Printable View
Let's look at the top ten most expensive buys, to August 2006.
http://www.footballeconomy.com/stats...urnover_07.htm
Seems to me that manutd spend just as much as they do.
Could it be that, for years manutd were buying it. Then when someone else comes along and does it they complain that team has "just bought the title."
Shirley Knott.
pot calling the kettle black i say.
Either way spending mega money on players does not guarantee anything. Shall i bring up the bog standard defense of our spending by pointing at real madrid. they have spent a fortune
zinadine zidane £47 million
luis figo £38.7 million
david beckham £23 million
real ronaldo £25 million
and have payed their players huge sums and have won nothing in the last few years.
How much do they pay Jose Mourinho?
Most ManU fans have always talked crap which is the main reason that they are so disliked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
I don't care for their, "everyone hates us because we're successful and they're just jealous," bullshit. I wanted them to lose all the time when they were relegated and did all through the 90s. Nothing's changed here.
I'm a United fan and proud of it.
Not enough IMO; I think he's a great manager.Quote:
Originally Posted by DorisInsinuate
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4play
To be fair they also have a turnover around that of manutd and chelski put together tho'. They also run at a profit, or at least did so in 03/04 and 04/05. During the same period you chaps lost £200,000,000
You're not even in their league.
Chelsea have spent much more than Man Utd since they got the rich chairman, but that's not the be all and end all of what buying the title is all about.
No-one has ever really accused Man Utd of buying the title for a very good reason - their outstanding youth policy. There simply isn't another club in the world capable of producing, and keeping, talent on the scale that Man United does.
I mean, look at Chelsea's youth policy ... oh, wait. I'm asking the impossible.
I agree with the youth policy thing, from many moons ago.
Who has come thro' it over say the last 5 years.
True question, I have no idea.
Newcastle's youth > man utd
fact.:snooty:
NUFC are ripe for the picking. There's the makings of a top team / club there if it was in the right hands.
Doesn't Steven Taylor come from the Newcastle youth setup?Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
Ja, they used to come down to my school with vans and grab kids and make them play for them. Same with the England schoolboys team.
edit: the mackems and the smoggies do the same too
More than half of Man Utd's current first team squad have come thro' the youth team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
I reckon it's been the same over the last five years.
Clevar answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by mankerMore than half of Man Utd's current first team squad have come thro' the youth team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
I reckon it's been the same over the last five years.
How many who actually play, on the park.
I can think of Scholes and Giggs off the top of my head. Neither of whom came through in the last 5 years.
Are you trying to point out that their youth policy of late hasn't produced players as talented as back in the halcyon days when Giggs, Scholes, the Nevilles, Butt and Beckham broke thro' into the first eleven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP FugleyClevar answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
How many who actually play, on the park.
I can think of Scholes and Giggs off the top of my head. Neither of whom came through in the last 5 years.
I think the whole world agrees with you. That was a once in a lifetime thing.
The players that have been produced in the last five years, blokes like Darren Fletcher, John O'Shea, Keiron Richardson, Guiseppe Rossi and Chris Eagles, aren't in the same class and altho' they get games and represent their country on a regular basis, they're fringe players for United at best.
Of course, five years is too small a period to guage the success a youth policy because the club can reap benefits from a single player for up to fifteen years.
The other point to make is that buying an established world star is not something that United do that often, sure there has been some over the years but as a rule their policy is usually to take a talented young player and turn him into a world star. Chelsea's approach is in stark contrast to this - they usually buy an established star, like Ballack, Shevchenko, Carvalho, Essien, Drogba etc augmented with the occasional emerging player like Obi or Kalou.
Both models obviously have their merits and both have proved successful - but I would rather the club I support do it United's way.
It really is quite the coincidence that I support them :o
Ferdinand, Rooney, Veron, Nistelroy, Carrick.
5 of the top 10 most expensive players in England. Evar. Neither Arsenal or Liverpool have any in the same list.
Your youth policy argument is sweet, however the bottom line is that you aren't producing players for your own first team. One or two who get a place on the subs bench, yes. However your policy of buying has changed substantially. As has your willingness to pay mental wages (I'm just guessing that bit).
I think the half billion debt might have fundamentally changed the club in more ways than one.
The bottom line is that you used to get away with bringing the youth thro' because Arsenal was the only competition, so your own youth were good enough. Now you have to compete in the buying market as well.
You know it's true.
Nah, you've got it all wrong. Even the time-line cos every one of the the 5 of the 10 most expensive buys, save Carrick, happened before the Glazier take-over. I really can't see your point with the debt changing the policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
The youth policy hasn't changed in the slightest - it's just that the players that are being produced aren't quite good enough to be first team regulars. It happens like that sometimes but the number of scouts, staff and the youngsters being recruited are just as numerous as ever -- also, United can't compete with Chelsea in the transfer market and cut their cloth accordingly.
Carrick, Evra and Vidic rather than Essien, Ballack and A. Cole. Chelsea's financial power has, if anything, pushed United into buying players with potential rather than buying established internationals on a more regular basis. Which they did more of in the pre-chelski era.
That bottom line remark you made is quite funny. We 'got away with' bringing Giggs, Scholes and Beckham et al thro' because Arsenal was the only competition. Never mind the fact that that they are outstanding players and were complimented by British record transfer singnings.
:lol:
Giggs is a diver.
I was grandstanding :snooty:
You, non. :OQuote:
Originally Posted by manker
Yes indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP FugleyYou, non. :OQuote:
Originally Posted by manker
Most of the time I simply want to enlighten a single soul as to their cuntery.
Not on this occasion, nosireebob.
I'm only proud to have provided the platform.
You're like the hopeful Vidic punt to my sublime Larsson finish -- and long may it continue :cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Some of us use claymores and others use rapiers.
C'est la guerre.