[Slick Fosbury]

(Original post by Favourite Worst Nightmare)
X

You were interested in links. A lot of what I read is just from books about football (Gary James writes some fantastic books about Mancunian football throughout history).

But all of the above can be found in this link http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...8616.00082/pdf.

Enjoy mate. Like I say, football has always been about money. All that's changed is who has the most.

[Solid_Snake7]

(Original post by iSMark)
He does both, just like any other manager would.

United would be a mid table team without big acquisition players like Rooney, Nani, and co.

Rooney and Nani were both starting their careers when SAF bought them, hence not 'ready-made stars' (examples of which include: Aguero, Silva, Nasri, Yaya Toure, Tevez), but good job completely missing the point. Manchester United's success was built on a combination of nurturing youth and spending within their means. Ferguson may by good young prospects, but it's very rare he will go out and spend big on a player who is already an established star - he makes them, he doesn't buy them. And if he buys players with relative experience they tend to be under the radar, e.g. Vidic and Evra in the current squad and, going back a way, Schmeichel and Solskjaer stand out as two pieces of incredibly shrewd business. Arsene Wenger is the only manager in the PL who can claim to be anywhere near as good at this, and Mancini has not done it all at City. That's not a dig at him, he is a good manager, and as has been said buying the league is perfectly acceptable - but don't expect it not to be noted. The fact is that having so much money generally makes winning easier - you can simply assemble a dream team and watch them go. Yes Mancini has obviously had to do a fair bit of man managing, but tbh he got lucky insomuch as they seemed to stumble, giving Manchester United the title almost, and then United simply gave it right back with some truly poor performances. Even with our captain out for most of the season, Fletcher out, and more injuries than any other team in the league, plus a new goalie in front of a constantly changing defence, City scraped through on GD on the very last day. Most pundits at the start of the season were predicting they would walk it, and that points to the disparity in spending power between them and the other top clubs (bar Chelsea). What they have done is the equivalent of buying the new GTA and then using cheat codes to unlock everything - I won't go as far as to say it's a hollow victory, and obviously those City players/fans will never allow themselves to think that way (and btw I am begrudgingly happy for the City fans - at least the ones that were around before the takeover) but the fact is the manner in which they won it will have put, for many people, a massive asterix next to the record of their title win.

[Craig_D]

(Original post by Slick Fosbury)
Stop trying to rewrite history with your spiel.

For starters if it weren't for Davies way back in the early 1990s you would have been bankrupt in your first decade. Under Davies you were known as 'moneybags United' apparently and you got yourself a bit of success then.

Then Martin Edwards poured a lot of money into United before the PL came into existence. In the 1989/1990 season you spent £8 million in transfers on the likes of Ince and Pallister, your total revenues the previous season was only £9 million when you factor in wages, club running cost etc you spent nearly 150% of your turnover. Those two in particular were a major part of your success in the coming years.

This initial investment allowed you to gain the on pitch success to float the club so successfully. Without that initial investment I sincerely doubt you would've floated so well.

Then that floatation allowed you to bring in Cantona and the British record fee Roy Keane. Those players again helped form the back bone. Then still in 1995 with money generated by the inception of the PL you signed Andy Cole again for a record fee. Then bolstered the squad again with Dwight Yorke for £12 million in 1998. And then signed the likes of Veron and Ferdinand for £30 million in the early 2000s, again record fees.

You see, United too started with spending beyond their means.

First and foremost, I'm not a United fan, so I have zero affiliation with them. That said, I would have preferred them to win today rather than City.

I've never tried to suggest that United haven't bought players, that would be silly, in fact I openly acknowledged it. Nonetheless the '90s team had a good balance of nurtured players and bought ones. There have been times when some of that money came from outside the club, but much of it also came from ticket sales and so on. The flotation of the club would be classed as an internal source of finance, as by doing that the club is cashing in on its own pre-existing value. The club organically grown from being a decent team in the '80s to the best in the early '90s - nobody paid for that, Ferguson turned the club around, and with that their value and finances increased. It was after those early wins that that the club was able to buy the likes of Veron, Ferdinand, Yorke and so on (who I acknowledged in my post). Manchester City had world class players (and a massive budget) given to it before it had even won anything. It was artificially made into a top team, there is a difference there.

