Cost of City side vs Cost of Utd Side

Wow United got ripped off for Evans.

che wrote:difference is united are spending their own money and don't depend on some dude who got tired of buying bentleys

Sheik Mansoor isn't playing with his money contrary to popular belief.

To him City is a long term Investment.

Magricos wrote: You buy your own reputation.

Fixed for accuracy.

Wow, that's like 50 Arsenal squads

United spend like what, 60m this summer alone? The difference is United have bought those guys over the years, whereas City pretty much built the team in a few years.

No denying United spend when they have to. They are supposedly the biggest club in the world, after all. Won the PL for like 50 years straight. There's bound to be moneys.

The problem is that City is trying to break the status quo, and that's what people don't like. Nothing wrong with spending money imo.

Jonny Evans and Fletcher weren't free, he got them on a 'buy one get one free' from a local car boot sale for a 'signed fiver'.

I still remember the Carrick vs Sneijder debate I had with Cyberman on the old forum

Good times.

united are so jewy

imalegend wrote:

che wrote:difference is united are spending their own money and don't depend on some dude who got tired of buying bentleys

Man U is spending borrowed money while City is spending their owners money.....so united aren't using their own money because then they won't be the debt they are in atm....

Exactly what Che said.
United are not burdened buy debt because spending too much on players, the Glazers took those loans when they were buying United.

I've got no problem with a club spending a lot on players if they are generating a lot of revenue, like United are. What I do find annoying is when a club is spending tons of free, sugar daddy money, like City are and have been.

che wrote:difference is united are spending their own money and don't depend on some dude who got tired of buying bentleys

come again pls...
I wont call bank money their money, while the sheikhs' money is his money.

How about the net spending, considering players sales ?

How big have United spent then ?

You should be a politician Mole, you're clever like one.

Clever in a malicious sense.

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

including subs:

United

De Gea-£18m.
Smalling-£10.5m.
Evans-Free.
Ferdinand-£30m.
Evra-£7m.
Anderson-£20.3m.
Fletcher-Free.
Nani-£17.3m.
Young-£18m.
Rooney-£28m.
Welbeck-Free.

Subs:
Lindegaard-£3.5m.
Fabio-£2.5m.
Jones-£18m.
Park-£4m.
Valencia-£18m.
Berbatov-£30.75m.
Hernandez-£7m.

Total-£232.85m.

City

Hart-£600k.
Richards-Free.
Kompany-£6m.
Lescott-£24m.
Clichy-£7m.
Barry-£12m.
Yaya-£19.5m.
Milner-£16m.
Aguero-£38m.
Silva-£24m.
Balotelli-£24m.

Subs:

Pantilimon-Free.
Kolarov-£17m.
Toure-£14m.
Nasri-£25m.
Zabaleta-£5.5m.
De Jong-£18m.
Dzeko-£27m.

Total-£277.6m.

Only 40million difference, yet City are the scumbags that are only where there are because they spends heaps of Cash, while United are supposedly the angels who spend no money and all thier players come through the system.....

Sorry mole but this is wrong...

u forgot about inflation

Rio ,Rooney, Nani, Anderson's fixtures must be adjusted.Thus Man's adjusted total will be higher and relatively closer to that of city's total.

Spoiler:

A bit off topic but, Tevez will get them back atleast what they paid for once he is off-loaded.

If you factor in Vidic + what City will be getting from Tevez, it would be nice to see the figures.

I stopped at page two and dont know if its been mentioned but people dont consider the period of that money spent.

Most of UTDs players came much earlier than citys and during those years man utd made alot more money than city.

#justsaying

highburied wrote:I stopped at page two and dont know if its been mentioned but people dont consider the period of that money spent.

Most of UTDs players came much earlier than citys and during those years man utd made alot more money than city.

#justsaying

Yeah, that's a good point. And United spend money on players that the club is generating. Their debt is related to the takeover done by the Glazers, not to player transfers.

united get there money from Israel

RuthlesGangstaDef:villin wrote:united get there money from Israel

LMAO I can see why you are at 50%.

