Man U have the most expensive squad in the History of the Premier League

[Pilgrim Meister]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...expensive-squad-assembled-Premier-League.html

According to the daily mail however.

• The current Manchester United squad cost £401.2m to assemble

• It is the most expensive squad ever in the English game

• Angel Di Maria's move from Real Madrid for £60m has seen United overtake rivals Manchester City, whose squad was built for a combined £344.15m

• United have also signed Luke Shaw, Ander Herrera and Marcos Rojo

• Chelsea squad put together for £341.8m, Liverpool £245.8m and Arsenal £209.5m

Oh dear. Since Spear normally starts these sort of threads, I thought I better get this posted, on his behalf

 

[G.B]

Silky will love this

 

[Bilo]

Wenger is a financial genius. That's all I get from that.

 

[G-Dragon]

In the words of Spear, "LOL"

 

[Livercool]

Am I surprised by these findings? The answer is no.

'Money is their plan'chester United have proven once again that they are nothing but a club that throw money at their problems, where more honest clubs develop and nurture the future of this beautiful game. What makes them the laughing stock is that their 'record signings' are absolutely poor, and shows that they clearly just pay big for whatever player is the 'in thing' at that time.

You see, at least with Chelsea and City, they purchase quality players with their expansive riches, such as Hazard, Toure, Aguero, Silva, Costa, etc. 'Bland'chester United throw all their cash on washed up Ligue 1 rejects and players who are only after a pay packet rather than promoting good football.

But of course, their 'fans' will tell you every signing they've ever made is inspired and warrants their ridiculous price tags. I guess that's a clear sign of their delusion.

 

[Humongous Fungus]

Is it really you?

 

[smat]

Pretty sure it's Pagnell doing a parody.

 

[mase]

This is a proper good Spear thread. Got the 6 month old article and a post from Livercool and everything.

 

[Mustard]

I'm surprised we're below Liverpool.

Maybe somebody should have shown Mourinho his squad costs £120m more than Wenger's the other day before his thinly veiled attack on how he doesn't know why Wenger can't create a squad to challenge Chelsea or whatever.

 

[NiallQuinnDiscoPants]

Am I surprised by these findings? The answer is no.

'Money is their plan'chester United have proven once again that they are nothing but a club that throw money at their problems, where more honest clubs develop and nurture the future of this beautiful game. What makes them the laughing stock is that their 'record signings' are absolutely poor, and shows that they clearly just pay big for whatever player is the 'in thing' at that time.

You see, at least with Chelsea and City, they purchase quality players with their expansive riches, such as Hazard, Toure, Aguero, Silva, Costa, etc. 'Bland'chester United throw all their cash on washed up Ligue 1 rejects and players who are only after a pay packet rather than promoting good football.

But of course, their 'fans' will tell you every signing they've ever made is inspired and warrants their ridiculous price tags. I guess that's a clear sign of their delusion.

A solid start, obviously building for more to come.

 

[smat]

I'm surprised we're below Liverpool.

Maybe somebody should have shown Mourinho his squad costs £120m more than Wenger's the other day before his thinly veiled attack on how he doesn't know why Wenger can't create a squad to challenge Chelsea or whatever.

Tbf the guy's a wang but he's got a point. No reason whatsoever anymore that we shouldn't be challenging this season. Injuries killed us but the situation with the defence was completely unnecessary.

 

[silkyman]

Silky will love this

I do find it amusing, especially after all of the 'for what you spent, the title should be the bare minimum' stuff that was trotted out.

If they do somehow end up outside of the top four, it will be even more amusing.

 

[thespus]

I'm surprised we're below Liverpool.

Really? Until Özil our record signing was Nasri/Arshavin for around £15m. The majority of our squad arrived for around £10m or less apart from the German, Alexis, and Welbeck. Walcott was only £5m rising to £12m (max) and I'd be highly surprised if he qualified for all the add-on payments given our several seasons sans honors and his injury record. I'm actually surprised Spurs weren't higher than us.

Liverpool spent £100m this summer alone (obviously money recuperated from the Suarez sale) and spent large sums on Henderson, Sakho, and Glenn Johnson in seasons before. Mignolet was pretty expensive for a keeper.

 

[smat]

Walcott was only £5m rising to £12m (max) and I'd be highly surprised if he qualified for all the add-on payments given our several seasons sans honors and his injury record.