In summary, United organically rose to the top, and then paid for itself to stay there. City has paid to rise to the top, and will pay for itself to stay there.

[Fusion]

Most things are generally bought in football with some exceptions so it cancels out i..e Chelsea bought the title with JM as have City and of course Utd have done so with their enourmous wealth. Many Teams below Spurs could even say they bought a top 4 position. Everton could say that Newcastle bought a europa spot..

Real bought La Liga.

[Tucking Fypo]

The money factor shouldn't even be an issue and I'm a United fan. It's part of football now, deal with it.

[Karma Charger]

I don't know why City fans sometimes gets chastised about their spending power. It's not like they had any say when they got taken over

[Solid_Snake7]

(Original post by Craig_D)
First and foremost, I'm not a United fan, so I have zero affiliation with them. That said, I would have preferred them to win today rather than City.

I've never tried to suggest that United haven't bought players, that would be silly, in fact I openly acknowledged it. Nonetheless the '90s team had a good balance of nurtured players and bought ones. There have been times when some of that money came from outside the club, but much of it also came from ticket sales and so on. The flotation of the club would be classed as an internal source of finance, as by doing that the club is cashing in on its own pre-existing value. The club organically grown from being a decent team in the '80s to the best in the early '90s - nobody paid for that, Ferguson turned the club around, and with that their value and finances increased. It was after those early wins that that the club was able to buy the likes of Veron, Ferdinand, Yorke and so on (who I acknowledged in my post). Manchester City had world class players (and a massive budget) given to it before it had even won anything. It was artificially made into a top team, there is a difference there.

In summary, United organically rose to the top, and then paid for itself to stay there. City has paid to rise to the top, and will pay for itself to stay there.

Good post. As an illustration of the point you have made, here are the details of the key players for Utd who won the league in 92/93:

Schmeichel - 660k
Irwin - 616k
Bruce - 1.56 Mill.
Pallister - 2.28 Mill [Sold for 2.4 Mill = 120k profit]
Parker - 2.138 Mill.
Giggs - Free
Kanchelskis - 880k [Sold for 6.6 Mill = 5.72 Mill profit]
Ince - 1.32 Mill.
Lee Sharpe - 242k [Sold for 5.9 Mill = 5.658 Mill profit]
Cantona - 1.5 Mill
Robson - 1.496 Mill
Hughes - Free

Net Spend on these players then [considering they were not sold in this season, but of course ticket revenues, merchandise, tv rights, competition prize money more than recouped their transfer fees]: £-2,188,000. In the next season we spent 7.5 mill on Keane and 1.3 on Dublin, who we then sold for 2.6 mill, giving a 1.3 mill profit. Keane's transfer fee would have been covered by winning the league the previous year, so whichever way you slice it (and City fans will now try their best, especially on here) United earned their money and that's the bottom line.

United has always been run as a business, in which success on the pitch - through a combination of the nurturing of youth and shrewd business - led to success off the pitch, which in turn fuelled the continuation of our success on the pitch. City simply jumped the development stage and threw a shed load of someone else's money at the problem. United's success has in no way been ready-made, it was hard-earned. City simply spent and spent until they got the formula right, and even then they had to rely on United's team being crippled by injuries and an uncharacteristic late-season collapse in form. In anycase I'm excited by the challenge City have posed this season, and will continue to pose in the future, I think it has reinvigorated the league somewhat and I expect both United and City to come back even stronger next season.

[Slick Fosbury]

(Original post by Craig_D)
There have been times when some of that money came from outside the club, but much of it also came from ticket sales and so on.

And there have been times City's money has come from within the club. So really there is nothing inherently unfair, immoral etc about spending money you didn't self generate.

(Original post by Craig_D)
The flotation of the club would be classed as an internal source of finance, as by doing that the club is cashing in on its own pre-existing value.

