Well Leicester City are 1 point behind you and being early in the season doesn't mean much. After 19 games we get a better picture if it will be close as we see each team playing each other. You are top of an easy group in CL and relied on some last minute goals to put you there.

There isn't to much to fear in this Man City anymore imo.

Currently 6th place german team, 7th place italian team, 10th place Spanish team in Man City group vs our group of 2nd place Dutch team, 3rd place german team, 1st place Russian team Man City fans know all about from last season 1 point out of 6.

"You have early spent a hell of a lot more than us, what is it, one summer we've outspent you since your takeover, or maybe 2!"

Well of course we have, we didn't have any decent players before the takeover which is why we cost a lot less to buy than you did. We've spent more or less the same in the last five years since we got to the same level as you in terms of the league though.

I'm not sure what you're saying has to do with it tbh if you're talking about before we had a similar starting point as it wouldn't make sense.

I am talking about spending in comparison to success, we have spent a lot less for a lot more success.... that is fairly indisputable.

comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 2 minutes ago
I am talking about spending in comparison to success, we have spent a lot less for a lot more success.... that is fairly indisputable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Care to back that up with figures?

Yes and thats why it cost the glazers so much to buy you. I'm still not sure of the relevance? Isn't the discussion about managers and what they've had at their disposal, not the clubs as businesses?

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-1992-to-date/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-1992-to-date

City Net £741,777,000

United Net £439,860,000

Thought it was quarter of a billion difference, its actually closer to a third of a billion more than us you've spent!!

To be fair, SAF does have a history and a tendency to go off tangent to the topic at hand (a simple scroll throughout this thread will illustrate this).

Yes and thats why it cost the glazers so much to buy you. I'm still not sure of the relevance? Isn't the discussion about managers and what they've had at their disposal, not the clubs as businesses?
.......................................

What the managers have at their disposal is the players the clubs have bought....

Through their transfer spending...

Which was partially funded by sales.

So yes I believe that is what we are talking about.

That's pretty pointless though as it assumes that 20 million 20 years ago is the same as 20 million now. It isn't, it wasn't even 5 years ago.

Either way, I'm still not sure what that has to do with what recent managers have had and that discussion.

Better to compare spending over the last 5/6 years rather than bring in players bought over 20 years ago when you could and did blow everyone else out of the water when it came to transfer fees.

Of course, we could sell our best player for £80m which would make our credit/debit account look a lot prettier. That would be both counter-productive and very stupid though.

There you go again: net spend

The subject went to spending, so I talked about spending...

I realise you City fans love to talk about United spending so much and then get awfully sensitive when people point out you've spent a lot more.... but that doesn't mean I am changing the topic, simply pointing out facts that City fans find inconvenient.

"What the managers have at their disposal is the players the clubs have bought....

Through their transfer spending...

Which was partially funded by sales."

Yes but in this context, why on earth does it matter if they were funded by sales? Who gives a badgers whether it was funded by sales or sponsorship? It's still not relevant to what they have at their disposal.

If you're talking how much it has cost to get them to that position, then your net spend is greater than ours over the last five years which goes back to a point where our squads were very similar in terms of strength and depth (as shown by the table and how close it was that season).

Either way, I'm still not sure what that has to do with what recent managers have had and that discussion.
.........................

What managers have is players.

Players are acquired by buying and selling.

What a club has bought and sold is very much linked with what a manager has, in fact it is probably the most important factor in what a manager has.

Lets not pretend that inflation is going to magically make up the £300,000,000+ difference in City and United's spending. You are smarter than that.

.....................................
There you go again: net spend
....................................

Of course you minus outgoings, I can see why a City fan would like to pretend that its nonsensical, but its the most sensible figure to use as a club selling a player will likely have to replace them.

Hafi, here's a task for you.

Find out who is the longest serving player at both City and United then calculate both the gross and net spend since the time they signed for their respective clubs.

Hop to it.

Yes but in this context, why on earth does it matter if they were funded by sales? Who gives a badgers whether it was funded by sales or sponsorship? It's still not relevant to what they have at their disposal.
........................................

Its the manager at the time improving (or trying to improve) the squad by letting players go for a certain amount which he can put towards a replacement or a few players.

........................................
If you're talking how much it has cost to get them to that position, then your net spend is greater than ours over the last five years which goes back to a point where our squads were very similar in terms of strength and depth (as shown by the table and how close it was that season).
........................................

Well that's nice.... not sure how it means City have spent any less than United. Also I'd disagree, partially SAF's influence was the difference there, I'd also say we probably had more of our important players getting to the ends of their career.

"I realise you City fans love to talk about United spending so much and then get awfully sensitive when people point out you've spent a lot more.... but that doesn't mean I am changing the topic, simply pointing out facts that City fans find inconvenient"

To be fair, I find it more the other way in that United fans brought the spending up when we did it, and now the tables have turned, then different stats are then brought up that either don't say what they think they actually say or take them down their most base simplistic level, so they are pointless anyway.

Net spend can't be used unless it is only over a short period of time unless inflation is then factored in. It also has no relevance of comparing managers unless the starting point of the squads is also known, which is why squad value and wage bill is used instead.

The other thing I would mention is I have no idea how anyone can think that football is an open market so a direct financial comparable can be made anyway. If Stoke had 80m free, they can't just go out and buy Ronaldo.

That's what I find odd and in all honesty do get a bit sensitive with it - how simplistic people that I think really should (and I think do) know better turn into because of partisan loyalties.

