Boris you didn't like the answer because I didn't randomly exclude things which make City look better.
What answer? All you've given me is a load of drivel and you have excluded things like a figure in ££££'s.
I said the word bought grated, unless I am mistaken we did not buy Giggs (we had him for free from you guys right?)
I took it back to 11 years ago to make sure Rooney and Rio were included in Uniteds spending, we can take net spend from 2008 instead if you prefer I just figured 11 years would include all players bought in both sides.
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're grasping at straws I'm afraid.
Either that, or you haven't understood the basic argument everyone has been trying to put through that head of yours.
No it doesn't, Hart and Richards are the only two pre-Sheik players in our squad. How many of yours are pre that?
You're comparing the current United team to a City one built in half the time.
No I'm not Grated, that's why I took it back 11 years it includes all the players bought in both teams. The fact you have had a huge turnover of players is a result of your huge spending ways.
Manc united have never spent to the insane levels City have the last 10 years, it really is that simple...
Binky can't get the figures on my mobile but I can say City's net spend is well over double that of United over the last 10 years, or do you think otherwise?
You keep having that 10 year tic.
No ten years includes all the players in your squad, ours is far less than that.
Net spend doesn't mean you haven't spent anything!
Manc clearly your right even though inflation would nowhere near cover the difference and even though United were miles away from the worlds biggest spenders unlike City now who are one of the worlds biggest...
Clearly despite all this United have spent much more than City and with many more interesting facts still to come from opposite land...
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 30 seconds ago
No ten years includes all the players in your squad, ours is far less than that.
Net spend doesn't mean you haven't spent anything!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but your net spend over the last 10 years shows the money you spent constructing that squad.
Although even if we use different figures from both clubs from 2008 for City and 10 or 11 years for United your net spend still comes out as far bigger than ours...
... aaaaand this is why no one takes you seriously.
Manc I'm sorry but the whole spending thing seems a complete mystery to you (at least Binky makes some kind of sense even if he is trying to ignore half the figures to get a better answer) so your pack of understanding is complimentary...
Bored now. By all means carry on believing United have never spent any money.
Manc I'm sorry but the whole spending thing seems a complete mystery to you
======================================
Sure it is. My butler does all my shopping for me.
Whereas basic English comprehension is obviously a challenge for your good self.
We have spent loads of money!
We just haven't had the insane football spoiling spending levels of the sugar daddy clubs like you and Chelsea.
Suggesting you haven't spent much in comparison to the likes of City and Chelsea just tells you the team doesn't have insane levels of spending, could still quite easily be big spenders like Liverpool and United.
Manc sorry but this subject is clearly far too complicated for you, my apologies.
'insane football spoiling'
Priceless. You are the original modern football club.
I can see now this is pointless with you.
You do realise we spent less in the 90's than Chelsea Liverpool and Newcastle?
We're huge spenders no doubt but Chelsea and Coty really took it to insane levels...
If you don't like the figures then ignore them or don't bring them up.
Why are you apologising?
I fully understand why you would want to twist an argument to suit your own propaganda. Many people do when they cannot see sense to put together a set of balanced inputs to debate. Then and again, I don't think you how the nous to ever do that.
Actually Manc I think you'll find it was Binky who wanted to twist the figures to suit his argument.
I was arguing all the figures should be included, probably cos I'm not a city fan....
Really? How much did your first PL winning squad cost in comparison to those around it?
Fact is only Wenger with The Invincibles has shown you can do it without having one of the most expensive sides.
Yes City have spent more over a period of time, because we needed to. Are we really turning this into a d¡ck measuring contest? If so we all know you'll lose since United to most of their fans are what convertibles and hair pieces are to middle aged men!
Judging by the net spend from around the time less than Liverpool.
Depends what exactly you mean, United had certainly spent far less than Chelsea and City for our last title win, less than half the net spend of both.
Not forgetting the 90's when we were outspent by Newcastle Chelsea and Liverpool.
