Cheeky monkey, he"s feked off without answering my question.

How much did United's squad cost in comparison to Southampton, Newcastle, Spurs, Everton, City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal's?

From 2003 to present.

Man city net spend £504 million.

Man United net spend £167 million.

Well over double whilst I don't think any United fan is asking for those insane spending levels just a bit more than the current so the hypocrisy charge is flawed.

City's net spend was always going to be much larger as we were basically constructing a squad from scratch whereas Utd only needed to add the odd player or two every year

Tbh I think the main part you racked up a lot of spending was getting players in then getting rid of them for a fraction of what you bought them for quite soon after.

We didn't have much option but to go down the Adebeyor merc route quickly because of the imminent FFP regs coming in

Doesn't seem to be a problem for PSG... infact you brought in your own sponsorship deal just not quite the size of PSG's....

So what exactly are you asking for 7? Do you even know?

You say United could spend about half of what we have, so going off the net spend of both clubs (which wouldn't be spending half of what we have but I'll humor you...) That's around 200m you could spend on players. Say you balance that some way by selling 100m worth of players, your net spend will still be way below half of ours.

Your argument frankly doesn't make any sense, you can't compare the spending of an established European power to that of a relegation battler receiving investment.

How could we offset our spending when we were bringing in top quality players and selling poorer quality players? You on the other hand have consistently added top players, and sold top players, obviously your net spend will be lower. Is this something you can understand?

Still not answered the question.

I wasn't asking for anything.

If you remember an earlier post I was just pointing out the hypocrisy charge was false. That being because United have spent far less than City have so even with a big spending spree the spending would be nowhere near the criticised levels.

Have you?

Since you seem to be avoiding the subject.

This info may not be 100%, but City's current squad cost 380m, United's 335m. So how have you spent far less?

Cheers Grated, it took about 4 hours but we finally got there.

Interestingly enough...

Southampton 73m
Newcastly 75m
Spurs 215m
Everton 77m
Chelsea 375m
Liverpool 190m
Arsenal 190m

So the real question is. With the third most expensive squad in the league. Are you concerned with United's massive underachievement?

comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 30 minutes ago
Have you?

Since you seem to be avoiding the subject.

This info may not be 100%, but City's current squad cost 380m, United's 335m. So how have you spent far less?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because we don't magically ignore the spending on players not still in the squad, otherwise we are just twisting the figures....

So you include players that no longer play for the club to suit your needs?

Face it, your starting 11 costs about the same as us, as does your squad. You bring in 200m worth of talent and you would have a squad worth over 150m more than ours. You think only then you can compete?

What planet?..

comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 40 minutes ago
So you include players that no longer play for the club to suit your needs?

Face it, your starting 11 costs about the same as us, as does your squad. You bring in 200m worth of talent and you would have a squad worth over 150m more than ours. You think only then you can compete?

What planet?..
----------------------------------------------------------------------


To suit my needs

Your a funny one grated ill give you that.

We cannot magically ignore these players you have bought and sold recently as they are part if your spending, any normal club that doesn't have near limitless spending levels can cast off a mistake like Jo, Santa Cruz ect at no cost to the team as even if they don't receive much money back for the player they can afford to go out and whack another load of money at his replacement.

That is why we cannot magically exclude figures to make City look good.

... Planet "I will put forward my own set of stats to suit my own agenda".

Thank you grated, you have a lot more patience than I had. However, I have the feeling that it would all be in vain as Arab has conclusively proved that he has zero ability to digest and comprehend arguments put forward. His selective reading and understanding has made himself a laughing stock.

So go on, how much money would you like to see United spend to enable them to 'compete' again.

Paitence or time manc!

He said half of what we and Chelsea spent.

.... On top of their championship winning squad

You didn't understand at all did you grated, I wasn't saying United needed to spend x amount to compete or that half City's spending is what United needed.

As I have said I think 3 times now, this will be the last as well, somebody accused United fans of being hypocritical for asking for big spending when they had criticised Chelsea and City recently. I simply pointed out the charge of hypocrisy was flawed as no United fan was asking for spending at the levels off City or Chelsea or even close, which would have been hypocritical.

Maybe even Manc will grasp that but I won't hold my breath...

As to your question our problem right this second is more to do with the team not playing well rather than needing some expensive purchases. We could if course use a player or two but giving it a figure is difficult as its hard to now who is a available what kind of contract they are on ect.

This could be the last time I don't know...

You have the third most expensive squad in the league, over 100m of talent available than 17 other sides, yet currently lie eighth.

Be concerned. Be very concerned.

You still did not understand my original comment did you Arab? I would have thought that a pseudo intellectual like yourself would at least be able to provide an retort that was in context to the aforementioned comment. But alas, we can't have everything.

Ahh yes we are currently doing badly and you are doing much better than us, let me give you an

Very little to do with our conversation but well done anyway.

Maybe you just don't understand Manc, judging by your posts so far I would suggest there's a high possibility you seem like the type of person who has a tenuous grasp on reality...