SAF, yeah that's kind of my point.
Of course I imagine a lot will depend on the calibre of player. If it's a player of Vermaelen's calibre and we are prepared to ridiculously overpay for an average player like him or a bit better we'll probably win a few of those battles.
But the likes of Suarez, Neymar and those star signings that Barca want, and Madrid, then I think we'll struggle. Never know, though. A lot can happen in football as 1982 said, I'm just sceptical.
You can compete with anyone financially right now, it's down to the lure of Barca and Madrid and, as said earlier, our lovely weather
Well its just a theory... may be wrong...
I do wonder if United held back a little on spending after all the sugar daddy clubs popped up and bided their time until FFP starting to kick in and the competition would be easier to beat...
Terrible idea if we did but it had crossed my mind.
I don't think so SAF, its not as if you haven't been spending in the past two seasons either, you just bought a few at around the 20 million mark rather than one or two at 40 until this season just gone.
This window is the one to take full advantage in as PSG are neutered, which you have done with the Di Maria signing.
Competing for the bigger players... the ones higher up rather than the multiple slightly lesser signings as we have been doing...
Not your players who would goto Real or Barca but your James Rodriguez's (from the transfer to Monaco not the recent one to Real) or your Lucas' to PSG as examples...
Though from what I understand we did try for Lucas.
SAF, to be honest, I'm of the opinion that Fergie did hold back a little in the market in terms of the full availability of finances available to him.
He spent a lot, of course, but he could have spent more but chose not to, in my opinion. Whatever the reason for that remains to be seen. Perhaps in some part due to his own stubbornness in regard to the inflation of fees and wages, and in others because he could still keep the squad competitive safe in the knowledge that there would be a good long term effect financially a few years down the line.
I'd be amazed if it was a conscious decision, I think it was more that Ferguson was happy with his squad. 24 million for RVP was a sign you were willing to pay when the player was wanted enough.
Buying multiple for less is actually worse in FFP terms than buying one for a lot as your overall wages tend to be slightly higher.
Meant to add, unless you sell a few as well. It's only this summer you've had a bit of a trim with your squad.
melts, I think it's a bit of both. There was a sentimentality about Fergie with regard to some of the players at the club. But I also think what I said in my last post has an element of truth.
Hazard is the one that springs to mind with the agents fees.
Anyway I'm off. Night lads.
Not because it was a benefit towards FFP buying multiple cheaper players Melt but just because it meant avoiding competing with the sugar daddy clubs...
RVP the one big name signing of recent years was in the last year of his contract, and depending on what you made of City's interest, only had Juventus after him
All the best DTKF
Or should I start calling you Ashley 'Ronaldo' Young instead
Hazard was the same for both Manchester clubs in that we have policies about how much we are willing to pay agents, I still think we were both right with that one.
You might be right though, I just don't see it personally as it's too much of a risk still - even with FFP, prices are still going up and will continue to do so as revenue is still going up for the top clubs anyway.
Night mate.
Maybe saf,
RVP I meant more in that you paid over what he was worth in business terms - the glazers had to be convinced of it, but showed you were willing to do that to get the player you wanted.
Mouras the only player I can think of that you were actively trying to get that a sugar daddy club effective poached.
Like I said just a theory, a theory that it could have been a factor along with those DTKF mentioned.
I was not so much thinking of the overpaying but the getting into a bidding war with the sugar daddy clubs, aside from the possible Lucas one were we in the end blinked first we seemed to avoid going for their targets.
Could well be saf, as you said earlier, I think it was a bad idea if you did!
I'm off too now, pleasure as always talking to you
Sign in if you want to comment
Di Maria at CM
Page 7 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 29/8/14
SAF, yeah that's kind of my point.
Of course I imagine a lot will depend on the calibre of player. If it's a player of Vermaelen's calibre and we are prepared to ridiculously overpay for an average player like him or a bit better we'll probably win a few of those battles.
But the likes of Suarez, Neymar and those star signings that Barca want, and Madrid, then I think we'll struggle. Never know, though. A lot can happen in football as 1982 said, I'm just sceptical.
posted on 29/8/14
You can compete with anyone financially right now, it's down to the lure of Barca and Madrid and, as said earlier, our lovely weather
posted on 29/8/14
Well its just a theory... may be wrong...
I do wonder if United held back a little on spending after all the sugar daddy clubs popped up and bided their time until FFP starting to kick in and the competition would be easier to beat...
Terrible idea if we did but it had crossed my mind.
posted on 29/8/14
I don't think so SAF, its not as if you haven't been spending in the past two seasons either, you just bought a few at around the 20 million mark rather than one or two at 40 until this season just gone.
This window is the one to take full advantage in as PSG are neutered, which you have done with the Di Maria signing.
posted on 29/8/14
Competing for the bigger players... the ones higher up rather than the multiple slightly lesser signings as we have been doing...
Not your players who would goto Real or Barca but your James Rodriguez's (from the transfer to Monaco not the recent one to Real) or your Lucas' to PSG as examples...
Though from what I understand we did try for Lucas.
posted on 29/8/14
SAF, to be honest, I'm of the opinion that Fergie did hold back a little in the market in terms of the full availability of finances available to him.
He spent a lot, of course, but he could have spent more but chose not to, in my opinion. Whatever the reason for that remains to be seen. Perhaps in some part due to his own stubbornness in regard to the inflation of fees and wages, and in others because he could still keep the squad competitive safe in the knowledge that there would be a good long term effect financially a few years down the line.
posted on 29/8/14
I'd be amazed if it was a conscious decision, I think it was more that Ferguson was happy with his squad. 24 million for RVP was a sign you were willing to pay when the player was wanted enough.
Buying multiple for less is actually worse in FFP terms than buying one for a lot as your overall wages tend to be slightly higher.
posted on 29/8/14
Meant to add, unless you sell a few as well. It's only this summer you've had a bit of a trim with your squad.
posted on 29/8/14
melts, I think it's a bit of both. There was a sentimentality about Fergie with regard to some of the players at the club. But I also think what I said in my last post has an element of truth.
Hazard is the one that springs to mind with the agents fees.
posted on 29/8/14
Anyway I'm off. Night lads.
posted on 29/8/14
Not because it was a benefit towards FFP buying multiple cheaper players Melt but just because it meant avoiding competing with the sugar daddy clubs...
RVP the one big name signing of recent years was in the last year of his contract, and depending on what you made of City's interest, only had Juventus after him
posted on 29/8/14
All the best DTKF
Or should I start calling you Ashley 'Ronaldo' Young instead
posted on 29/8/14
Hazard was the same for both Manchester clubs in that we have policies about how much we are willing to pay agents, I still think we were both right with that one.
You might be right though, I just don't see it personally as it's too much of a risk still - even with FFP, prices are still going up and will continue to do so as revenue is still going up for the top clubs anyway.
Night mate.
posted on 29/8/14
Maybe saf,
RVP I meant more in that you paid over what he was worth in business terms - the glazers had to be convinced of it, but showed you were willing to do that to get the player you wanted.
Mouras the only player I can think of that you were actively trying to get that a sugar daddy club effective poached.
posted on 29/8/14
Like I said just a theory, a theory that it could have been a factor along with those DTKF mentioned.
I was not so much thinking of the overpaying but the getting into a bidding war with the sugar daddy clubs, aside from the possible Lucas one were we in the end blinked first we seemed to avoid going for their targets.
posted on 29/8/14
Could well be saf, as you said earlier, I think it was a bad idea if you did!
I'm off too now, pleasure as always talking to you
posted on 29/8/14
Same
Page 7 of 7
6 | 7