Do we expect too much??

[einar]

How could we 'not compete', when our spending during the PL era has been about the same as their's?

If i spend £30k on 5 Fiesta's and you spend £30k on a merc, on what basis could i say 'i couldnt compete with him' ?

We spent about the same as them, but with each summer kitty, we bought 5 piles of ****e, while they bought one diamond.

It is true about spending on crap players. But I dont think that can be said about Rafa.

It seems clear to me that Rafa had to build the team from scratch and in the same period Ferguson had a very solid base. Partly because he had a very good group of players from the youth system.

I also think it is also down to our transfer policy, witch I think could be outdated.

It is also a fact that when it comes to signing attacking players Rafa has almost never got his first choice. I guess we dont know the real reason but my guess is that someone in the club decided that it would not be wise to spend so much. Lets face it. There are only two possible reasons why we even got Torres. He really wanted to play for us over any one else and that particular summer we, for what ever reason, where in a position to spend 20m+ on one player. Ferguson almost always gets his man. And I refuse to assume that is because Rafa is just not as good a manager or not as good at buying players. There are so many players that we have been linked with but not gotten.

[BFG]

How am I expected to have known you were going to edit your post?

Wait: I'll edit my post - hang on for it wont you...

The reason I didn't include it as I was posting was because I couldn't think of any of note (I may be wrong though) but when reading it back I thought it did seem unbalanced and some smart cunt is bound to bring it up.

[AFII]

The biggest difference between us and United and Chelsea is that they have a top class CEO and a owners that is prepared to splash the cash even if the player cost £30m+.

Parry isn't exactly that and he is the most important man at the club. He is the one that will make all the day to day decisions.

I don't know how many millions he and Moores have cost the club but it's a massive amount of money.

In the same time United and Chelsea have earned a massive amount more than us and Arsenal also do that now.

Rafa could also not gamble and sign one superstar instead of three squad players because if the superstar player got a long term injury then it would probably mean no CL and sell before you buy with a zero transfer budget.

Zero means nothing and that in return means that we then is on the way down to a midtable position instead of playing in the CL. That in return would probably mean no Gerrard for example and it's even more downhill from there.

It's only this season that Rafa have started step two, replacing a quantity player with a quality one but it will take time and a lot of money to catch United and Chelsea.

The key point is that Rafa couldn't gamble on our CL position. Fergie or Maureen/Grant can/could afford to do that.

[Craig_H]

If they hadn't committed to spending the money, they wouldn't have the player so I'd say it's a relevant inclusion.

Disagree. They're not committed to signing him and in any case, if you buy something now but pay in 2009, you havent spent the money, have you?

[Rich]

Disagree. They're not committed to signing him and in any case, if you buy something now but pay in 2009, you havent spent the money, have you?

Wonder if it's on interest-free credit

[AFII]

Wonder if it's on interest-free credit

We call that Hicks credit now. It's interest that exist but really don't exist.

[Craig_H]

The biggest difference between us and United and Chelsea is that they have a top class CEO and a owners that is prepared to splash the cash even if the player cost £30m+.

Parry isn't exactly that and he is the most important man at the club. He is the one that will make all the day to day decisions.

I don't know how many millions he and Moores have cost the club but it's a massive amount of money.

In the same time United and Chelsea have earned a massive amount more than us and Arsenal also do that now.

Rafa could also not gamble and sign one superstar instead of three squad players because if the superstar player got a long term injury then it would probably mean no CL and sell before you buy with a zero transfer budget.

Zero means nothing and that in return means that we then is on the way down to a midtable position instead of playing in the CL. That in return would probably mean no Gerrard for example and it's even more downhill from there.

It's only this season that Rafa have started step two, replacing a quantity player with a quality one but it will take time and a lot of money to catch United and Chelsea.

The key point is that Rafa couldn't gamble on our CL position. Fergie or Maureen/Grant can/could afford to do that.

This is one argument that i consider to be sheer nonsense.

Buying one star player is preferable to buying 3 ****e nobodies. Firstly, the chances of the star player getting injured are minimal. If you worried about that all the time, you'd never sign a top player. It's like the argument you hear from Championship clubs about getting into the PL and whether they're ready for it yet. The notion of 'we will cross that bridge when we come to it' comes to mind, Sign the top player first and IF (that's IF) he happens to get injured, try and deal with it then. You dont just NOT sign him in case he gets injured.

Furthermore, the three ****e nobodies, combined, will offer you less than one star player who might be injured for half the season.

I'll give you an example. I'm not calling Benayoun, Pennant and Lucas '****e nobodies', but they're not world class stars either.

They cost us £19m, about the same as Torres.

Who would you say has contributed more to us? Torres (even in HALF a season) or those three combined?

It's a no brainer.

[BFG]

Disagree. They're not committed to signing him and in any case, if you buy something now but pay in 2009, you havent spent the money, have you?

