True. The op deserves credit for creating the platform.
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
United are a by-product of the poisoned meat industry.
...............
Your parents must have fed you on it. Could it explain your elephant man complexion.
Net spend since 2003
City £590M
Chelsea £567M
United £385M
So your spending is only £205M more than ours, actually less than quarter of billion more spent than us, so a fifth of a billion more than us net now. Not sure how that makes us like you though...
Can't imagine your spending has finished this season yet either.
As it stands to date: United have spent £835,450,000 since 1992.
As for City, we've spent: £958,880,000
--------------------------
A Labrador has better logic.
If you want to compare apples and apples, you would just take spending from when you won the oil lottery.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
What point are you even trying to make there?! Net spending since 2003, nice one
Two of the sort of big buck spending sprees that you'd have fun slating us for,two years in a row. Ultimately that's all that matters.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Bean
WTF are you waffling about now?
City has spent more than us. That's a fact. Actually, I don't get where this is going?
Where they're getting the money from to be able to spend that money on the other hand...
As for City, we've spent: £958,880,000
and what an embarrassing return for the expenditure
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 55 seconds ago
Net spend since 2003
City £590M
Chelsea £567M
United £385M
So your spending is only £205M more than ours, actually less than quarter of billion more spent than us, so a fifth of a billion more than us net now. Not sure how that makes us like you though...
Can't imagine your spending has finished this season yet either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to prove I'm objective and honest about this, I've posted the net spend for 5 clubs:
City - £654m
United - £467m
Chelsea - £636m
Arsenal - £137m
LFC - £334m
However, I could easily demonstrate the spending power of 4 of these clubs from 1992 - 2008 compared to City, just to prove that heavy investment was made by them to maintain their elitism during this time.
Just a thought.
"Where they're getting the money from to be able to spend that money on the other hand..."
Where do Uniteds shareholders get their money from?
Whip up a list and then we'll rank them on the basis of ethics against the Sheikh. That sounds super fun.
As long as I can remember, City have always spent more than enough for a club of their size, apart from a short period when they employed Stuart Pearce for extra comedy value. I think they've always had someone to dip into their pockets to fund the club, just that now its done on a far bigger level.
Money = More success
Wow, what a fücking insight.
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 3 minutes ago
Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Done a App (U2958)
Exactly! It should be from 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be from just 2008? From then on in, was that a period of least success for United?
What you spent from 1992 - present matters. You were a massively successful club in the 90's and early 2000's, so why just post figures from when we received investment or spent money?
"Money = More success
Wow, what a fücking insight."
Mo money mo problems more like.
United don't pay tax, thay can afford to spend more.
Where do Uniteds shareholders get their money from?
........................
Not sure what that has to do with anything. Please explain.
Part of the odd moral high ground route your lot seem to take for some reason.
Keep up vc, have you just had your daily tramadols or something?
united fans make as much sense as their manager
"that I don't have said,i mean something else"
Tia true the Paddy Crerrand is strong in many of them.
Keep up vc, have you just had your daily tramadols or something?
...........
I don't see what your angle is here with regards to shareholders. We don't have many any more, as it is.
Explain how this will help you out.
Didn't you float a load of shares on the market only a year or so ago?!
comment by jedward belmont (U3109)
posted 2 minutes ago
united fans make as much sense as their manager
"that I don't have said,i mean something else"
.............
You must be that backward poster from the City board they were on about the other day.
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 20 seconds ago
Didn't you float a load of shares on the market only a year or so ago?!
..................
Yes, how does that help you?
Sign in if you want to comment
Hot Topic
Page 4 of 17
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 22/7/15
True. The op deserves credit for creating the platform.
posted on 22/7/15
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
United are a by-product of the poisoned meat industry.
...............
Your parents must have fed you on it. Could it explain your elephant man complexion.
posted on 22/7/15
Net spend since 2003
City £590M
Chelsea £567M
United £385M
So your spending is only £205M more than ours, actually less than quarter of billion more spent than us, so a fifth of a billion more than us net now. Not sure how that makes us like you though...
Can't imagine your spending has finished this season yet either.
posted on 22/7/15
As it stands to date: United have spent £835,450,000 since 1992.
As for City, we've spent: £958,880,000
--------------------------
A Labrador has better logic.
If you want to compare apples and apples, you would just take spending from when you won the oil lottery.
posted on 22/7/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 22/7/15
What point are you even trying to make there?! Net spending since 2003, nice one
Two of the sort of big buck spending sprees that you'd have fun slating us for,two years in a row. Ultimately that's all that matters.
posted on 22/7/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 22/7/15
Bean
WTF are you waffling about now?
posted on 22/7/15
City has spent more than us. That's a fact. Actually, I don't get where this is going?
Where they're getting the money from to be able to spend that money on the other hand...
posted on 22/7/15
As for City, we've spent: £958,880,000
and what an embarrassing return for the expenditure
posted on 22/7/15
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 55 seconds ago
Net spend since 2003
City £590M
Chelsea £567M
United £385M
So your spending is only £205M more than ours, actually less than quarter of billion more spent than us, so a fifth of a billion more than us net now. Not sure how that makes us like you though...
Can't imagine your spending has finished this season yet either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to prove I'm objective and honest about this, I've posted the net spend for 5 clubs:
City - £654m
United - £467m
Chelsea - £636m
Arsenal - £137m
LFC - £334m
However, I could easily demonstrate the spending power of 4 of these clubs from 1992 - 2008 compared to City, just to prove that heavy investment was made by them to maintain their elitism during this time.
Just a thought.
posted on 22/7/15
"Where they're getting the money from to be able to spend that money on the other hand..."
Where do Uniteds shareholders get their money from?
Whip up a list and then we'll rank them on the basis of ethics against the Sheikh. That sounds super fun.
posted on 22/7/15
As long as I can remember, City have always spent more than enough for a club of their size, apart from a short period when they employed Stuart Pearce for extra comedy value. I think they've always had someone to dip into their pockets to fund the club, just that now its done on a far bigger level.
posted on 22/7/15
Money = More success
Wow, what a fücking insight.
posted on 22/7/15
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 3 minutes ago
Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Done a App (U2958)
Exactly! It should be from 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be from just 2008? From then on in, was that a period of least success for United?
What you spent from 1992 - present matters. You were a massively successful club in the 90's and early 2000's, so why just post figures from when we received investment or spent money?
posted on 22/7/15
"Money = More success
Wow, what a fücking insight."
Mo money mo problems more like.
posted on 22/7/15
United don't pay tax, thay can afford to spend more.
posted on 22/7/15
Where do Uniteds shareholders get their money from?
........................
Not sure what that has to do with anything. Please explain.
posted on 22/7/15
Part of the odd moral high ground route your lot seem to take for some reason.
Keep up vc, have you just had your daily tramadols or something?
posted on 22/7/15
united fans make as much sense as their manager
"that I don't have said,i mean something else"
posted on 22/7/15
Tia true the Paddy Crerrand is strong in many of them.
posted on 22/7/15
Keep up vc, have you just had your daily tramadols or something?
...........
I don't see what your angle is here with regards to shareholders. We don't have many any more, as it is.
Explain how this will help you out.
posted on 22/7/15
Didn't you float a load of shares on the market only a year or so ago?!
posted on 22/7/15
comment by jedward belmont (U3109)
posted 2 minutes ago
united fans make as much sense as their manager
"that I don't have said,i mean something else"
.............
You must be that backward poster from the City board they were on about the other day.
posted on 22/7/15
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 20 seconds ago
Didn't you float a load of shares on the market only a year or so ago?!
..................
Yes, how does that help you?
Page 4 of 17
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10