Are 'Cash in hand'chester United trying to buy success?

[Livercool]

That's what Wenger believes.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11670/9921645/wenger-questions-united-way

Arsene Wenger has questioned Manchester United's transfer policy, suggesting the club has sacrificed its principles in pursuit of glory.

The Frenchman reckons United have flexed financial muscle to the detriment of youth development and believes Louis van Gaal's summer splurge is evidence of a club that has "no patience".

Am I surprised by these comments? The answer is no. Wenger doesn't seem to be the only person who's critical of 'More money than you can stand'chester United's questionable transfer market, with critics around the world questioning whether Van Gaal is trying to save the sinking ship by covering the holes with band-aids.

I'll admit, it would have made sense for United to spend that big (I believe they're already at £80m) should they have sold a number of players to financially back these signings, but it seems they're just throwing cash in the desperate hope that it will fix their club. It's almost as if United are trying to become more like their rivals City, except United are making rushed signings instead of those that could benefit them. It just seems they're trying to buy the league, a rather disgusting move which suggests money is more important to them than the sport itself.

My questions to United 'fans' is this: When did you realise your club was nothing more than a giant corporate chequebook? Was it during Van Gaal's first season or has it been a more recent discovery for you?

 

[Pagnell]

As shown above they have spent more in terms of both net and gross in the last 5 years than any other team, so it's difficult to argue with Wenger really in some ways, especially considering one of the teams in question is Manchester City. It's amazing what fear can do to a team when they're faced with the prospect of losing their dominance. However, it's not as if United have ever been frugal when it comes to splashing the cash, they have always spent big when they've thought it's been necessary. The difference is at least they earn the money they spend, rather than the likes of City and Chelsea, neither who even make an attempt to link operating income and expenditure.

 

[mnb089mnb]

It's amazing what fear can do to a team when they're faced with the prospect of losing their dominance.

Liverpool from the early 90s to present day illustrates it perfectly.

 

[allouso]

I don't blame them for it. They realized they were going backwards after a horrible season and decided to flex their financial muscle and attract some big names,

The opposite is what we did after our first bad season under Benitez, and look how that turned out.

 

[mnb089mnb]

This thread is TFF Classic.

 

[Pagnell]

Liverpool from the early 90s to present day illustrates it perfectly.

Were you expecting me to disagree with this?

 

[mnb089mnb]

Were you expecting me to disagree with this?

No. How could you?

 

[allouso]

You two are cute. I've missed you.

 

[Pagnell]

No. How could you?

There are differences, the primary one being the amount of time that has passed since we were dominant, so the comparison at this point is questionable. But I don't disagree, we're a good example of what United are trying to avoid.

 

[joebozcfc]

Uniteds, just like all the other top clubs, sponsorship deals are dependent on continued success. Another year of failure should see some of their deals drop by a considerable percentage (if not already after the last two seasons). They are spending money to service their sponsorship deals

 

[smat]

WELL WELL WELL

 

[joebozcfc]

Yeah errr, Hi. My names Joe, cough, I like to watch.

Mainly.

 

[Mr.Andrews]

youve always had your massive spending teams like man united and liverpool and recently man city and chelsea. i suppose the difference between 3 of those teams and one of them is that 3 of them tend to spend money on quality and that more often reflects in the table and that one team buys total dogshite for gigantic prices and still somehow finishes outside the top 4 9 times out of ten. its quite funny to be absolutely honest with you friends, sometimes when i think about it i have to sit down and tell myself to relax because i heard a unfortunate man died of laughter once.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

As shown above they have spent more in terms of both net and gross in the last 5 years than any other team, so it's difficult to argue with Wenger really in some ways, especially considering one of the teams in question is Manchester City. It's amazing what fear can do to a team when they're faced with the prospect of losing their dominance. However, it's not as if United have ever been frugal when it comes to splashing the cash, they have always spent big when they've thought it's been necessary. The difference is at least they earn the money they spend, rather than the likes of City and Chelsea, neither who even make an attempt to link operating income and expenditure.

