If we take it back to 11 years (to include Rooney and Rio) then that squad has been completely built on that net spend which is less than half of Chelsea's and City's.

So even if we went really crazy with our spending it would take a good few hundred million with no return to reach yours and Chelsea's spending level..

I don't think any United fans are asking for quite that much spending...

Quit your waffle.

How much did United's present squad cost?

"net spend" there it is again.
Why limit it to the last ten years? Why don't you expand that window to start from the time when you had that cash injection from your floatation? That would put it on par to our "lottery win" expenditure. It would then include all those transfers (some record breaking) such as Veron, Ferdinand, Taibi, Carol Porborsky et al. Finally, in the sense of parity, calculate the inflation of those transfers and see how your spending compare.

It would appreciated that a sense of balance can be injected into your argument. A timeframe of 10 years obviously skews it in your favour.

Irrelevant, 'NET Spend' is all that matters to United fans, and Spurs fans...

I ask a simple question and all I get is accounts-speak jargon about net spend and a history lecture.

yeah let's ignore net spend because it makes City look bad.

Fact is net spend is what you spend to improve the club, Spurs wouldn't have spent all that money if they hadn't sold Bale so obviously you look at the money they bring in through transfers as well as that which you spend.

Manc even taking inflation into account I don't think you realise quite how insane the spending levels of City and Chelsea have been over the last 10 years...

United were never even the biggest spenders in England whereas City and Chelsea are possibly only matched by Real over the last 10 years worldwide!!

Stop being such a 'wordsmith'...

Let's ignore net spend because it's irrelevent.

comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
I ask a simple question and all I get is accounts-speak jargon about net spend and a history lecture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You asked a question about spending and got an answer about spending.....

Yeah I can see why that is confusing...

comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)
posted 49 seconds ago
Let's ignore net spend because it's irrelevent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do realise net spend reflects the actual investment into the squad?

Why don't we just ignore all other figures and concentrate on how much the clubs have spent of left wingers?

Or what figures should we ignore to make Man City look better?

We only focus on net spend because it makes all our expenditure after the sale of Ronaldo ok because we generated the cash ourselves, essentially we haven't even spent any money since then because our net spend total is 0, although we don't really talk about the Ronaldo transfer because it doesn't sit well with us that the Famous Man United lost their prized asset to a 'bigger fish'.

It is confusing, when I asked you to tell me how much you spent you supplied me with a statement from the Bank of England think-tank rather than an actual figure.

I'll try again: How much did you pay for the players that are in your current squad.

Will try again...

"Of course, but thats a completely pointless comment because you have had a title winning squad for two decades and have only needed to add one or two big name big money players to that every couple of years. City on the other hand are trying to turn a club which has been relegation fodder for over two decades into a European powerhouse. You would expect that to cost more, wouldn't you?"

United were never even the biggest spenders in England whereas City and Chelsea are possibly only matched by Real over the last 10 years worldwide!!

=======================================

As Duncan Bannatyne would say: I'm oot.

You cannot have a reasoned debate when someone comes out with gems like this. You were invited to expand the timeframe, but obviously you refuse to. I wonder why.

Grated take the entire Ronaldo figure out of our net spend (even though there isn't any justifiable reason for doing so) and our spending is still a good few hundred million off yours...

So what other figures should be ignored for absolutely no good reason what so ever?

He still doesn't understand, or refuses to understand.

comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 2 minutes ago
Will try again...

"Of course, but thats a completely pointless comment because you have had a title winning squad for two decades and have only needed to add one or two big name big money players to that every couple of years. City on the other hand are trying to turn a club which has been relegation fodder for over two decades into a European powerhouse. You would expect that to cost more, wouldn't you?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If we take it back to 11 years (to include Rooney and Rio) then that squad has been completely built on that net spend which is less than half of Chelsea's and City's.

So even if we went really crazy with our spending it would take a good few hundred million with no return to reach yours and Chelsea's spending level..

I don't think any United fans are asking for quite that much spending...

Manc you seem to be the one suffering confusion, Uniteds spending levels even taking into account inflation were never near the insane levels Chelsea and City have managed in the last 10 years.

United werent even the biggest spenders in England let alone worldwide where City and Chelsea are only matched by Real over the last 10 years...

...whatever lets you sleep at night...

Bring on the mercs

Why would United fans be asking for that much investment when you already have a title winning squad

If you bought a corner shop you'd have to spend a lot more to turn it into a globally recognised brand than if you bough Sainsburys.

You do realise if you extend it to 11 years as I suggested in my reply to you then your actually completely overhauling the squad, we haven't got a single player bought 11 or more years ago still in the team.

We have both bought new teams since, yours costs a few hundred million more, something you have been criticised for. Nobody is suggesting United try and get close to City's spending over these last 11 years though, so the criticism is not hypocritical...

Its pretty basic stuff.

Its pretty basic stuff.

============================

So is expanding the timeline, but I see that it's a bit of a challenge for someone like you.

Its pretty basic stuff.

I asked a very basic question about half an hour ago and still haven't had an answer.

Boris you didn't like the answer because I didn't randomly exclude things which make City look better.

Lets do accounts but lets ignore all the money brought in and just concentrate on what went out because that produces a more meaningful figure



Manc it doesn't matter how far you take the timeline back, as I said City and Chelsea up with Real are the worlds biggest spenders, United never reached that insane level of spending and to suggest we did just makes you look a bit silly.

You haven't got a single player in your team from over 11 years ago? Is Ryan Giggs a figment of my imagination?!

Our spending didn't really start til 2008. So why on earth are you comparing that to a team United have been building for 11 years.