United Premiership Champs

shatners basoon

Net doesn't equate to spending. spending is spending and on those figures both clubs are pretty much equal for the last three-four years. If you're using Veron's transfer fees out then you should really use what he cost you too!
I'd say since 1993 (the date you originally stated) United's spending has been higher than pool's (and considering they're success its neither unsurprising or unwarranted) but what matters is they've spent their money a good deal better.

Anyways fairplay to United on winning the league (probably should have posted this earlier). Its been a funny season. Pity yesterday's match didn't mean a thing. I'm still hoping that we'll have 3 different teams winning the 3 big competitions.

The Muppet

shatners basoon wrote:

Net doesn't equate to spending. spending is spending and on those figures both clubs are pretty much equal for the last three-four years. If you're using Veron's transfer fees out then you should really use what he cost you too!
I'd say since 1993 (the date you originally stated) United's spending has been higher than pool's (and considering they're success its neither unsurprising or unwarranted) but what matters is they've spent their money a good deal better.

Anyways fairplay to United on winning the league (probably should have posted this earlier). Its been a funny season. Pity yesterday's match didn't mean a thing. I'm still hoping that we'll have 3 different teams winning the 3 big competitions.

It's pretty obvious that when I say Nett I mean purchases less sales . The point was made that United were currently the second highest spenders in the premiership it was given as the reason for us winning the title this year. The figures for the last four Years (the last time we won it) shows that that statement was bullsh1t. How could it be true if Liverpool have spent twice as much over the same period. In fact no matter how far back you go United have never spent significantly more that Liverpool. Do the Math it if you don't believe me.

shatners basoon

spending does not equal net!!!!

edit: Plus if you're gonna quote my whole post, please address the whole thing or don't bother at all. I don't think anyone's point was that United's victory was down to their spending (tho it helps ) they had a very good season with an exceptional start as well as the luck needed to win the league, simple as that!

Thanx 4 The Fish

The Muppet wrote:

It's pretty obvious that when I say Nett I mean purchases less sales . The point was made that United were currently the second highest spenders in the premiership it was given as the reason for us winning the title this year. The figures for the last four Years (the last time we won it) shows that that statement was bullsh1t. How could it be true if Liverpool have spent twice as much over the same period. In fact no matter how far back you go United have never spent significantly more that Liverpool. Do the Math it if you don't believe me.

How in the name of christ does spend mean (spent less what you were paid) ? That could be called cost (at a stretch) or a loss (if it was in a business sense) but never spend. You can say Nett and think it is obvious but the fact that you used the word spend after it changes the whole meaning of what you are saying, now far be it from me to go down your route and argue semantics, but the fact that you continue to maintain that nett spend is the same thing as what was spent less what was earned is laughable.

On your breakdown of players, didn't really look too much at it but the one that stood out for me was this one

Craig*Bellamy Norwich £6,000,000 01.07.2006

Now as far as I remember he did not come in from Norwich and he cost more than you have put in too, you I am sure will show me the error of my ways though :rolleyes:. How much time did you spend Making Up that little document, do you think that anybody who had an interest in tearing your post apart as you seem to like to do to others would find even more obvious mistakes ? And did you leave out the cost of buying Veron because it would only make your argument a little less valid while hiding it under the guise of "Well I'm only going on the numbers since we last won" rubbish ?

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Didn't really look too much at it but the one that popped up for me was this one

Craig*Bellamy Norwich £6,000,000 01.07.2006

Now as far as I remember he did not come in from Norwich and he cost more than you have put in too, you I am sure will show me the error of my ways though :rolleyes:. How much time did you spend Making Up that little document, do you think if anybody who had an interest in tearing your post apart as you seem to like to do to others would find even more obvious mistakes ? And did you leave out the cost of buying Veron because it would only make your argument a little less valid while hiding it under the guise of "Well I'm only going on the numbers since we last won" rubbish ?

I got the liverpool figures from this liverpool site http://www.lfchistory.net/transfers.asp and the United ones from http://soccerlens.com/manchester-united-transfers-history-2003-2006/1349485.html . Those Liverpool figures may not include performance clauses the United ones do . I did say the figures favoured Liverpool. I did not want leave myself open to accusations of juggling the figures as I expected them to be scrutinised .

Anyone is welcome to try tear them apart, I only compiled the figures, if they are wrong I would like to know. In fact they surprised me, I thought they would have spent around the same amount. It only took half an hour os so to compile. I,m not getting into a pedantic argument about terminology, I'm happy to discuss the figures as I believe they accurately reflect the reality of the situation
.

I didn't hide or intentionally omit anything . I started from the season United last won the league as its relevant to the discussion. That is my only reason for the starting point.