If we are talking doing it on a budget Arsenal are obviously the best around.
Grated this conversation d
Accidental send.
Grated this conversation did not start because I said City spent more than United.
A city fan accused a United fan of being a hypocrite for asking for some spending.
So I correctly pointed out that it would take 100s of millions to match the level of City and Chelsea that Unted fans had criticised, which united fans were not asking for.... Hence the hypocrisy charge was false. As for the rest of the rubbish you wrote you were starting to sound a little insecure, are you a balding middle aged man with a convertible?
comment by SAF_The_Legend 20 times #SupportMoyes (previously 7_The_Arab) (U5768)
A city fan accused a United fan of being a hypocrite for asking for some spending.
==================================
That would be me. I suggest that you fully comprehend what I wrote before you come up with some propaganda statement which was completely out of context to what I wrote.
Pretty basic really.
To be fair, you seem the type to want the last word. Fill your boots. The floor's yours now.
I thought you were about to say this conversation has died. Which I think it has...
No idea where you pull figures like 'we need to spend about half of Chelsea and City' from. And you still are yet to provide to sum total cost of United's XI.
De Gea 19m
Rafael 2.5m
Vidic 7m
Ferdinand 28m
Evra 5.5m
Young 17m
Carrick 18.5m
Fellani 27.5m
Valencia 16m
RVP 22m
Rooney 27m
190m
Hart 1.5m
Zab 6.5m
VK 6.5m
Nasty 12m
Clichy 7m
Yaya 24m
Fernandinho 30m
Nasri 22m
Silva 25m
Sergio 38m
Negredo 20.5m
193m
Sign in if you want to comment
Are you not a little concerned?
Page 6 of 110
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 8/12/13
Boris you didn't like the answer because I didn't randomly exclude things which make City look better.
What answer? All you've given me is a load of drivel and you have excluded things like a figure in ££££'s.
posted on 8/12/13
I said the word bought grated, unless I am mistaken we did not buy Giggs (we had him for free from you guys right?)
I took it back to 11 years ago to make sure Rooney and Rio were included in Uniteds spending, we can take net spend from 2008 instead if you prefer I just figured 11 years would include all players bought in both sides.
posted on 8/12/13
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're grasping at straws I'm afraid.
Either that, or you haven't understood the basic argument everyone has been trying to put through that head of yours.
posted on 8/12/13
No it doesn't, Hart and Richards are the only two pre-Sheik players in our squad. How many of yours are pre that?
You're comparing the current United team to a City one built in half the time.
posted on 8/12/13
No I'm not Grated, that's why I took it back 11 years it includes all the players bought in both teams. The fact you have had a huge turnover of players is a result of your huge spending ways.
Manc united have never spent to the insane levels City have the last 10 years, it really is that simple...
Binky can't get the figures on my mobile but I can say City's net spend is well over double that of United over the last 10 years, or do you think otherwise?
posted on 8/12/13
You keep having that 10 year tic.
posted on 8/12/13
No ten years includes all the players in your squad, ours is far less than that.
Net spend doesn't mean you haven't spent anything!
posted on 8/12/13
Manc clearly your right even though inflation would nowhere near cover the difference and even though United were miles away from the worlds biggest spenders unlike City now who are one of the worlds biggest...
Clearly despite all this United have spent much more than City and with many more interesting facts still to come from opposite land...
posted on 8/12/13
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 30 seconds ago
No ten years includes all the players in your squad, ours is far less than that.
Net spend doesn't mean you haven't spent anything!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but your net spend over the last 10 years shows the money you spent constructing that squad.
Although even if we use different figures from both clubs from 2008 for City and 10 or 11 years for United your net spend still comes out as far bigger than ours...
posted on 8/12/13
... aaaaand this is why no one takes you seriously.
posted on 8/12/13
Manc I'm sorry but the whole spending thing seems a complete mystery to you (at least Binky makes some kind of sense even if he is trying to ignore half the figures to get a better answer) so your pack of understanding is complimentary...
posted on 8/12/13
Bored now. By all means carry on believing United have never spent any money.
posted on 8/12/13
Manc I'm sorry but the whole spending thing seems a complete mystery to you
======================================
Sure it is. My butler does all my shopping for me.