I'm assuming that table hasn't taken into account the Benteke/Delph sales yet which would then mean we're not far off Spurs, and they've sold Bale for £80oddmillion in that time.. Fucking ridiculous. I know this is off topic, but that table enrages me.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Cashinhandchester United.

 

[G-Dragon]

The difference is at least they earn the money they spend, rather than the likes of City and Chelsea, neither who even make an attempt to link operating income and expenditure.

I have to disagree with this to some degree. United were lucky to be successful at the same time premier league was booming, take advantage of it and become a global brand. They have been spending big, and breaking transfer records since then. It is unlikely we will see any other clubs get a similar chance now. Look at Southampton, they have done extremely well with their limited budget (Imagine if it was like La Liga where pretty much all the TV Revenue goes to Madrid and Barca!) but they will never be able to crack the Top 4 or win any major trophies unless they are pumped by cash like City and Chelsea.

Sure in the beginning Chelsea used the money that they didn't earn through the Club sources but I doubt that is the case now. Chelsea have successfully become a global brand with it and are probably one of the stable/well run club with an owner who is not there just purely for business.

In the case of United spending money I don't really see any problem with it. If you want to compete you have to spend. Does not mean it will always work out, but it is more likely to than not.

 

[Christian Slater]

United spent the same as teams like Liverpool, Newcastle and Chelsea before Abramovich arrived. Since Roman and Mansour arrived United spent considerably less than their rivals. Since the PL began Untill now Chelsea and City have spent £200m more than United.

The only team that could say they aren't spending huge money to be successful is Arsenal.

 

[Stevencc]

United spent the same as teams like Liverpool, Newcastle and Chelsea before Abramovich arrived. Since Roman and Mansour arrived United spent considerably less than their rivals. Since the PL began Untill now Chelsea and City have spent £200m more than United.

The only team that could say they aren't spending huge money to be successful is Arsenal.

And even Arsenal seem to be moving away from that frugal policy slightly in recent seasons with big marquee signings like Ozil and Sanchez.

 

[lordofthepies]

I'm assuming that table hasn't taken into account the Benteke/Delph sales yet which would then mean we're not far off Spurs, and they've sold Bale for £80oddmillion in that time.. Fucking ridiculous. I know this is off topic, but that table enrages me.

Financial responsibility is SO ANNOYING

 

[Spear]

As shown above they have spent more in terms of both net and gross in the last 5 years than any other team, so it's difficult to argue with Wenger really in some ways, especially considering one of the teams in question is Manchester City. It's amazing what fear can do to a team when they're faced with the prospect of losing their dominance. However, it's not as if United have ever been frugal when it comes to splashing the cash, they have always spent big when they've thought it's been necessary. The difference is at least they earn the money they spend, rather than the likes of City and Chelsea, neither who even make an attempt to link operating income and expenditure.

Ah its the amazing disappearing man whos vanishing acts seems to almost be to the day the Scousers fall away

Might see him around til November with all these new signings

 

[SALTIRE]

They'll kick your arses anyway

 

[AdrianDurham]

The only thing they will be buying is the International Champions Cup. Even that does not look like it will happen this season.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Financial responsibility is SO ANNOYING

Financial responsibility is one thing, pocketing all of our profits (we are apparently very profitable right now) for little to no squad investment IS annoying. Look how much Newcastle fans bitch and whinge about Mike Ashley ffs. Even they spend more than us ffs!

 

[Pagnell]

Ah its the amazing disappearing man whos vanishing acts seems to almost be to the day the Scousers fall away

Well, I thought as it worked for you I'd give it a go.

 

[johnnytodd]

17 million for Glen Johnson?

 

[G.B]

Financial responsibility is one thing, pocketing all of our profits (we are apparently very profitable right now) for little to no squad investment IS annoying. Look how much Newcastle fans bitch and whinge about Mike Ashley ffs. Even they spend more than us ffs!

You're not a profitable club. You made a £50mil loss 2 years ago, £4mil loss last year and your owner has kindly waived a £90mil loan. On the other hand, we've been profitable for 4 or 5 years, went 3 transfer windows without buying players and owe Ashley £129mil because he essentially wants his original investment back when he sells. We are not financially comparable.