatically play in Europe and benefit from that extra revenue and experience.

There would no longer be any 'end of season' meaningless games because even the mid table sides would want to finish as high as possible to get into a higher European group and earn more prize money.

All English players, in all EPL teams, would benefit from playing against different football styles/systems played in other countries. Might even help our National side.

All clubs would gain European experience as they improve, unlike the present system where a team qualifying for the Europa league (as a one off) rarely do well because of that lack of previous experience.

And lastly the all important fans would all see regular European football as well as the EPL.

As I said, judging by the 'Platini' comments, most people seem to want to concentrate domestically and not be more involved in Europe so I'm expecting mostly negative comments on this. But before you slate it just for the sake of it (or because you're an ABU and I'm a Man U supporter) see if you can come up with a better way of distributing all the money in a fairer way than we have today.............but where all clubs will have to earn the money and not just be given it.

After all I'm suggesting something that would take money presently given to Man U and share it among the lesser clubs.

First of all, you would be penalising 4 'weaker' teams by reducing league to 16, so only top 13 teams would 'benefit' from your idea.

I am sure fans of Villa and Sunderland would rather be going watching their team play the newcastles and Liverpools as opposed to trekking across Europe watching them v Eintrach Frankfurt.

I believe the answer lies with youth policy.

If a club cannot afford the top drawer players, then the emphasis should be put into youth policy.

Problem is that the top clubs come and 'poach' all the better quality promising young uns. They should put a stop to that. Once a youth player is signed up they cannot move until the end of the contract. By that time the clubs effort will have either produced a superstar that they can sell for huge money, or a superstar who wants to play for his home club.

[Mooner]

UTD buy the league? Hmm i guess if spending means trophies somebody should of told some of these teams!

Money spent since the premiership started.

Chelsea £744,440,000 Won Premiership
Man CITY £649,180,000 Won Premiership
Liverpool £552,205,000 Not
Man UTD £483,150,000 Won Premiership
Spurs £412,050,000 Not
Arsenal £341,090,000 Won Premiership
Blackburn£195,462,000 Won Premiership

You may think you know which of the premier league clubs have spent big over the past 5 seasons, but some of the facts and figures may surprise you. Activity in both summer and January transfer windows from 2006-2011 will be taken into account.

Perhaps the most surprising position on this list is that of Manchester United. At number 8, United have the 5th highest gross spending in the league at a huge 217 million GBP's, but have recovered a large proportion of that leaving them with a nett spend over 5 years of 57 million.