Whereas basic English comprehension is obviously a challenge for your good self.
posted on 8/12/13
We have spent loads of money!
We just haven't had the insane football spoiling spending levels of the sugar daddy clubs like you and Chelsea.
Suggesting you haven't spent much in comparison to the likes of City and Chelsea just tells you the team doesn't have insane levels of spending, could still quite easily be big spenders like Liverpool and United.
posted on 8/12/13
Manc sorry but this subject is clearly far too complicated for you, my apologies.
posted on 8/12/13
'insane football spoiling'
Priceless. You are the original modern football club.
I can see now this is pointless with you.
posted on 8/12/13
You do realise we spent less in the 90's than Chelsea Liverpool and Newcastle?
We're huge spenders no doubt but Chelsea and Coty really took it to insane levels...
If you don't like the figures then ignore them or don't bring them up.
posted on 8/12/13
Why are you apologising?
I fully understand why you would want to twist an argument to suit your own propaganda. Many people do when they cannot see sense to put together a set of balanced inputs to debate. Then and again, I don't think you how the nous to ever do that.
posted on 8/12/13
have *
posted on 8/12/13
Actually Manc I think you'll find it was Binky who wanted to twist the figures to suit his argument.
I was arguing all the figures should be included, probably cos I'm not a city fan....
posted on 8/12/13
Really? How much did your first PL winning squad cost in comparison to those around it?
Fact is only Wenger with The Invincibles has shown you can do it without having one of the most expensive sides.
Yes City have spent more over a period of time, because we needed to. Are we really turning this into a d¡ck measuring contest? If so we all know you'll lose since United to most of their fans are what convertibles and hair pieces are to middle aged men!
posted on 8/12/13
Judging by the net spend from around the time less than Liverpool.
Depends what exactly you mean, United had certainly spent far less than Chelsea and City for our last title win, less than half the net spend of both.
Not forgetting the 90's when we were outspent by Newcastle Chelsea and Liverpool.
If we are talking doing it on a budget Arsenal are obviously the best around.
Grated this conversation d
posted on 8/12/13
Accidental send.
Grated this conversation did not start because I said City spent more than United.
A city fan accused a United fan of being a hypocrite for asking for some spending.
So I correctly pointed out that it would take 100s of millions to match the level of City and Chelsea that Unted fans had criticised, which united fans were not asking for.... Hence the hypocrisy charge was false. As for the rest of the rubbish you wrote you were starting to sound a little insecure, are you a balding middle aged man with a convertible?
posted on 8/12/13
comment by SAF_The_Legend 20 times #SupportMoyes (previously 7_The_Arab) (U5768)
A city fan accused a United fan of being a hypocrite for asking for some spending.
==================================
That would be me. I suggest that you fully comprehend what I wrote before you come up with some propaganda statement which was completely out of context to what I wrote.
Pretty basic really.
To be fair, you seem the type to want the last word. Fill your boots. The floor's yours now.
posted on 8/12/13
I thought you were about to say this conversation has died. Which I think it has...
No idea where you pull figures like 'we need to spend about half of Chelsea and City' from. And you still are yet to provide to sum total cost of United's XI.
De Gea 19m
Rafael 2.5m
Vidic 7m
Ferdinand 28m
Evra 5.5m
Young 17m
Carrick 18.5m
Fellani 27.5m
Valencia 16m
RVP 22m
Rooney 27m
190m
Hart 1.5m
Zab 6.5m
VK 6.5m
Nasty 12m
Clichy 7m
Yaya 24m
Fernandinho 30m
Nasri 22m
Silva 25m
Sergio 38m
Negredo 20.5m
193m
Page 6 of 110
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11