In the space of 10 years the gap between United and City is about 50, the two clubs aren’t even close on the pitch anymore
If you put over a billion into one club and take over a billion out of another that's what happens.
Man Utd have spent 1.4 billion in the past 11 years, the most in Europe Edit - meant highest net spend, a few teams have spent more but generated much higher in player sales
In the space of 10 years the gap between United and City is about 50, the two clubs aren’t even close on the pitch anymore
If you put over a billion into one club and take over a billion out of another that's what happens.
Man Utd have spent 1.4 billion in the past 11 years, the most in Europe Edit - meant highest net spend, a few teams have spent more but generated much higher in player sales
But one of the reasons Man United (well anyone actually) were so successful for so long was they generate much more income than almost anyone else. I bet their budget is relatively (compared to everyone else) smaller than it was 15 years ago.
On the net spend they have been awful at selling players, as bad as they have been at buying them.
In the space of 10 years the gap between United and City is about 50, the two clubs aren’t even close on the pitch anymore
If you put over a billion into one club and take over a billion out of another that's what happens.
Man Utd have spent 1.4 billion in the past 11 years, the most in Europe Edit - meant highest net spend, a few teams have spent more but generated much higher in player sales
But one of the reasons Man United (well anyone actually) were so successful for so long was they generate much more income than almost anyone else. I bet their budget is relatively (compared to everyone else) smaller than it was 15 years ago.
On the net spend they have been awful at selling players, as bad as they have been at buying them.
Of course but whilst the owners are clearly quite controversial and not liked, they still spend over 100 million every summer. City are miles ahead of the likes of Utd purely because they’ve spent it much better
In the space of 10 years the gap between United and City is about 50, the two clubs aren’t even close on the pitch anymore
If you put over a billion into one club and take over a billion out of another that's what happens.
Man Utd have spent 1.4 billion in the past 11 years, the most in Europe Edit - meant highest net spend, a few teams have spent more but generated much higher in player sales
But one of the reasons Man United (well anyone actually) were so successful for so long was they generate much more income than almost anyone else. I bet their budget is relatively (compared to everyone else) smaller than it was 15 years ago.
On the net spend they have been awful at selling players, as bad as they have been at buying them.
Of course but whilst the owners are clearly quite controversial and not liked, they still spend over 100 million every summer. City are miles ahead of the likes of Utd purely because they’ve spent it much better
Because of the miracle Fergy pulled off in winning his last title it glossed over the early lack of investment. Look what Moyes was promised and what he ended up getting.
City, and Liverpool, just have to top up and refresh, United need a Chris Powell style rebuild.
Pogba sums United up, cost a fortune, none of the managers knew what to do with him and leaves on a free, again. Compare to City who effectively paid for Haaland by selling Sterling and Torres.
Notice that Sarmiento is on the bench for Brighton
I think you are being kind there. Their midfield is embarrassing. The right back is absolutely dreadful. They can change as many managers as they like, but if you persist with those 2 jokers in midfield, there is no hope.
I know they've been laughably persisting in chasing de Jong for about 3 months but they really should've moved on and signed someone else weeks ago.
Could've got Bissouma for 30m, make a bid for Ruben Neves?
Even Gilbey would be an upgrade on those 2 clowns……
Ten Hag won't be able to fix things overnight but they badly need a proper defensive midfielder and a striker.
Right back too but the other 2 need to be their priority.
But you, I and anyone who watches Premier League football could have told you in May that United need to strengthen those areas as a priority. Why have we got to August and they still haven’t sorted themselves out despite some big salaries moving off of their wage bill this summer?
Sat by the pool on holiday. Behind the hedge and across the road was a bar showing the game. All I could hear was northerners getting more and more irate as the game went on.
Ten Hag won't be able to fix things overnight but they badly need a proper defensive midfielder and a striker.
Right back too but the other 2 need to be their priority.
But you, I and anyone who watches Premier League football could have told you in May that United need to strengthen those areas as a priority. Why have we got to August and they still haven’t sorted themselves out despite some big salaries moving off of their wage bill this summer?
Yep it's been daft, spent an age chasing De Jong when they should have just let that go, too.
In the space of 10 years the gap between United and City is about 50, the two clubs aren’t even close on the pitch anymore
If you put over a billion into one club and take over a billion out of another that's what happens.
Man Utd have spent 1.4 billion in the past 11 years, the most in Europe Edit - meant highest net spend, a few teams have spent more but generated much higher in player sales
But one of the reasons Man United (well anyone actually) were so successful for so long was they generate much more income than almost anyone else. I bet their budget is relatively (compared to everyone else) smaller than it was 15 years ago.
On the net spend they have been awful at selling players, as bad as they have been at buying them.
Of course but whilst the owners are clearly quite controversial and not liked, they still spend over 100 million every summer. City are miles ahead of the likes of Utd purely because they’ve spent it much better
It's a world away from the likes of us, but in todays market spending 100m every summer isn't that out of the ordinary and certainly not for a club of United's size with their revenue. For the level they want to be at, that's one world class player these days. Players they could really do with, like Kane or Declan Rice would cost even more.
As you say though their issue isn't really how much they spend, it's how badly they spend it. City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs and now probably Arsenal too have spent far better in recent seasons.
In the space of 10 years the gap between United and City is about 50, the two clubs aren’t even close on the pitch anymore
If you put over a billion into one club and take over a billion out of another that's what happens.
Man Utd have spent 1.4 billion in the past 11 years, the most in Europe Edit - meant highest net spend, a few teams have spent more but generated much higher in player sales
But one of the reasons Man United (well anyone actually) were so successful for so long was they generate much more income than almost anyone else. I bet their budget is relatively (compared to everyone else) smaller than it was 15 years ago.
On the net spend they have been awful at selling players, as bad as they have been at buying them.
Of course but whilst the owners are clearly quite controversial and not liked, they still spend over 100 million every summer. City are miles ahead of the likes of Utd purely because they’ve spent it much better
It's a world away from the likes of us, but in todays market spending 100m every summer isn't that out of the ordinary and certainly not for a club of United's size with their revenue. For the level they want to be at, that's one world class player these days. Players they could really do with, like Kane or Declan Rice would cost even more.
As you say though their issue isn't really how much they spend, it's how badly they spend it. City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs and now probably Arsenal too have spent far better in recent seasons.
I agree, it’s not an over the top amount when you consider revenue. But everyone thinks City continue to buy titles but Utd have lost more money in the last decade. I can’t believe how badly it’s been spent, other than Bruno I’m struggling to think of anyone who turned out to be decent business. Wan-Bissaka, Fred and Lindelof cost about 150 between them!
Comments
Edit - meant highest net spend, a few teams have spent more but generated much higher in player sales
On the net spend they have been awful at selling players, as bad as they have been at buying them.
City, and Liverpool, just have to top up and refresh, United need a Chris Powell style rebuild.
Pogba sums United up, cost a fortune, none of the managers knew what to do with him and leaves on a free, again. Compare to City who effectively paid for Haaland by selling Sterling and Torres.
Also clear to a blind man Ronaldo wants out. Why keep him -and pay him £500k a week - when it would be better all round to move him on.
….may have had a few beers…..
Right back too but the other 2 need to be their priority.
As you say though their issue isn't really how much they spend, it's how badly they spend it. City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs and now probably Arsenal too have spent far better in recent seasons.