Seriously, who cares about net spend? Whether the money comes from sales or the owners pocket, it's still spend isn't it?

comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
Better to compare spending over the last 5/6 years rather than bring in players bought over 20 years ago when you could and did blow everyone else out of the water when it came to transfer fees.

Of course, we could sell our best player for £80m which would make our credit/debit account look a lot prettier. That would be both counter-productive and very stupid though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you are confusing us with you...

United were never the massive spenders ruling over England like City have been in recent years.

In the 90's we were outspent by Newcastle, Chelsea and Liverpool.

In the 00's Liverpool and Chelsea.

This little fantasy that City fans have that they were just like we were in the 90's is nothing more than that, a fantasy.

We never excessively spent like you guys, as your net spend figure shows we are different types of clubs, we achieved success through bringing through youth, great management and a bit of big spending. You guys just spent massively.

"Lets not pretend that inflation is going to magically make up the £300,000,000+ difference in City and United's spending. You are smarter than that."

I'd actually counter that back to say that it is a lot closer than you think if you think it doesn't.

To be fair, I find it more the other way in that United fans brought the spending up when we did it, and now the tables have turned, then different stats are then brought up that either don't say what they think they actually say or take them down their most base simplistic level, so they are pointless anyway.
.....................................

But the tables haven't turned..

We are almost a third of a billion of you in our spending!

There really is no comparison between City and United, yes we are big spenders but you guys are in a completely different league of spending.

A United fan can criticise Cities spending without an ounce of hypocrisy!

.....................................
Net spend can't be used unless it is only over a short period of time unless inflation is then factored in. It also has no relevance of comparing managers unless the starting point of the squads is also known, which is why squad value and wage bill is used instead.
.............................................

As I said previously Melton there is no way inflation will come close to closing that £300,000,000+ figure, you are smart enough to know that.

........................................
That's what I find odd and in all honesty do get a bit sensitive with it - how simplistic people that I think really should (and I think do) know better turn into because of partisan loyalties
........................................

United are big spenders, but any criticism from a City fan regarding this is ridiculous as you guys are far far bigger spenders.

I am more than happy for a West Brom fan to criticise United's big spending ways, I wouldn't counter by pointing out the one or two big buys they have made...

and I wouldn't be surprised if our net spend is as close to West Broms as it is to City's!

I'd actually counter that back to say that it is a lot closer than you think if you think it doesn't.
................................

I'd counter that by pointing out that there wasn't that much of a massive difference in our net spends prior to your takeover.

Obviously we spent more than you but I've heard you actually outspent us for more of the years in the 90's than we did you, also had a decent bit of investment from your previous owner to the current ones.

Lets not pretend City were always paupers prior to the takeover now.

"We never excessively spent like you guys, as your net spend figure shows we are different types of clubs, we achieved success through bringing through youth, great management and a bit of big spending. You guys just spent massively."

We spent massively because of the position we were in when we were bought. If Sheikh Mansour had bought us in the eighties, then it wouldn't have needed the investment that it did.

You were valued at nearly five times the amount that we were when we were taken over. That is why there was massive spending to get to a point of being able to have a comparable. In the past five years, the point where we did finally have a squad that was able to compete with you, then our net spend has been very similar (yours actually slightly worse).

So the real question in that is what caused football to make the discrepancy to be that big that it took that amount of investment in order to be fully competitive at the top and that is where, despite your romanticised notion of prioritising youth (which was actually a reputation that we had in the pre-pl days far more than you), great management and spending, there were far more factors at play that caused the discrepancy between the haves and the have nots to grow.

Firstly, the change in allocation of match day revenue to ensure the away team got less of a cut, meaning the big clubs increased their earning power (not just in terms of transfer spend but wages as well), which immediately created tiers that previously had been mitigated to an extent.

Secondly, again the big five as pioneers, setting up PLCs to circumvent the existing rules at the time and allowing them to increase funds (and profits) significantly through the release of shares , which the clubs that didn't do couldn't compete with as their directors were still employing the not for profit model that football had had in place since its inception.

Thirdly, through the formation of the premier league, the formation of which your own manager at the time did not agree with due to the breakaway it would create for a few clubs at the top.

In all three of those, United were right at the forefront. That to some might be great business, but if you really do have a romanticised view of football, that was the moment that it died.

So what did that leave? A sport where a select few clubs at the top had a huge revenue gap between them and the ones below them. As profits were now allowed to be siphoned out of the clubs and tv deals started going up and up, rich investors started coming in to reap the dividends. Unless there was an incredibly rich local businessman, like Jack Walker, then the best any historically big club could hope for was a cup run at best - a title challenge would be the mainstay of one of the big five that created that situation in the first place.

We are a product of that. Do I like it? No, I detest a lot of things about modern football. Do I feel guilty that we have an owner that is buying us success? No, he's doing exactly what he's entitled to under how football nowadays is governed. Would he be in football if the tv rights hadn't blown up and it got the exposure that it now does? Of course he wouldn't, neither would most owners.

Just on inflation, He's spent two times our annual revenue purely on players since he joined. If he had done that in 1994, then that would have added up to...£20m. And you really don't think inflation has grown that much in football? (Are you comparing it to the RPI inflation...?)

Having said all that, that's football nowadays and if its a choice between all of that or still being a fan, then I'll be the latter. Lets not forget though that United amongst others were the pioneers in creating it.

If we're the monster, then you're Frankenstein.

meltonblue how do Arsenal compete then with low transfer fees.