They don't, when was the last time they won the title?

Now they've started spending again, they are now competing.

Fancy that...

And by poaching youngsters. Thankfully, we're copying them in that regard nowadays though.

It'll keep the net spend lower in the future, so must be a good thing..

Apologies, in 1994, we were actually valued at £8m.

So our entire club was worth the same as Tyrone Mings is now...

United have broken the PL transfer record 5 times to our once.

They also hold the record for the most expensive teenager and the most expensive goalkeeper.

Why do they continue to harp on about our transfer activity as if they're an exercise in frugality?

the thing is, even with that and everything else I said, it still boils down to over the past five years (at the start of which we were very similar in terms of squads), we've spent similarly and have similar squad values so the reasons that are coming out are the exact same that were discounted when we had Mancini or Pellegrini - then, it was that we should be considering how much they spent.

We spent massively because of the position we were in when we were bought.
...................................

Okay, that doesn't somehow discount the fact you spent massively though or somehow increase United's spending comparatively to yours, whatever the reason City's spending is a hell of a lot higher than United's.

.....................................
You were valued at nearly five times the amount that we were when we were taken over.
...................................

Value of a football club is not spending, we were valued so highly despite not spending as much as some other clubs who weren't as valuable thanks to good management in the main.

.............................................
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).
......................................

Barely anybody has a squad five years in the making, I don't think having a tiny bit more frugal last few years suddenly erases the previous money you spent, again whatever the reason for the extra money you spent.

I'll point out I never claimed City were evil because of their greater spending just the fact of it.

.........................................
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
......................................

This is yours and City's fans excuse, we had to spend this amount to compete, whilst trampling all over the clubs who were trying to slowly build up.

Then I am not sure why you have gone into some of the rest of that, I am not sure what you think I am claiming apart from that City have spent far greater amounts than United, which is pretty much a fact.

As for the developing of the glass ceiling I would say it is the sugar daddy clubs such as you and Chelsea which helped firmly close that door with your overspending.

Also as I've pointed out numerous times in the transfer spending charge during the premiership years it has always been other clubs leading the way, it used to be with United pretty close behind until the massive spenders turned up.

comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 hours, 15 minutes ago
United have broken the PL transfer record 5 times to our once.
.........................................

Yeah why look at the figures overall, just pick out the couple of biggest figures and base it all on that. Remind me never to come to you with any work involving figures.

................................
They also hold the record for the most expensive teenager and the most expensive goalkeeper.
...................................

But you guys hold the record for the most expensive German ginger, most expensive goalkeeper called Hart to do a Head and Shoulders advert and most expensive player who isn't Brazilian called Silva (in the whole world no less)

.................................
Why do they continue to harp on about our transfer activity as if they're an exercise in frugality?
................................

Actually as has been pointed out several times it is City fans who like to harp on about the transfer activity of United as they seem to think there is some kind of equivalency in our spending despite an almost third of a billion difference in it.

When you then point out this huge difference they get sensitive and ask why you are talking about spending, you brought it up (not you personally though)

Saf taking on Melton? Be like a chipmunk having a go at a boa constrictor

Saf is one of those United fans that won't admit anything bad about United but Liverpool city everyone else's transgressions should be pointed out at every opportunity.

He's also one step away from going twitchy and the full stretty.

The point about breaking the transfer record stands "not that any United fan would admit it" also pay ceilings have been broken by United "the first player on over 100 grand a week" you also have the highest paid player in the prem in Rooney and up until a while ago were in total denial about his contract being improved after his first spat with Ferguson.

The fundamental flaws in his argument, amongst many others, are: the clubs' respective starting point before investment; the timeline in which the fruits bear after major investment; the lack of transparency in the true value of sums involved (£30m in 1993 will not be the same as £30m today). All the while, the clubs are assessed at the same end point.
The guy genuinely does not seem to comprehend such a simple concept.

It's different for United it always is.

Who's broke the transfer record more, who's broken the pay ceiling more?

Who has paid the most for a player and who has the highest paid player in the league.

I doubt he would give a straight forward answer to any of those questions.

It's Man U to all by the way

But we are inflating the market.

Forget the likes of Madrid and Barca having paid way more than we ever have for a player or a players wage.

Ruining football is city's fault though.

Rio would cost £50M+ today. Veron would have been something similar. You can't just ignore football inflation over the last 15-20 years.