A floatation is essentially a public and more complex sale of the club. While a change in ownership is a more private one. As you say United cashed in on what they would become in 1992 [Ie people bought shares on the basis of what you would become], why is that any different to Mansour investing money to see a return?

(Original post by Craig_D)
The club organically grown from being a decent team in the '80s to the best in the early '90s - nobody paid for that, Ferguson turned the club around, and with that their value and finances increased.

United hadn't won the league for 20 years, they had a bit of success in the cups but were largely dormant after Busby. And you keep forgetting this £8 million spent in the summer of 1989, and then the record fee paid for Keane which again was before Ferguson's first title. The money was spent before the success came.

(Original post by Craig_D)
It was after those early wins that that the club was able to buy the likes of Veron, Ferdinand, Yorke and so on (who I acknowledged in my post). Manchester City had world class players (and a massive budget) given to it before it had even won anything. It was artificially made into a top team, there is a difference there.

I have shown clearly it wasn't after those early wins.

(Original post by Craig_D)
In summary, United organically rose to the top, and then paid for itself to stay there. City has paid to rise to the top, and will pay for itself to stay there.

United made an initial investment which coincided with the inception of the PL and an era of untold financial dominance. City are now making an initial investment which needs to make up for years of mismanagement and United's financial dominance.

(Original post by Solid_Snake7)
Good post. As an illustration of the point you have made, here are the details of the key players for Utd who won the league in 92/93:

Schmeichel - 660k
Irwin - 616k
Bruce - 1.56 Mill.
Pallister - 2.28 Mill [Sold for 2.4 Mill = 120k profit]
Parker - 2.138 Mill.
Giggs - Free
Kanchelskis - 880k [Sold for 6.6 Mill = 5.72 Mill profit]
Ince - 1.32 Mill.
Lee Sharpe - 242k [Sold for 5.9 Mill = 5.658 Mill profit]
Cantona - 1.5 Mill
Robson - 1.496 Mill
Hughes - Free

Net Spend on these players then [considering they were not sold in this season, but of course ticket revenues, merchandise, tv rights, competition prize money more than recouped their transfer fees]: £-2,188,000. In the next season we spent 7.5 mill on Keane and 1.3 on Dublin, who we then sold for 2.6 mill, giving a 1.3 mill profit. Keane's transfer fee would have been covered by winning the league the previous year, so whichever way you slice it (and City fans will now try their best, especially on here) United earned their money and that's the bottom line.

In the summer of 1989 you spent £8 million on transfers, with a turn over of £9 million that is hardly 'organic'. You cannot just ignore this splurge, it's very significant.

And you talk about running a club like a business. What do you make of the countless number of companies taken over by an investor who then pours in huge amounts of money to rapidly expand and increase turnover? Sounds a lot like City's business model to me.

[Zerforax]

In 5 to 10 years time, if City's success continues then they will be able to pay for themselves to a large degree (growing support, more ticket sales, higher prize money, bigger and more sponsorships etc).

[S-man10]

Its a funny world. A lot of people saying "city havebought the league" would love to have the same luxury and wouldn't be complaining if they did. MAn city's plans seem to be simple, assemble a great team and buy players, start winning and earn more money and use that income to pay for themselves as Zeroforax mentioned.

Very few teams now days would play exclusively with home-grown or 'nurtured' players. Only Bilbao come to mind and to a certain extent, Barcelona, although only because they want to stick to their philosophy.

[dhillon1]

it's not that united don't spend money, it's just that usually they buy younger players who develop at the club whereas city just spend millions on developed players e.g. dzeko, aguero, nasri etc.

[UnWise]

(Original post by Slick Fosbury)
And there have been times City's money has come from within the club. So really there is nothing inherently unfair, immoral etc about spending money you didn't self generate.



A floatation is essentially a public and more complex sale of the club. While a change in ownership is a more private one. As you say United cashed in on what they would become in 1992 [Ie people bought shares on the basis of what you would become], why is that any different to Mansour investing money to see a return?



