comment by mancWoohoo (U10676)
posted 4 minutes ago

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

People have been arguing with me since I claimed that Cities spending is a lot more than United's.

If your post gives excuses why City should spend more than United but get to claim their spending is similar, that's great, it doesn't actually counter my original point though.

Which to repeat is, City have spent a lot more than United.

Being crap doesn't suddenly invalidate that.

and Melton never once asked me to do that.....
---------------------

And here is where I will stop.
Talking to SAF is like talking to a four year old.

comment by mancWoohoo (U10676)
posted 58 seconds ago
and Melton never once asked me to do that.....
---------------------

And here is where I will stop.
Talking to SAF is like talking to a four year old.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well thank god for that, there is only so many times I can repeat my point before you have to give up and assume the other person just wants to argue because they can't understand the simplest point. It's like TCP with more words but less brains.

Funny how comparing how many season Utd. have outspent City is meaningless (to you), just because it is actually meaningful to most others.

Utd. have outspent City 15-9 since the inception of the PL.

In 1998/99, Utd. spent £31M to City's £700k

In 2001/02 Utd. spent £60M compared to City's £17M

In 2003/04, Utd. spent £38.5M to City's £11.5M

In 2004/05, Utd. spent £43M to City's £1M.

You've got to look at it season by season and maybe even see the multiples by which Utd. outspent City.

Not "funny" at all U2.

His agenda is clear.

Basically, since the inception of the PL, Utd. had 15 years head start on City in the spending stakes. City are just catching up.

In net spend per season comparison, it's 12-12.

If you want to mention Ince's sale etc. and finally agree to some football inflation, then you'll find that the figures get much closer. I'd hazard a guess that Utd. spend (net or otherwise) will be higher.

No U2, you brainless buffoon!
You have to tot up the whole of the neT spend expenditures from 1993 using transferleague.com, the bible of all transfers records.

Even with spending a quarter of a billion spent, they are still "work in progress", they will need to spend another £300m to be comparable to City!

And you are not comparing like with like. Glazer bought a football club stuffed full of good players who were worth a bundle. HRH Sheikh Mansour bought a football club with titbits for players.

Why don't you just add the purchase price of each club to the figures? Or at least strip out the value of the players bought with the club and add that to the figures?

You've got to try and compare two similar clubs, but you don't want to do that.

comment by mancWoohoo (U10676)
posted 36 seconds ago
No U2, you brainless buffoon!
You have to tot up the whole of the neT spend expenditures from 1993 using transferleague.com, the bible of all transfers records.

Even with spending a quarter of a billion spent, they are still "work in progress", they will need to spend another £300m to be comparable to City!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just realised what an idiot I have been. I must hang my head in shame.

Of course looking at individual years is more meaningless than the overall figure.

As I said a club can easily outspend another whilst being outspent by it for the majority of years.

..............................
Not "funny" at all U2.

His agenda is clear.
..............................

Yeah it is.

Rather than try and hide the overall figures by trying to pick out individual figures like records or ignoring the actual spending and just picking out who outspent who for how many years I want to look at the overall picture.

Probably because I am not a biased supporter of a club that has spent a hell of a lot of money trying to make it look like United's spend, my agenda is accuracy, bias is the reason City fans have a problem with this in regards to spending.

Basically, since the inception of the PL, Utd. had 15 years head start on City in the spending stakes. City are just catching up.

In net spend per season comparison, it's 12-12.
..............................

Not sure it quite works like that, Chelsea have somewhat spent in cycles since Roman arrived, if I could find a much smaller spending club that had happened to have a similar years outspending each other to Chelsea would that somehow mean Chelsea spent less?

Or would that mean the smaller spenders somehow spent more?

In all honesty It feels like you are all scurrying around picking up on any random angle you can whilst ignoring the obvious fact, I said City have spent a lot more than United, this is true however we dress it up.

Who has broken the transfer record pay ceiling record more out of the two clubs saf?

United or city?

Who's got the highest paid player?

Last season United had the most expensive squad and highest wage bill did they not?

Saf has had a mare here.

comment by mancWoohoo (U10676)
posted 44 minutes ago
No U2, you brainless buffoon!
You have to tot up the whole of the neT spend expenditures from 1993 using transferleague.com, the bible of all transfers records.

Even with spending a quarter of a billion spent, they are still "work in progress", they will need to spend another £300m to be comparable to City!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well it does kind of make sense to say there is a bit of a difference in the spending of clubs that have a 1/3 of a billion difference in spending.

For reference our net spend is actually closer to Sunderland's, Tottenham's and Aston Villa's than it is City's!

Of course you wouldn't compare their spending to United's because of the huge difference, those biases coming into play again

Who has broken the transfer record pay ceiling record more out of the two clubs saf?
..............................

Ahh right we are going for this one again, yes lets ignore the overall figure and most expensive wins because that's a great way to figure out who spent more right?

Well not actually it isn't...

United have broken a lot more times than City and Chelsea, both of whom have spent a lot more than United.

To give an example, if one club buys one £80M player but another club buys two £50M players then the latter club has actually spent more money, despite the fact the first lower spending club holds the record. Maths is crazy like that....

...............................
Who's got the highest paid player?
.............................

Well I know City have the higher wage budget...

See the crazy maths above to see why that would be a more relevant figure.

..............................
Last season United had the most expensive squad and highest wage bill did they not?
.........................

And this season City hold the meaningless most expensive squad award, wonder why City fans were so determined to concentrate on that rather than the spending

Thought it was you with the wages last year as well TBH.

Man Utd net spend was £4m from 1986 to 1998. Back then Newcastle Utd Man City Liverpool Arsenal etc were considerably outspending us. Man Utd when they broke these transfer records net spend was virtually nothing.

LQ that was based on Moyes 2013/14 squad. Our wage bill was lower for 2014/15 season.

It doesn't matter who's squad it was based on.

And it was united with wages last year as well.

LQ thats why Moyes got sacked highest wage bill to finish 7th.

The point is what we spent to get to the same level as you was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The last five years has relevance because then you are comparing apples with apples.

Likewise, the inflation point is completely disproven when you actually look at the inflation rate in football.

Also, we don't have the higher wage bill, you do.

And I wouldn't compare any clubs net spend unless they had the same starting point as it is utterly idiotic as, as I keep saying, football is not an open market. Tottenham or Villa could never improve as much as United could by spending the same amount of money. They would have to spend significantly more. Putting open market principles to it is so stupidly simplistic that there's very little point considering it.

Your success happened at the exact right time with the boon in football which had a huge impact on your net spend as your existing assets grew when football inflation was at its highest as well.

Utterly idiotic, you mean saf!

meltonblue most of our success was based on the class of 92, not spending. Thats why so many teams outspend us during our early period of success.