Also, I bet when the Glazer's bought Utd. they had more value in their players. They were worth much much more than City's players when we were taken over.

The Glazers spent a billion (or whatever it was) buying a club with plenty of expensive players. HRH Sheikh Mansour bought a club with shiitty players who were not really worth that much. So why can't he spend 800 million catching up?

U2 don't point out inconvenient truths they won't like it.

Saf is one of those United fans that won't admit anything bad about United but Liverpool city everyone else's transgressions should be pointed out at every opportunity.

He's also one step away from going twitchy and the full stretty.
................................

So in your opinion to be unbiased I should claim City's near third of a billion bigger spend is just like United's?

Yes that makes perfect sense,

Since the PL was formed, how many years have Utd. outspent City?

The point about breaking the transfer record stands
............................

So does my point about the most expensive German ginger.

They are all fairly meaningless though, if one club spends £80M on one player and another club spends £140M on several players the latter club has still spent more even if each individual costs less.

Basically its an attempt to say quick stop looking at the overall picture and lets just look at the extreme end of the scale.... not very informative at all.

I wonder if there is any particular reason City fans would be campaigning against looking at things overall and insisting on looking at small individual areas? Bias is the answer in case you are wondering.

The fundamental flaws in his argument, amongst many others, are: the clubs' respective starting point before investment; the timeline in which the fruits bear after major investment; the lack of transparency in the true value of sums involved
..................................

So basically our spending doesn't count because we were crap?

Notice I never once said City were evil.

I just pointed out they spent a lot more than United, this is a fact.

.........................
The guy genuinely does not seem to comprehend such a simple concept.
.......................

I have been explaining the simple point to you repeatedly, you seem to have problems though.

The PL has been going for what 23 years now? I'd hazard a guess that Utd. have outspent City for at least 16 of those 23 years.

Basically its an attempt to say quick stop looking at the overall picture and lets just look at the extreme end of the scale.... not very informative at all.
=================

Are you serious? This is exactly what Melton has been asking you to do.

Rio would cost £50M+ today. Veron would have been something similar. You can't just ignore football inflation over the last 15-20 years.
.......................................

Then Paul Ince, Andrei Kanchelkis and David Beckham would have also brought us in a lot more money, you just can't ignore the inflation on all our sales as well.

...................................
Also, I bet when the Glazer's bought Utd. they had more value in their players. They were worth much much more than City's players when we were taken over.
.....................................

And this means City have spent similarly to United how exactly?

Maybe I should point out again I am not saying City are evil, I am saying they have spent a lot more than United, which is a fact.

All this reasoning why City somehow deserve to spend more than United whilst claiming their spending is no different to United is entertaining but in no way contradictory to my starting point of City have spent a lot more than United.

........................................
The Glazers spent a billion (or whatever it was) buying a club with plenty of expensive players. HRH Sheikh Mansour bought a club with shiitty players who were not really worth that much. So why can't he spend 800 million catching up?
........................................

So what now somehow the cost of buying United should be added to United's spending in an attempt to claim their spending is the same?!

I will repeat again, I am not saying City are evil, simply that they have spent a lot more than United, which is a fact.

So basically our spending doesn't count because we were crap?
==============

When exactly did I say that? I would argue that it is you that have basic comprehension problems.

Read my post again. Think. Then break a second keyboard.

It's Man U to all by the way

But we are inflating the market.

Forget the likes of Madrid and Barca having paid way more than we ever have for a player or a players wage.

Ruining football is city's fault though.
.........................................

Yes I am incredibly biased for claiming City have spent more despite it being fairly clear.

........................................
Since the PL was formed, how many years have Utd. outspent City?
...................................

I imagine it wouldn't be a massive difference but probably United.

Although a club outspending another for 3 season by £10M then being outspent one season by £50M has still spent £20M less.

.................................
The PL has been going for what 23 years now? I'd hazard a guess that Utd. have outspent City for at least 16 of those 23 years.
.................................

I think it would be closer than that although its a fairly meaningless figure.

Are you serious? This is exactly what Melton has been asking you to do.
..........................................

Looking at the overall picture does not involve ignoring net spend and just looking at the extreme ends of the scale (or record breakers for example)

Anyone who thinks you are going to get an overall picture from just looking at the extremes is quite frankly deluded and Melton never once asked me to do that.