Re Bellamy http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/blackburn_rovers/5097454.stm

Thanx 4 The Fish

I am still having trouble seeing that as saying he moved to the pool from Norwich as it said in your post.

And as for the price, is quoted as 6.5 on many other sources. BTW the reported price for the undisclosed fee on Forlan, how come on any other player you have not put a reported price on and yet when it is going to tip the balance in favour of your team a bit more you stick one on there, , just as you chose the year that Man U made 40 mill in transfers to start at, no matter how much you argue that they are the only years that are relevant, it is plain for all to see that to tilt the stats in favour of your supported team you started on the year that they made record sales, the least you could do is admit it..

leninbenjamin

The Muppet wrote:

Lets discuss the issue with figures that have been published insteed of conjecture and what might or might not be .

i don't think you can be so dismissive about future projections though. what's predicted for tomorrow will have impacts on today. business is all about conjecture and speculation.

and who gives a doodle over the whole net spending/spending thing. i'd call it more net investment anyway and would also like to see the investment in the training facilities/stadia etc. included in it. i think it gives a better picture of what's going on at a club than just the spending on players alone.

shatners basoon

Agreed.
I also wish people would stop using outside quotes to prove petty points, it'll soon become like the bloody creationism thread soon!

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

I am still having trouble seeing that as saying he moved to the pool from Norwich as it said in your post.

And as for the price, is quoted as 6.5 on many other sources. BTW the reported price for the undisclosed fee on Forlan, how come on any other player you have not put a reported price on and yet when it is going to tip the balance in favour of your team a bit more you stick one on there, , just as you chose the year that Man U made 40 mill in transfers to start at, no matter how much you argue that they are the only years that are relevant, it is plain for all to see that to tilt the stats in favour of your supported team you started on the year that they made record sales, the least you could do is admit it..

I have given you the source of my figuers . I did not intentionally alter them in any way, I'd be stupid to try that. as I said I expected them to be scrutinized.

Now if you want to prove the actual figures to be incorrect work ahead , i'm open to be corrected if I'm wrong. Otherwis stop spoling the thread by being pedantic .

Thanx 4 The Fish

I am astounded that you of all people are criticising anybody for being pedantic :rolleyes:

I am simply showing that some of the information you have given is incorrect, and if from a cursory glance at your information I can spot obvious flaws, then surely you have to recognise that what you have put up there to prove your point (despite obvious gerrymandering) does not deserve the trust that you have put in it to illustrate said points...

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

I am astounded that you of all people are criticising anybody for being pedantic :rolleyes:

I am simply showing that some of the information you have given is incorrect, and if from a cursory glance at your information I can spot obvious flaws, then surely you have to recognise that what you have put up there to prove your point (despite obvious gerrymandering) does not deserve the trust that you have put in it to illustrate your points...

Typical responce from some liverpool supporters here tbh, if you can't disprove it try discredit it. The flaw that you have higlighted is about Bellamy, Yes he was purchase from Blackburn (but the liverpool site has Norwich listed not me, i did give you the link ). so thats obviously wrong but you also say you thought Liverpool paid more for bellamy than I had in my post, That really discredits my post doesn't it ?




Now give up the thread spoilng please.

PHB

I am simply showing that some of the information you have given is incorrect, and if from a cursory glance at your information I can spot obvious flaws, then surely you have to recognise that what you have put up there to prove your point (despite obvious gerrymandering) does not deserve the trust that you have put in it to illustrate said points...

Just out of interest then, are you suggesting that the overall point isn't true?
Or are you just saying there is one flaw, therefore the whole thing must be questioned?

The whole idea that United spend more than Liverpool is often put forth, but seems to have absolutely no basis. People keep saying it, despite every analysis showing that it's just not the case.

leninbenjamin

The Muppet wrote:

Typical repsonse from liverpool supporters here tbh, if you can't disprove it try discredit it. The flaw that you have higlighted is about Bellamy, Yes he was purchase from Blackburn (but the liverpool site has coventry listed not me, i did give you the link ). so thats obviously wrong but you also say you thought Liverpool paid more for bellamy than I had in my post, That really discredits my post doesn't it ?




Now give up the thread spoilng please.

oh for god's sake. you said you were open to criticism/corrections then when he speculates a fact may be incorrect you get all defensive. :rolleyes:

and can everyone stop making it personal?

shatners basoon

United probably have spent more than liverpool, certainly not in the last 3 years but in the last 5-10 years i'd say most definately. Before that no English team spent much money!
united get much more of a return on the expenditure though which is what matters (as leninbenjamin said with stadiums, youth players etc. it all matters)

People are waaaaay too defensive over their respective teams here.