United hadn't won the league for 20 years, they had a bit of success in the cups but were largely dormant after Busby. And you keep forgetting this £8 million spent in the summer of 1989, and then the record fee paid for Keane which again was before Ferguson's first title. The money was spent before the success came.



I have shown clearly it wasn't after those early wins.



United made an initial investment which coincided with the inception of the PL and an era of untold financial dominance. City are now making an initial investment which needs to make up for years of mismanagement and United's financial dominance.




In the summer of 1989 you spent £8 million on transfers, with a turn over of £9 million that is hardly 'organic'. You cannot just ignore this splurge, it's very significant.

And you talk about running a club like a business. What do you make of the countless number of companies taken over by an investor who then pours in huge amounts of money to rapidly expand and increase turnover? Sounds a lot like City's business model to me.

I did not know this....fascinating. Thanks for the information.

Managed to find some more delving into this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4630489.stm

http://bsr.london.edu/lbs-article/644/index.html

Seemingly ManUtd are just as "plastic" as ManCity or Chelsea.

[moonmonkey812]

(Original post by Jim-Jam)
Very true.

If they're eyeing up Hazard and RVP, what's to stop them getting them? Nothing. And then they'll just dominate. And the money won't run out really. League's over!

They could probably afford to buy RVP, then loan him back to arsenal, thus ensuring he can't score against them, bit like adebayor and spurs

[totw]

Does anyone know any concrete stories about who SAF might be signing in the summer???

[rorydaredking]

(Original post by UnWise)
I did not know this....fascinating. Thanks for the information.

Managed to find some more delving into this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4630489.stm

http://bsr.london.edu/lbs-article/644/index.html

Seemingly ManUtd are just as "plastic" as ManCity or Chelsea.

Lol 8 million in 1989 (value with inflation 16.8 million) is the same as 1 billion. Ok then mate....

[Slick Fosbury]

(Original post by rorydaredking)
Lol 8 million in 1989 (value with inflation 16.8 million) is the same as 1 billion. Ok then mate....

Footballing inflation has been far more dramatic due to the inception of the PL and CL, increased foreign interest and foreign ownership. At the time it was nearly your entire turnover. And at the time you were only having to over turn the wealth of clubs not earning x millions for being at the top of the PL, y for being involved in the latter stages of the CL, z for the increased interest in football affecting advertising and merchandise sales.

It all adds up to huge amounts more to over turn.

[A Mysterious Lord]

United fans just can't accept a fair and square defeat, it's always someone else's fault - "oh, the wind's blowing the wrong way", "there are people in the crowd and distracted me", "we're not playing the full team", "we're not bothered this time anyway".

You lost, just get it go

[UnWise]

(Original post by rorydaredking)
Lol 8 million in 1989 (value with inflation 16.8 million) is the same as 1 billion. Ok then mate....

They were given advantages due to investments from their owner; advantages that other teams didn't have the luxury of receiving.

I am referring to the practice of receiving money externally, rather than the quantity of said money. Who is to decide how much is too much? ManCity evidently spent the money that they needed to clinch the title; couldn't one argue that ManUtd has been doing just the same for the past two decades?

[rorydaredking]

(Original post by Slick Fosbury)
Footballing inflation has been far more dramatic due to the inception of the PL and CL, increased foreign interest and foreign ownership. At the time it was nearly your entire turnover. And at the time you were only having to over turn the wealth of clubs not earning x millions for being at the top of the PL, y for being involved in the latter stages of the CL, z for the increased interest in football affecting advertising and merchandise sales.

It all adds up to huge amounts more to over turn.

Ok so as you said 150% of turnover. 1bn is probably more than 150% of your turnover post 2008.

[rorydaredking]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
United fans just can't accept a fair and square defeat, it's always someone else's fault - "oh, the wind's blowing the wrong way", "there are people in the crowd and distracted me", "we're not playing the full team", "we're not bothered this time anyway".

You lost, just get it go

TBH, most United fans I know will say city are the better team. This thread is not saying they aren't. It's saying that its legitimate to say city bought the league.