Your Airbag wrote: » Because he's a youth team midfielder who is bang average and playing in defense. I thought that was obvious. Jose has played him in defense and left Bailly on the bench before and even subbed off Lindelöf leaving him on the pitch Which your well aware off, don't make it out like Jose only picks him because he is forced too and not because he wants too.
damowill wrote: » we could perhaps do this if the club had a strategy & philosophy and hired managers with continuity in mind. liverpool had rodgers in before klopp and played the exact same system with a high pressing game so for the players it was an easy transition. a club like swansea were successful for a number of years as well, hiring managers with similar ethos, and punched above their weight for along time united have hired moyes, lvg and jose. 3 different philosophies who fancy different type of players. the next manager will want a clear-out of sorts so money will be needed!!
TitianGerm wrote: » Fair enough. Seemed odd that City was the only one on TM in Euro but then just added a £ sign in the body. I think people in here have pointed out that the comparisons to City are pretty irrelevant when Everton, Bournemouth, Leicester etc are all around the same spot in the table and United have vastly outspent those teams.
DM_7 wrote: » The idea of spend more is a bad idea. United don't have a large oil fund to back up spending. They need to spend an affordable amount in a much better way.
Mitch Connor wrote: » given the use of the £ sign, i would have to think it unintentional.
TitianGerm wrote: » Did you intentionally pick Cities figures in Euro while showing United's in Sterling to inflate the gap?
Drumpot wrote: » I don't think the figures back that up.http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-united/alletransfers/verein/985http://www.transfermarkt.com/manchester-city/alletransfers/verein/281 2013 Chelsea £117.32 United £69.42 City £116 2014 Chelsea £123.93 United £175.82 City £88.30 2015 Chelsea £81.45 United £140.40 City £208.30 2016 Chelsea £119.52 United £166.50 City £213.50 2017 Chelsea £234.54 United £178.56 City £317.50 2018 Chelsea £123.30 United £74.43 City £71.19 These figures don't include inflation. If you are going to argue Net spend we need to go back further because Chelsea and City were spending way more for way longer so had more expensive players they could sell. Not just that, the fact that other clubs can get more for players they sell shouldn't impact on how a manager is judged. If anything it asks questions about who we are signing and how good Woodward is at offloading them. From a United Perspective Versus City - Total Spend City = 1.014 Bil v United £805 million . Only 2 years have we spent more 2014 (£87mil more) and 2018 (£3.24 more) Versus Chelsea - Total spend Chelsea = £800 v United £805 . Both clubs have outspent the other equally 3 times in this period. Very interesting fact was the three years United outspent Chelsea was when Jose was their manager. Mad that he can work with less at Chelsea and still win a league! 2014 was the only season United outspent both these rivals. Chelsea were the top spender in 2018 and City all the other years spent more on their squad. Since Jose Took over, United has spent £419, City £602 and Chelsea £477.
Mitch Connor wrote: » So when you said 'Transfer Spend', you ment 'Net Spend'. How silly of people to provide an argument based on what you wrote. We should know that what you want to argue about is not what you actually say. Everyone else's fault. FFS.
Econ__ wrote: » The combined net spend on transfers & wage expenditure over the last 5 years HAS been on a par with City and greater than Chelsea, Liverpool or Spurs. Displaying those figures would be a comprehensive & meaningful comparison - anything else is cherry picking figures to fit a narrative.
damowill wrote: » In the last 4 years City have spent 810m, we have spent 560m. In 2017 alone City spent 320m. Moyes tenure lacked investment and none of LVG's signings worked out. One would argue that we had the worse squad of the two, so we should have been the ones to spend more money. To overtake City, we need a strategy and direction from the Glazers/Woodward and they need to delve deep into their pockets.
Econ__ wrote: » The combined net spend on transfers & wage expenditure over the last 5 years HAS been on a par with City over the last 5 years. Displaying those figures would be a comprehensive & meaningful comparison - anything else is cherry picking figures to fit a narrative.
Drumpot wrote: » Really ? Ok, the floor is yours, lets hear your take on our transfer activity. Easy to shoot other peoples ideas down, lets hear yours so. .
Mitch Connor wrote: » "United’s wage & transfer expenditure over the last 5 years has been on par with City’s, and much higher than that of Chelsea, Spurs & Liverpool." Shown figures that City have spent about 250million more in that period, and United and Chelsea have spent about the same. "BLAH BLAH BLAH RUBBISH ARGUMENT ATTACK ATTACK". FFS.
Your Airbag wrote: » No I said one thing on a matter, your tried to make it out I was saying something different. Its as simple as that. If your not going to own up to it fine, but spare us the long winded replies where your doing the mental gymnastics to justify it.
Econ__ wrote: » Choosing to argue with gross transfer spend figures because you arbitrarily decide that pre 2013 transfer activity prejudices the value of net spend figures is logically cretinous and an engagement in intellectual gymnastics of the highest order.
This time I said Pogba is well with in his rights to calmly express his frustration in the DRESING room after a bad result where the manager calls him a VIRUS in front of the squad.
Econ__ wrote: » United’s wage & transfer expenditure over the last 5 years has been on par with City’s, and much higher than that of Chelsea, Spurs & Liverpool. Your argument is muddled. You seem to be arguing that United need to spend more AND spend it better. I agree with the latter but the former is a nonsense IMO.
Zeek12 wrote: » Don't really agree on the point of the strikers. Rashford is really a CF. But rarely gets to play there. He gets pushed out to wide positions, sometimes to accommodate other more experienced strikers. Or to fit the formation. Not just by Jose to be fair. LVG did it on occasions. Two centre forwards at the club isn't really that odd. Modern formations tend to feature just one traditional no. 9 in the starting XI. Outside of Aguero and Jesus, who else do City have for that position? Chelsea only have Morata and Giroud. Spurs No.9s are Kane and Llorente
Drumpot wrote: » I think a fair comment is that perhaps I am as bias against Pogba as you are against Jose. That doesn't invalidate our views but it means we interpret what we read in different ways.
damowill wrote: » In attack, we have needed far more investment. Lukaku is our only striker. In Years gone by we had 3-4 strikers. Cole, Yorke, Sheringham, Solskjaer. Rooney, Ronaldo, Berbatov, Tevez. Van Persie, Hernanez, Rooney, Welbeck.Today we have Lukaku, aided by Rashford & Martial who are both wingers come forwards. As a whole, we are not competing with City and are miles behind where we should be. If and when Jose is replaced, fans might see an improvement in style of football but unless he gets £500m to spend we will only see a small improvement in honours & league position.
Nalz wrote: » He needs it for Xmas. :-/
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d9e9c6023fa9f32ea6583c87b5b1c6a5.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/2166e486d2270e36003cd1b3e3519b24.svg)