Pepe LeFrits

oooh! oooh! I haven't gotten into a club-v-club pissing contest in ages (mainly cos there's been nothing to piss about), can I join in? Arsenal haven't net spent anything big in ages, we could win this!

Thanx 4 The Fish

The Muppet wrote:

so thats obviously wrong but you also say you thought Liverpool paid more for bellamy than I had in my post, That really discredits my post doesn't it ?

As already said, you welcome criticism and then you whinge and call foul when you get it. Then you mention something about coventry (not sure where you got that) and say that I thought that Liverpool paid more.

And since you set such stock by what you find on the net, check the prices quoted for bellamy on all of the below. Is this enough or do you want me to pull some more for you

http://home.skysports.com/player.aspx?plid=1231&clid=14&cpid=8
http://www.squarefootball.net/article/transfer.asp?tid=431
http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s386/st100601.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Bellamy

Dcully

As a diehard Pool fan ,congrats to the best team over the season.
Man U hit the lead very early and never lost it and imo totally deserve to be champions.

Ill gladly take a shot at the Champions league however

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

As already said, you welcome criticism and then you whinge and call foul when you get it. Then you mention something about coventry (not sure where you got that) and say that I thought that Liverpool paid more.

And since you set such stock by what you find on the net, check the prices quoted for bellamy on all of the below. Is this enough or do you want me to pull some more for you

http://home.skysports.com/player.aspx?plid=1231&clid=14&cpid=8
http://www.squarefootball.net/article/transfer.asp?tid=431
http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s386/st100601.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Bellamy

I said I was open to corrections on the figures and I am, but you tried to discredit the complete post on the basis that my source (a liverpool site)had Bellamy signing from Norwich instead of Blackburn.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

I am simply showing that some of the information you have given is incorrect, and if from a cursory glance at your information I can spot obvious flaws, then surely you have to recognise that what you have put up there to prove your point (despite obvious gerrymandering) does not deserve the trust that you have put in it to illustrate said points...

PHB wrote:

Just out of interest then, are you suggesting that the overall point isn't true?
Or are you just saying there is one flaw, therefore the whole thing must be questioned?

Good questions Phb

shatners basoon

Man this is worse than Questions and Answers...

Dcully

Man this is worse than Questions and Answers...

lol its laughable alright

BaZmO*

shatners basoon wrote:

Agreed.
I also wish people would stop using outside quotes to prove petty points, it'll soon become like the bloody creationism thread soon!

You're obviously new here and can't quite see what's actually going on.

GuanYin

The Muppet wrote:

Typical responce from some liverpool supporters here tbh, if you can't disprove it try discredit it.

One more post with this sort of comment and you can discuss your soccer somewhere else.

Now give up the thread spoilng please.

Give up the back-seat moderating.

If you have a problem with a post, report it. This is the second time in this thread you have directed others on how to post.

Don't do it again.

The Muppet

psi wrote:

One more post with this sort of comment and you can discuss your soccer somewhere else.



Give up the back-seat moderating.

If you have a problem with a post, report it. This is the second time in this thread you have directed others on how to post.

Don't do it again.

I was giving my opinion. show me where that breaches the charter .

I,m quite capable of making my own points without bothering moderators about petty arguments thanks.

GuanYin

The Muppet wrote:

I was giving my opinion. show me where that breaches the charter .

I,m quite capable of making my own points without bothering moderators about petty arguments thanks.

It doesn't have to be in the charter. I just instructed you on it not being acceptable.

Do it again and you're banned.

If you want to continue arguing my warning you can PM me or go to feedback, keep it up here and you'll be banned.

Paul Tergat

Why don't we just get back to the purpose of the thread?

UTD are champions and the best team in the league....sounds good saying that!

homerjay2005

p_larkin99 wrote:

Why don't we just get back to the purpose of the thread?

UTD are champions and the best team in the league....sounds good saying that!

spot on, was just going to post this when i saw your post. its comical how threads drift totally off the point, normally happens when the words liverpool and united are mentioned in the same thread. anyway, less than 2 days and we will have our trophy back.

Mitch Connor

i wouldn't say it is comical, it is just football. how many times do you have a football conversation in 'the real world' that stays on one topic for more then a couple of seconds!?

smuckers

Nunu wrote:

And what about the phenomonal Essien. He should have been in the team of the year at right-back, Centre half and centre-mid!:D

and also Ricky C has been a monster at the back. Since JT's head injury, he hasn't been the same player. Carv edges Terry IMHO.

Chong

I am so happy right now , deligthed for the Ham staying up and We have got our TROPHY BACK