Good for City, they are building their own legacy and history. On red cafe i saw this poster got all bitter because he reckoned that city doesn't deserve respect due to the way they got their money, I just find it bitter + sour lmao. All big teams in the world spent like crazy, the madrids, barcas, milans and bayerns spent more than 99% of the clubs in the world, thats why they are always near the top. United spent a lot too, circumstances made them rich (in the EPL, huge publicity, public listing), so i just find it funny that some fans are angry because circumstances made City filthy rich

600K for Joe Hart, theres a good bit of business
cant believe city actually paid for Lescott honestly i rekon theyve got to add 10k/week to all the people who work at citys wages because theyve got to look at his head everyday

most of city's transfers were done in the last 2 years though.

the big money moves by United (Rooney, Ferdinand, and Berbatov) were done a long time ago where as most of City's transfers were done in 1 or 2 windows. The difference is that like Barrilete said City are trying to break the status quo so they sepnd big in short intervals to make it happen.

What I will also give credit to city for is that alot of the big spending they have done has been on proven players that have huge upside, thus the investment is sound (aguero, silva, dzeko, etc)

king_alex10 wrote:most of city's transfers were done in the last 2 years though.

the big money moves by United (Rooney, Ferdinand, and Berbatov) were done a long time ago where as most of City's transfers were done in 1 or 2 windows. The difference is that like Barrilete said City are trying to break the status quo so they sepnd big in short intervals to make it happen.

What I will also give credit to city for is that alot of the big spending they have done has been on proven players that have huge upside, thus the investment is sound (aguero, silva, dzeko, etc)

To me they are merely exchanging money for time

It's just Man Utd were a top club before Man City so they could buy players year by year.

Man City only became a top club recently and if they have the money why not just buy all the top players at once?

i have nothing against man city,, every team spends money..but when ignorant idiots make statements like ' madrid are like man city, or man city are the new madrid or vice versa which is false and irritating to here

and a bit of an issue that they got rich overnight and clubs which have worked hard over the years and were ahead of man city are behind them despite all their efforts thanks to the sheikh

imalegend wrote:

Man U is spending borrowed money while City is spending their owners money.....so united aren't using their own money because then they won't be the debt they are in atm....

baresi wrote:
come again pls...
I wont call bank money their money, while the sheikhs' money is his money.

no

man utd are generating over 300 million pounds in revenue, posted an operating profit of over 100 million pounds last year, they can afford to spend money on players

and it is their own, their massive debt has been piled on them by the owners... it's not like they're taking loans to cover player purchases *cough* madrid *cough*

meanwhile city's revenue can't even cover their freaking wage bill

Zealous wrote:

Sheik Mansoor isn't playing with his money contrary to popular belief.

To him City is a long term Investment.

i'm sorry but that's bullshit

no football club in the world, not now, not 20 years ago, not ever, can be a profitable long-term investment, only for the reason that fans expect all profit to be reinvested into the club... there is no way in hell mansour is getting his money back, just like abramovic never will... you can wiggle around all you want, fact is that city are a billionaire's plaything

Both spends owners money,one Glazers and another sheiks ......

...like talking to a brick wall

che wrote:

Zealous wrote:

Sheik Mansoor isn't playing with his money contrary to popular belief.

To him City is a long term Investment.

i'm sorry but that's bullshit

no football club in the world, not now, not 20 years ago, not ever, can be a profitable long-term investment, only for the reason that fans expect all profit to be reinvested into the club... there is no way in hell mansour is getting his money back, just like abramovic never will... you can wiggle around all you want, fact is that city are a billionaire's plaything

True but the thing is City isn't the only Investment Mansoor (or his brothers) have in the area. You never noticed how "Etihad airways" is becoming more and more in the lime light? Not to mention other projects that will happen to the city over the next couple of years.

So while you are not wrong in saying that realistically Manchester City football club won't generate that much profit, it will serve as a tool to help Mansoor's other projects succeed.

The man is in charge of investment where he is from. A lot of what he owns personally he got from being good at what he does. I know it's fun to hate on rich people but your short sightedness isn't Mansoor's fault