We bought those clauses out, Southampton settled for about £9m in the end I think.

Edit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2296011/Southampton-lose-2.9m-over-Theo-Walcott.html

 

[Christian Slater]

I do find it amusing, especially after all of the 'for what you spent, the title should be the bare minimum' stuff that was trotted out.

If they do somehow end up outside of the top four, it will be even more amusing.

I don't get how United failing after spending a lot of money changes City being failures for winning very little after spending over £1bn.

 

[NiallQuinnDiscoPants]

I don't get how United failing after spending a lot of money changes City being failures for winning very little after spending over £1bn.

i love your smiling face Christian

but we're the current league champions, so not really failures like.

 

[Christian Slater]

i love your smiling face Christian

but we're the current league champions, so not really failures like.

United were league champions the season before that, with a lot of the current squad being involved. City have come up short for the money they have spent.

 

[G-Dragon]

United were league champions the season before that, with a lot of the current squad being involved. City have come up short for the money they have spent.

I think United have come short for the money they have spent since Ferguson left.

 

[Christian Slater]

I think United have come short for the money they have spent since Ferguson left.

They have, although Ferguson only left a season and a half ago. What do you think about Liverpool coming up short for two decades where they have outspent United for the majority.

 

[thespus]

Man City have won 2/3 titles. I don't exactly see how they've been failures.

Manchester United spent massive fees well before the introductions of Abramovich and Mansour. Adjusted for inflation, Juan Sebastion Veron to United is among one of the most expensive transfers in history. It was always going to take City a few years to catch up to their perennial title-purchaser neighbors. The same way it took Chelsea a few years of squad-building.

Manchester United's inability to finish above City (a trend which will likely continue for the foreseeable future) despite spending more than them seems more of a failure. Perhaps this is the underlying reason for your odd take on failure.

 

[Christian Slater]

Man City have won 2/3 titles. I don't exactly see how they've been failures.

Manchester United spent massive fees well before the introductions of Abramovich and Mansour. Adjusted for inflation, Juan Sebastion Veron to United is among one of the most expensive transfers in history. It was always going to take City a few years to catch up to their perennial title-purchaser neighbors. The same way it took Chelsea a few years of squad-building.

Manchester United's inability to finish above City (a trend which will likely continue for the foreseeable future) despite spending more than them seems more of a failure. Perhaps this is the underlying reason for your odd take on failure.

United spent massive fees on single players while others spend as much or more on multiple targets, apart from the season where they lavishly bought Van Nistelrooy and Veron in the same season. They had spent less than Liverpool and roughly the same as Newcastle and even Chelsea, pre-Roman. Check the facts.

City have spent over a billion in 6 years to win 2 titles.

 

[Christian Slater]

 

[SALTIRE]

The halcyon days are over for Man Utd, you could spend that £150 mill again in the summer, and it will get you no where near winning the league title and that won't change for many years.

 

[Christian Slater]

Standard bitter rhetoric.

 

[Cardsfan]

Money spent rather than net spend. Proves nothing.

 

[SALTIRE]

Standard bitter rhetoric.

Its not bitter, just an opinion

 

[thespus]

Christian Slater - why do you refuse to recognize that City and Chelsea didn't start on a level playing field to Manchester United when you began expecting them to win trophies? That chart is a nice graphic, but it doesn't begin to tell the whole story.

Unless you actually expected City to win the title and CL the first season Mansour bought the club? Which—as most objective parties will tell you—is ludicrous. They've won 2/3 of the last league titles and are currently much better placed to win more than their rivals moving forward—largely thanks to the failures of Manchester United the past two seasons when spending massive sums of money. There isn't a City fan in the world who wouldn't bite your hand off five years ago for these "failures".

 

[silkyman]

No, it's painful. Especially when compared to playing in League One and almost bankrupt.

 

[Stevencc]

Its not bitter, just an opinion

It read like a statement of facht

 

[Pagnell]

Standard bitter rhetoric.

Have you seen anything from Manchester United during Moyes's and now LVG's tenures to indicate you have the ability to even challenge for a title, let alone win one? You can spend all the money in the world on a squad, but unless they produce good performances as a team it means jack shit. You're 5 points better off than at this stage last season, without Europe to contend with. It's pretty fucking poor, it has to be said.