They have comitted to signing him, why would Joorchabian let him go there for a two year 'trail' when there were others with the cash there and then? He only did that with Mascher because we took him from West Ham reserves and played him in the CL and gave him maximum exposure.

If you buy something now but pay in 2009 you have entered a credit agreement that starts the day you put pen to paper, so that's the official purchase date. Your title may be 'Pedanticist' but I can match you in that field if you want to carry this on mate.

[Craig_H]

They have comitted to signing him, why would Joorchabian let him go there for a two year 'trail' when there were others with the cash there and then? He only did that with Mascher because we took him from West Ham reserves and played him in the CL and gave him maximum exposure.

If you buy something now but pay in 2009 you have entered a credit agreement that starts the day you put pen to paper, so that's the official purchase date. Your title may be 'Pedanticist' but I can match you in that field if you want to carry this on mate.

Is your only argument that Kia J has let him go there? Because it doesnt prove anything mate, they havent committed to it. They've paid for the loan period and IF they sign him permanently, they'll pay the transfer fee on top. Kia J will make more that way, because he'll get the loan fee AND the transfer fee.

[AFII]

This is one argument that i consider to be sheer nonsense.

Buying one star player is preferable to buying 3 ****e nobodies. Firstly, the chances of the star player getting injured are minimal. If you worried about that all the time, you'd never sign a top player. It's like the argument you hear from Championship clubs about getting into the PL and whether they're ready for it yet. The notion of 'we will cross that bridge when we come to it' comes to mind, Sign the top player first and IF (that's IF) he happens to get injured, try and deal with it then. You dont just NOT sign him in case he gets injured.

Furthermore, the three ****e nobodies, combined, will offer you less than one star player who might be injured for half the season.

I'll give you an example. I'm not calling Benayoun, Pennant and Lucas '****e nobodies', but they're not world class stars either.

They cost us £19m, about the same as Torres.

Who would you say has contributed more to us? Torres (even in HALF a season) or those three combined?

It's a no brainer.

There is a reason to why Rafa is now replacing quantity with quality, he has the squad to do it and we would probably qualify for the CL even if the star player got a long term injury.

That means that he won't risk his transfer budget doing it. He simply couldn't afford to do it before even if it's only a minimal chance that it would happen. The consequence if it did happen would be a total disaster and it would take I don't know how many years to repair the damage.

[Craig_H]

There is a reason to why Rafa is now replacing quantity with quality, he has the squad to do it and we would probably qualify for the CL even if the star player got a long term injury.

That means that he won't risk his transfer budget doing it. He simply couldn't afford to do it before even if it's only a minimal chance that it would happen. The consequence if it did happen would be a total disaster and it would take I don't know how many years to repair the damage.

Read my point about the combined contributions of 3 average players, against that of a world class superstar.

I cant believe anyone would prefer to have the squad fillers.

He simply couldn't afford to do it before even if it's only a minimal chance that it would happen. The consequence if it did happen would be a total disaster and it would take I don't know how many years to repair the damage

Hugely melodramatic.

What do the 3 average players bring to the side? Compared to a Torres-type of player?

[BFG]

Is your only argument that Kia J has let him go there? Because it doesnt prove anything mate, they havent committed to it. They've paid for the loan period and IF they sign him permanently, they'll pay the transfer fee on top. Kia J will make more that way, because he'll get the loan fee AND the transfer fee.

Money makes money mate. If he had the £35mil in his pocket now he could turn it into £100mil in two years so I think the 'loan fee' may be nice but not a deal swinger. The wishes of the player and the wishes of Utd in terms of paying for him in 09 are what structured the deal.

I don't know for certain (neither do you) but from a business perspective I can't believe for a second that Utd haven't committed to sign him. What happens if he breaks his leg? Kia's a cunt but he's very clever mate and wouldn't take risks with his prized asset.

[Craig_H]

Money makes money mate. If he had the £35mil in his pocket now he could turn it into £100mil in two years so I think the 'loan fee' may be nice but not a deal swinger. The wishes of the player and the wishes of Utd in terms of paying for him in 09 are what structured the deal.

I don't know for certain (neither do you) but from a business perspective I can't believe for a second that Utd haven't committed to sign him. What happens if he breaks his leg? Kia's a cunt but he's very clever mate and wouldn't take risks with his prized asset.

I'm taking it from Man Utd fans and those i've discussed it with have all (independently of each other) stated that the permanent signing isnt done, nor committed to.

[AFII]

I'm taking it from Man Utd fans and those i've discussed it with have all (independently of each other) stated that the permanent signing isnt done, nor committed to.

The deal is a two year loan with an option to buy him for £35m after that. They can't sell him or loan him out during that time. It's like he is their player for two years. The whole package is owned by United for two years, image right and so on.

[Craig_H]

The deal is a two year loan with an option to buy him for £35m after that.

This is what i've been told too.